Since Bush won't meet w/Sheehan, how about Carter / Clinton?

[MichiganVote]

Would they make time for her?

[WI_DEM]

1. not likely

I don't think Clinton would because he is an honorary member of the Bush family now and Carter might, but in the end I don't think he will.

[ClusterFreak]

2. I highly doubt that would happen

...not because Carter and Clinton wouldn't be supportive of her, but because they're both members of the ex-president's club, and as such don't want to show up a current president....no matter if that person is an asshole. Carter...I actually could see Carter doing or saying something to support her, but I'm not sure he'd actually meet with her.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Why the fuck would she want to talk to them?

They didn't send her son to die without a reason. I'm sure that she'd appreciate their support, but talking to them won't make up for Bush refusing to talk to her.

[MichiganVote]

5. I don't know if she'd want to talk to C/C or not. I didn't suggest

that their support would "make up" for Bush refusing to talk to her.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Because both of them have more respect than that

It would be a disreputable way of back-stabbing Bush. Presidents have a kind of duty to maintain high standards of conduct, and a publicity stunt like that would be cheap.

However ... it is entirely appropriate for them to urge Bush to meet with her, especially if they do it privately (but not in secret). It will also serve to make the Crawford Coward look even more like a pride-puffed little martinet than he already is.

--p!

[MichiganVote]

6. WHy is it disreputable for any pres. to offer support to a grieveing mom?

[Dogmudgeon]

7. It's not

It is disreputable to do anything designed to make a sitting President look bad. It smacks of partisanship and pettiness. Avoiding it is a point of etiquette among true leaders. For example, Lincoln went out of his way to defuse blame after the Civil War because he did not want to turn the Union victory into a conquest, but a reconciliation.

One of the reasons many of us hold Bush in contempt is because he holds other people in contempt. And, it's our job to hector Bush, not the job of Presidents Clinton and Carter. They served us well as our Presidents, and they continue to serve us well as our neighbors. For them to grant Bush the deference he has never earned and does not appreciate speaks loudly without a word being spoken. It shows a respect for the office, even if the man who holds it is unworthy. And it reflects the Christian ideal of granting others human respect as children of the same God without judgement being made.

Not that Bush doesn't deserve their scorn and rebuke. But it would also allow the Bushistas to make this all about poor George Bush being dissed by those nasty Democrats, not about Cindy Sheehan calling for an explanation of why her son died in a war predicated on a series of lies. The point being that Bush is without civility, respect, or "class", whereas Clinton and Carter are men of honor.

If either or both of the Presidents were to discreetly communicate with Ms. Sheehan, offering her their condolances and personal support, that would be good. The point is to avoid making Bush look bad -- especially since he's doing such a good job of that already.

Again, I have to stress, this is NOT a pro-Bush thing. I support Clinton and Carter standing back far enough so that this fiasco comes down squarely on the shoulders of George W. Bush and George W. Bush alone. He's going to have to learn that if you are a President, you are beholden to the people you work for. The man has avoided both mundane and moral responsibility all his life, and without that set of values, has now sent thousands of people to their deaths. It is time he be held accountable for his reckless, self-serving actions -- as, indeed, we all are.

--p!

[MichiganVote]

8. I don't believe George Bush is a dog who believes he has

any new tricks to learn, especially from the people who elected him. That does not happen to include me. Nevertheless, whether the grieving parent is Sheehan or any other, I still don't see how support thrown toward these parents by former presidents undermines a sitting president. Particularly George Bush, who seems to have a penchant for self destruction all his own.

Your post seems to suggest that past presidents would be taking the low road in terms of meeting with bereaved parents. I surely can understand how the press or others might make that case but I wonder if some of those parents might not welcome that support. Will any of this happen? Unlikely but you never know.

Be that as it may, we'll agree to disagree.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. We're not as far apart as you may think

It's a point of etiquette, that's all. But such things are important to world leaders.

Why should Clinton and Carter risk their reputations and images for a vulgar little man like Bush? That's my argument. They certainly know how to go through back channels to make their points, and they probably are doing so.

--p!

[MichiganVote]

11. I understand your view and in terms of political ettiquette I get it.

And you're right, C/C lose nothing by staying away from the parents of dead soldiers from strife in Iraq or Afghanistan. My remarks are meant to be in favor of something favorable for these parents, however, not something unfavorable for Bush or ex-presidents. Personally I could care less about Bush. He might as well drop dead.

It's alot to ask to send a child into the military and when their lives are lost, families are torn up, sometimes, destroyed. A five minute interview with Bush is not even small potatoes.

If that is the best America can do for its families, what hope have we of showing a 'good' face to the world?

Obviously C/C do not have the "Bush" answers or anything else for Sheehan beyond respect for her loss or the losses of the other God Star parents. But respect is a pretty necessary thing too.

[leetrisck]

9. bush alone sent her son to Iraq - not

Carter/Clinton or anyone else.