Arlington Cemetery

May 30, 2005 7:26 PM

Bush: America Will Honor Fallen Soldiers ARLINGTON, Va. -- Quoting letters of the fallen from the war in Iraq, President Bush vowed Monday to a Memorial Day audience of military families and soldiers in uniform that the nation will honor its dead by striving for peace and democracy, no matter what the cost.

"We must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives; by defeating the terrorists," the president told a supportive crowd of several thousand people at Arlington National Cemetery.
posted by Davenhill (46 comments total)

(from: Snarkster)

Following the ceremony, the Secret Service promptly arrested everyone in attendance taking pictures of the flag draped coffins.

Asked why the US government was hiding the coffins of US servicemen killed in Iraq, an anonymous Pentagon employee replied "it started as an Easter tradition. It caught on. Frankly, dead servicemen are kind'uv a downer. You feel bad, especially if you dodged the draft yourself. The thrill is in making the case for war and making wildly optimistic predictions, not keeping track of the costs of dead and wounded, yet alone reading and signing each individual condolence letter."


posted by Davenhill at 7:27 PM on May 30, 2005

Whoops! From Snarkster

(I knew there were too many URL's to copy correctly. Thanks to GC for permission to copy this here)
posted by Davenhill at 7:30 PM on May 30, 2005

fuck bush.
posted by quonsar at 7:31 PM on May 30, 2005

No matter the cost, eh? Lucky fellows.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:35 PM on May 30, 2005

Blah blah fucking blah.


I can't even imagine how much real servicemen must hate this bastard.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:48 PM on May 30, 2005

Fart.
posted by Witty at 7:54 PM on May 30, 2005

I can't even imagine how much real servicemen must hate this bastard.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:48 PM CST on May 30 [!]

Actually, Bush has tremendous support among the military, and the few soldiers I know would vote for him again.

Hate the man, but deal in reality. Others, especially the military, might not share your opinion of the man (gasp!).
posted by justgary at 8:31 PM on May 30, 2005

GWB offends me more than Dios and 111.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:33 PM on May 30, 2005

... Following the speech, Mr. Bush promptly announced his resignation from the office. He explained that his negligence caused the deaths of nearly 2,000 servicemen for completely erroneous reasons. "I couldn't pick a more appropriate time," he told reporters, "This is the best way I could think of to honor the memory of our fallen soldiers. I only hope that my successor can get our people home and start doing our military justice again."


...or so it would be in a perfect world.
posted by ScottMorris at 8:35 PM on May 30, 2005

Most of the USA doesn't support the Iraq war.

The troops, however, are currently still in support.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:40 PM on May 30, 2005

Well, maybe things have changed (or maybe one of the polls is less accurate)? A Stars and Stripes survey from October 2003 suggested something else:

"A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist.

The survey, conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, also recorded about a third of the respondents complaining that their mission lacks clear definition and characterizing the war in Iraq as of little or no value. Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with their training.

posted by Davenhill at 9:02 PM on May 30, 2005

Can you say "Concorde Fallacy," Mr. President?

I didn't think so.
posted by bshock at 9:11 PM on May 30, 2005

You know what this post could use? More links, am I right?
posted by keswick at 9:15 PM on May 30, 2005

On a purely anecdotal note, one of my professor's is married to an army recruiting officer. He's been in the service for 20+ years, and just a few months ago attended his first protest (against Bush & the war, etc).
posted by papakwanz at 9:27 PM on May 30, 2005

I just watched Ted Koppel read the names and show the photographs of the 900-some US soldiers and sailors who died in just the last year in our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And I wondered, have George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney ever listened to that roll call of the dead?

(I suspect Dick Cheney has paid attention to these other numbers achieved in the last year.)
posted by orthogonality at 9:40 PM on May 30, 2005

You know what this post could use? More links, am I right? - keswick

Keswick, you're right. Here's another link: :)

Because the Right loves the troops so much... Sinclair orders affiliates not to broadcast Nightline tribute to Iraq war dead.

"Our goal tonight was to elevate the fallen above the politics and the daily journalism," Koppel said in his closing thought.

