Posted on 11/29/2005 11:56:53 PM PST by jmc1969
For about 20 minutes Tuesday, the MacKenzie family met privately with President Bush as he offered sympathy and listened to stories about Pfc. Tyler MacKenzie, a 20-year-old solider killed in Iraq earlier this month by a roadside bomb.
"We cried, and I had to pull out some Kleenex and give it to everyone else," Tyler's grandmother Mary MacKenzie said.
"I had to give some to the president, too, because he didn't have any."
Both David and Julie MacKenzie, along with grandparents Emmett and Mary MacKenzie, saw Bush speak at the Brown Palace Hotel before the Secret Service moved them to a quiet room to meet with the president.
Emmett MacKenzie, a 75-year-old Korean War veteran, said Bush reassured them that there would be no pullout of troops until Iraqis could provide their own security.
"He said we wouldn't quit, and we told him we didn't want to quit until the job was done," Emmett MacKenzie said.
"We want to continue, and we're behind him 100 percent."
"Stuff it."
Don't talk to me that way. It's out of bounds.
"Armchair Quarterback," eh?
Maybe you should have added: "Welcome to the club."
Armchair quarterbacking is the point of the Free Republic site.
Moderate? Me?
I think not, sir.
Y'all are missing what I said: It may or may not be unpresidential to cry in this situation. My concern is that word is going around the world about this. On balance, I think it hurts the image of American resolve.
Most of the comments against me have been addressed to the question of appropriateness and manliness. My concern didn't address these things. It addressed the image projected.
You're right. I would not want to think the president never cried in these situations. I would equally not want to think that he cried every time, if we're talking about hundreds. I absolutely would not want the nation and the world to know that he has cried hundreds of times with families, if he has.
Again, I think these details should be private.
You can't just throw out a Bible verse and expect people to agree with you. You have to explain why it's relevant to politics. In this case, I don't see why it is.
There it is. You do not see families like this sitting in a ditch and stalking the POS. You see courage and dignity.
Bill Clinton was known for getting teary-eyed and biting his lip, but in his case it was insincere and clearly for public consumption, Bush does not convey the same sense of over-the-top phoniness.
First, most people who share your point of view do so because they tend to think it is a sign of weakness for a man to cry and show "feminine" emotions.
Second, would it be OK -- and presidential -- if GWB were to cry over many dead men at once? You may deem it unpresidential for him to grieve over one man, but that is your opinion and is applicable only to you and those who share your point of view. Not everyone thinks the same way.
I think it is a sign of great compassion and empathy for any man -- any person -- to be able to cry over the loss of another's loved one. I also think it is a sign of great humility for a Commander-in-Chief to do so over "one dead man" who went into battle on that president's orders.
This is don-o
Get help. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the American people knowing is a real man, with real emotions that he is not ahamed to express in a private situation.
OTOH, if he goes weepy in public, like Murtha, that is a problem
This is sooo hard....to read. May God bless this family.
So you did not hear his speech at Annapolis today?
Absolutely, I agree. I don't see, though, how this addresses my point. Yes, Clinton was and is a phony,
and Bush certainly isn't. But I never said otherwise.
I hate to use the word "nuance," since I have no use for John Frog Kerry and his ilk. But look at the nuances, or if you prefer a more neutral term, the specifics, of what I have said. I don't deny Bush's manliness. Nor do I say that it's necessarily wrong to cry. My problem is with the disclosure of it, especially on repeated occasions that all the world will see. No, it doesn't hurt Bush with people who already like or believe in him, like myself
(much or most of the time). But I think it does encourage his enemies -- abroad and at home.
The Annapolis speech is another matter. I wasn't referring to the Annapolis speech, which hadn't yet been given.
Sheesh.
Why do you think that? The answer is because you think they will view him as weak. Why? Because you believe they think it is a sign of weakness for a man to cry. You don't really know what his enemies at home and abroad think about it. You just assume they see it as a sign of weakness. Why? Because some part of you buys into that notion yourself.
God bless you.
Tears in the eyes of a strong man, or woman, are not indicative of weakness. A lack of tears in the eyes of a weak man, or woman, is not indicative of strength.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.