"The reading tonight of those 721 names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war nor was it meant as an endorsement.

"Some of you doubt that. You are convinced that I am opposed to the war. I am not, but that's beside the point. I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of the few without burdening the rest of us in any way."

(thanks to orthogonality)

posted by Davenhill at 9:49 PM on May 30, 2005

Davenhill writes "Because the Right loves the troops so much... Sinclair orders affiliates not to broadcast Nightline tribute to Iraq war dead."

In fairness, Sinclair's obscenity was last year. This year Sinclair agreed to broadcast the tribute because it was actually on Memorial Day, and even Sinclair couldn't impugn memorializing our dead it as "political".
posted by orthogonality at 9:56 PM on May 30, 2005

And I wondered, have George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney ever listened to that roll call of the dead?

Someone should send Bush and Cheney an ipod with the roll call loaded on it, and a bag of extra large novelty pretzels munch on while they are listening to it.
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:43 PM on May 30, 2005

In fairness, Sinclair's obscenity was last year. This year Sinclair agreed to broadcast the tribute because it was actually on Memorial Day, and even Sinclair couldn't impugn memorializing our dead it as "political".

"In fairness"? The fact that Sinclair didn't repeat the outrage (not to mention their anti-Kerry documentary and attention to the Swift Boat group) doesn't mean they deserve a cookie, forgiveness, or understanding.

Also, I'm sure this year's decision was made a lot easier now that Bush has been returned to office.

posted by Davenhill at 11:16 PM on May 30, 2005

davenhill, this is just stupid. Got an agenda? Great -- GYOB. This is purely newsfilter -- and I don't think that I've ever called a newfilter. This is garbage. Granted, I disagree with what I assume to be your premise -- but even if I agreed, this is an incredibly lame FPP.
posted by davidmsc at 11:17 PM on May 30, 2005

No, it's a Memorial Day post.

A way to remember...the soldiers, what's happening to them, and who put them there.

If this isn't to your liking, I'm sure you'll be welcomed with open arms here.
posted by Balisong at 11:24 PM on May 30, 2005

It's not a lame FPP; it's actually rather competently done. Unfortunately for some folks, it also comes complete with a point of view.
posted by alumshubby at 7:30 AM on May 31, 2005

Hey, Witty, JustGary, Davidmsc et al; I got something for you:

05/11/05 "uExpress" - - NEW YORK--One year ago the American media was pushing the Pat Tillman story with the heavy rotation normally reserved for living celebs like Michael Jackson. Tillman, the former NFL player who turned down a multi-million dollar football contract to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, became a centerpiece of the right's Hamas-style death cult when he lost his life in the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan. To supporters of the wars and to many football fans, Tillman embodied ideals of self-sacrifice and post-9/11 butt-kicking in a hard-bodied shell of chisel-chinned masculinity on steroids.

Tillman's quintessential nobility, we were told, was borne out by the story of his death--a tale that earned him a posthumous Silver Star. Whether you were for or against Bush's wars, Americans were told, Tillman's valor showed why you should support the troops. Young men were encouraged to emulate his praiseworthy example.

Several thousand mourners gathered at Tillman's May 3, 2004 memorial service to hear marquee names including Arizona Senator John McCain called upon all Americans to "be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf." "Tillman died trying to save fellow members of the 75th Ranger Regiment caught in a crush of enemy fire," the Arizona Republic quoted a fellow soldier addressing the crowd. Tillman, said his friend and comrade-at-arms, had told his fellow soldiers "to seize the tactical high ground from the enemy" to draw enemy fire away from another U.S. platoon trapped in an ambush. "He directly saved their lives with those moves. Pat sacrificed his life so that others could live." It was, as the Washington Post wrote, a "storybook personal narrative"--one recounted on hundreds of front pages and network newscasts.

It was also a lie.

As sharp-eyed readers learned a few months ago from single-paragraph articles buried deep inside their newspapers, Pat Tillman died pointlessly, a hapless victim of "friendly fire" who never got the chance to choose between bravery and cowardice. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Washington Post now reports that Pentagon and White House officials knew the truth "within days" after his April 22, 2004 shooting by fellow Army Rangers but "decided not to inform Tillman's family or the public until weeks after" the nationally televised martyr-a-thon.

It gets worse. So desperate were the military brass to carry off their propaganda coup that they lied to Tillman's brother, a fellow soldier who arrived on the scene shortly after the incident, about how he died. Writing in an army report, Brigadier General Gary Jones admits that the official cover-up even included "the destruction of evidence": the army burned Tillman's Ranger uniform and body armor to hide the fact that he had died in a hail of American bullets, fired by troops who had "lost situational awareness to the point they had no idea where they were."

"We didn't want the world finding out what actually happened," one soldier told Jones. A perfect summary of the war on terrorism.

Honouring the soldiers eh? Wake up, dummies!
posted by acrobat at 7:54 AM on May 31, 2005

WTF, acrobat? More newsfilter? I read that story, too, as did probably EVERY ONE else here at MeFi. What's your point?

And as I said -- I got no beef with the Davenhill's POV -- bless him for having one -- but linking a bunch of news stories into a FPP is just not worthy of an FPP. Politics aside -- this is just a lame post.
posted by davidmsc at 8:03 AM on May 31, 2005

Protecting Dear Leader takes precedence over honoring the fallen soldiers obviously.

the nation will honor its dead by striving for peace and democracy, no matter what the cost.

The cost to whom is the question.
Certainly not the Chimperor.
Does invading countries and installing puppets count as "striving for peace and democracy?"
[this is the part where justgary says "nofundy is a troll"]
posted by nofundy at 8:08 AM on May 31, 2005

davidmsc, twice now you've complained about the lameness of this post. These are familiar tactics: attack the messenger to distract attention away from the message, which I thought came through loud and clear: The civilians running the Pentagon and The Military Brass care more about covering their own asses then they do about honoring the soldiers. Lying to soldiers (as Tillman's brother was lied to) is not a good way to honor them.

If you're really that concerned with the quality of this post and not simply trying to shout down someone you disagree with politically, why don't you just move on to a post you like?
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:45 AM on May 31, 2005

Chimperor?

What's with the name-calling anyway in general.

I find the links good. . . but redundant. You're not telling anyone here anything they didn't know already.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:46 AM on May 31, 2005

Mr_Zero writes "Someone should send Bush and Cheney an ipod with the roll call loaded on it, and a bag of extra large novelty pretzels munch on while they are listening to it."

An interesting protest might be to construct your own little war memorial on a trailer. Nothing flashy or anything just a marble faced monolith with the names of the dead engraved upon. Follow bush around and make a bit of a ceremony of adding each days new names. I'd bet you'd get at least your 15 minutes of fame.
posted by Mitheral at 8:54 AM on May 31, 2005

What's with the name-calling anyway in general.

Well, some people have been deeply and personally hurt by "George Bush and his Crime Cabal." I hope you can forgive them, Lord Chancellor, if they lose their cool on Memorial Day sometimes.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:04 AM on May 31, 2005

construct your own little war memorial on a trailer. ... Follow bush around and make a bit of a ceremony of adding each days new names. I'd bet you'd get at least your 15 minutes of fame.

It says a lot that the first thing I think reading this is "Now on what phony grounds would that person be arrested and hauled away faster than you can say 'Dumbya's a draft dodger?'"
posted by NorthernLite at 9:27 AM on May 31, 2005

*picks up the devil's advocate gauntlet*
*sighs*
"The civilians running the Pentagon and The Military Brass care more about covering their own asses then they do about honoring the soldiers. Lying to soldiers (as Tillman's brother was lied to) is not a good way to honor them. "

Irrelevant. Your first duty is to the country. If this means a sacrifice of honor, so be it. If it means I must fall on my sword for my superiors, so be it. If for some reason I had to be labeled as a child molester for the good of the country I would accept that (were I serving). Lives, fortunes, sacred honor. It means something.

Arguments concerning the just cause of the war in Iraq or the selfishness of certain elements in this particular administration not withstanding of course. I'd also point out the military always supports the civilan government & the administration. Clinton was supported dispite what Rush's Dittoheads would have had you believe.
I'd also (on preview) concede the 'good money after bad' point (Concorde Fallacy) bshock made.

However: Honor cannot be given. Not by the president, not by your countrymen, not by the ones (compassionate as they are) who want to bring you home. A service member has honor when he takes and fulfills the oath to serve. Dying, being wounded, killing - just part of the job. Details.

That said - those who want to 'honor' (more properly called glorify) the troops should stop with this ceremony crap and do something tangible. Pay, insurance, living standards, health care. For every hundred yellow ribbons I saw I got maybe one or two kind words. I think two guys bought me a beer on separate occasions when I was in uniform. That's nice. Lots of parades though.

Amongst my other business, I bought a Korean war vet a tank of gas on Memorial day. He said it was the first time in 75 years anyone had ever done anything like that for him. He had obvious scars and a USMC tattoo on his forearm. I didn't take pictures of me buying him a tank of gas, hold a ceremony around it, put up a flag, put a 'Buy a vet a tank of gas' magnet on my truck, make a speech about it, etc. etc.
I took nothing from him and didn't try to get his honor to rub off on me publicly, I shook his hand, said 'Semper Fi' and went on my way.
(and since my real name isn't 'Smedleyman' the act is still anonymous).

The crowd there pisses me off more than Bush does. They should know better. Unfortunately we keep trying to pretend this is a football game or some such. Troops don't need glory. A beer or a tank of gas is nice. Something you can do as an individual. But benefits and knowing your family is well-fed and happy is better.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:29 AM on May 31, 2005

a marble faced monolith with the names of the dead engraved upon. Follow bush around and make a bit of a ceremony of adding each days new names.

Do you realise how much work that would be to keep adding the names engraved on marble? He wouldn't have time to keep up with Bush. Even if the names were hastily scrawled with a Sharpie marker, it would be a full time job.
posted by Balisong at 10:32 AM on May 31, 2005

"If you want to see the sacrifice, John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda [hospitals]. There's the sacrifice in this country."
Good Lord...I didn't know Hastert was that ignorant. Wow.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:41 AM on May 31, 2005

I think it's a lame post too, and a bit misleading. Here's GWB's full sentence from that quote:

And we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, by defeating the terrorists, advancing the cause of liberty, and building a safer world.

I agree it's a stupid statement, and he's a stupid man, but spinning is spinning.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:08 AM on May 31, 2005

You exaggerate Balisong. At 721 in the last year were talking just barely under two a day. Some kind of rotary tool with a lettering jig could make quick work of engraving the names on the cheap in probably less than an hour a day on average.
posted by Mitheral at 11:18 AM on May 31, 2005

People say there is a liberal media, but everywhere I turned this weekend (radio, tv, internet), I heard that these brave young men have died "in the cause of freedom" or "defending their country", both of which are assertions and not facts. In my opinion it's up for debate. I don't doubt that these men died for their country, and should be honored for being ready to do so, but defending it and/or freedom? I am not convinced.
posted by chaz at 11:22 AM on May 31, 2005

OK, You got me. I exaggerated. I was using faulty information provided to me by unreliable sources.
I guess we have the capacity to engrave names of the dead an order or two in magnitude higher.

Guess we better step up our operations to keep the marble monolith engravers busy. We have not begun to realise our true potential.
posted by Balisong at 11:52 AM on May 31, 2005

This is a disgusting thread. Now linked to LittleGreenFootballs.com
posted by ParisParamus at 12:15 PM on May 31, 2005

great post on LGF ParisParamus! That is hilarious! Calling us 'filth" and (metaphorically) spitting and the "all liberals are traitors" comment. Wow! That is some funny, funny stuff.
Wondering how many here "took the time this past weekend to visit a memorial to pay tribute" as though that meant something in and of itself devoid of any context or actual values beyond the empty hype (such as reviled in my previous post) of appearing to care publically such as posting: "they are a farce and they are traitors, and they are the enemy of everything I hold dear."
Makes me laugh even as I rub the 11 inch long scar on my leg that got me a purple heart (for which the same LGF-types might wear little band-aids on their cheeks to mock me since I post here).
Speaking of which I'm assuming everyone who posted there is a combat vet as well and supports the DAV and the American Legion and the VFW and worked all day Memorial day so they could piss all over folks here with insipid commentary.

Someone actually posted 'Bah' like they would talk in Marvel Comics! You just can't make that stuff up!
Posting this thread on LGF to be shot at by halfwits who don't want to back up anything they have to say to anyone but the chorus is like crying home to mama. Bring an argument or go home if you don't have the balls or the brains.

But hey, neither you nor any of them are even reading this right? Just say "filth" and run away like a sissy. No argument. No reasoning. Nothing but self-backpats all around and hollow platitudes.
(which I've railed against on mefi as well)

And, if you'll note, I disagreed with the premise of the thread, and I made an argument in favor of service as well as the right or leadership to accept and use that service to accomplish the mission which is fighting terrorism (no one replied, but still...and I did concede some points on Iraq, since, y'know, I try to be rational).
posted by Smedleyman at 12:54 PM on May 31, 2005

That should have been "and/or supports the DAV ... etc" I recognize there are those who serve at home.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:57 PM on May 31, 2005

What's with the name-calling anyway in general.

Well, some people have been deeply and personally hurt by "George Bush and his Crime Cabal." I hope you can forgive them, Lord Chancellor, if they lose their cool on Memorial Day sometimes.

Well, as someone who knows some who have fallen and might eventually meet them, I would still not stoop to name-calling. Calling people Dumbya, Chimperor, Shrub, or whatnot does not convince anyone or act in a way that enobles your cause. I'm just saying, civility, even when talking of terrible things and frightening deeds, and some who do may or may not deserve such civility.

Regardless, encourage people to actually observe the holiday as opposed to seeing it as another reason to barbecue and get out on a three day.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:41 PM on May 31, 2005

This is a disgusting thread. Now linked to LittleGreenFootballs.com

I was ambivalent about this thread (I think that partisanship has gained the upper hand over respect for individuals who have served with honor -- something that obviously doesn't apply to Dubya) but if PP and LGF find it disgusting it can't be all bad.

My only regret is that I have but one monitor (them suckers are expensive, you know, and I need all my extra cash for magnetic ribbons and NASCAR tickets) to give to my country and nobody at the VA credits my service in the 101st Fighting Keyboarders when it comes to benefits. Last time I read Kos my blood pressure went clean through the roof and I cut my hand pounding on the desk. You'd think a few dozen Valium and some Vicodin wouldn't be too much to ask after the sleepless nights I've spent defending the honor of my their Commander in Chief.
posted by cedar at 2:10 PM on May 31, 2005

Aww... *Blushes*

When I used to post there, I never got ANY respect.
Now their members are waxing poetic about how I used to post there all the time.
It's a small world after all!
posted by Balisong at 5:46 PM on May 31, 2005

Of course, what he means is, this war is going to run as long as they can get away with it. And in the end, we will all be the terrorists.
posted by deusdiabolus at 2:30 AM on June 1, 2005

I'd also point out the military always supports the civilian government & the administration.

If you mean the U.S. military has never overthrown the civilian government, then you are right. But the military and the current civilian government have disagreed plenty of times, usually with the civilians punishing the military in the end. See jenleigh's FPP: "What cost Ret. Major General Riggs his star? Riggs was blunt and outspoken on a number of issues and publicly contradicted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld by arguing that the Army was overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and needed more troops."

That was a nice thing you did, buying that old marine a tank of gas. You are right: tangible benefits beat out lip service any day of the week. And I was sorry to hear of your injury. I know I can't repay you for the service you gave to your country, but if we ever meet I will gladly buy you a beer. Or three.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:17 AM on June 1, 2005

Thanks Fuzzy Monster. yeah, I meant as an overall general sort of thing. The military as a system. There are always a few disagreements, but part of the reason Riggs got pissed on is because the support was there to follow the orders and piss on him. It's nice that we don't have coups, and it sucks that men of good conscience (whether one agrees with them or not, in this case I personally do) get destroyed.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:41 PM on June 1, 2005