Three US Presidents at the Pope's funeral is excessive.

[BurtWorm]

I think even one "president" is excessive, considering none have ever attended a Pope's funeral.But having two ex-Presidents in the official US cortege, let alone three, if Carter had gone, is way overboard. It's whoredom, plain and simple.

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. *shrug*

If they knew him and respected him, so what? If it's for political gain and media exposure than I find it distasteful.

[BurtWorm]

2. Look at the Bushes and tell me it's not for political gain and media

exposure. I suspect Clinton's motives, too, frankly. Carter may actually be the only sincerely sorry one of the bunch.

[ArkDem]

25. Check the wording of your last sentence.

[BurtWorm]

26. Nu?

:shrug:

[ArkDem]

62. It sounds as though you are calling Carter 'sorry'.

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. Like I said. I find it distasteful.

[Avalux]

10. I'm offended Condi's going

stupid hardnosed warmongering bitch. She has no business being there.

[MADem]

14. Much as I dislike her, she does

He was also a Head of State, and she is the US Secretary of State. She's an appropriate representative, at least in terms of her title.

The seniority of the delegates at these things is an indicator of the measure of respect that one nation state has for another. If they wanted to insult the Holy See, they'd send Dick Cheney and a couple of lobbyists.

[BurtWorm]

17. How do you know if the Holy See would be "offended" by standard US

protocol? And so what if they were?

When Nelson Mandela dies, who is the US going to send to that great man's funeral? I doubt it will be anything like this cortege.

[MADem]

37. It is not a question of offense, it is a question of respect

The respect emanates FROM the delegation. It is the US's way of saying "We think you were IMPORTANT." I've worked these sorts of issues before, it may seem trite and unimportant from a distance, but it does matter, and other countries take note of the degree of respect afforded. If no one showed up from the US, the Vatican surely would note it (as would all of the other countries who would regard us as uncouth assholes, even more so than they already do), but they would not get their noses out of joint with four million people in the streets honoring the Pope. It is our, meaning our country's, way of honoring the deceased. The Brits are sending their Head of State and the Heir to the Throne--that is quite high powered representation. Jacques Chirac will be there with his posse, too. See this article, http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11313515.htm

As for Mandela, assuming that all the current players going to this evolution are alive, I see the same crew going, plus Carter and then some (Jesse Jackson, the entire Congressional Black Caucus, Kweisi Mfume, etc. etc.), if there's room. If seating were not an issue, I would bet the Mandela event would have a delegation of easily over a hundred persons from the US on the official list, along with many more private mourners.

[BurtWorm]

49. As I said below (and may not have made plain), protocol should be followed

but no MORE than protocol should be followed. This mincing response can justly be interpreted as offensive to other countries we show less respect toward. Who did we send to Auschwitz, for example, for that memorial ceremony? Lumberjack Dick Cheney, remember?

So has the Vatican noted the absence of American presidents at previous papal funerals? Is that why they're trying to deny American politicians who are Catholic communion if they don't fall in line on the abortion issue?

[MADem]

63. One more time, to be sure you understand

We did not HAVE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS with the Vatican when the last Pope died, or the one before that, or the one before that. When you do not have diplomatic relations, you do not send a delegation.

The very fact that we established DIPLOMATIC, state to state, relations was challenged in Court, simply because of the religious aspect, but it did not stand. The Vatican has their own laws, their own MONEY, in fact. They are a sovereign entity. The protocol the US follows in this case is for one of the most influential HEADS OF STATE in the world, not for the religious reasons. We know how chimp will use this thing, but the point remains that the respect paid is appropriate and commensurate with the respect paid by hundreds of other nations to a deceased HEAD OF STATE. Some background: http://www.georgetown.edu/centers/woodstock/reese/america/a-wilson.htm

As for Auschwitz, the ceremonies there are held EVERY year. We've done it right in previous years, and we will do it right again. The onus of our performance in that regard falls squarely on the administration, as it should.

We likely won't send an OFFICIAL delegation to CUBA should Castro die, because we have NO DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. I'm sure some folks in the US Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy will show up. Remember Poppy Bush? He likes to be remembered as AMBASSADOR to China, but guess what--he was NOT an ambassador. We did not have full relations with them when he was there. He was a "special envoy" but hey, AMBASSADOR sounds better.

Jimmy Carter was the guy that opened the door that eventually led to diplomatic relations with the Vatican. It is egregious that he is not in attendance, IMO.

[BurtWorm]

70. Has there been any other American delegation to any other funeral

of any other head of state that included three presidents ever? None that I can recall. Ever.

[MADem]

73. When, in recent history, have we HAD three healthy ex-presidents?

Truman died in 72.
Eisenhower in 69.
Both were very ill before they died.
Kennedy was killed in 63.
Johnson retired after not running for reelection, didn't take care of himself, smoked and drank, had a heart attack and died in 73.
Nixon resigned in disgrace and died in 94, he was quite frail and avoided the public eye for the most part before he passed.
Ford is still kicking, but he is very elderly and his health is quite poor.

Carter, Bush1, and Clinton are still up on their pins and moving about.

It's only since Ford that we've had hale, hearty and reasonably healthy and 'out there' ex-Presidents. The custom used to be that they went home to be forgotten. Since Ford, really, that has changed, and modern presidents actually regard their predecessors as "assets" because they have name recognition, gravitas and so forth. They are also fonts of wisdom on how to handle things when the going gets rough, having BT, DT.

[BurtWorm]

74. You only need two healthy ex-presidents to match this feat.

When have even two presidents attended a foreign leader's funeral together in an official delegation?

[MADem]

77. Off the top of my head--1999 (there may be others)

You asked: When have even two presidents attended a foreign leader's funeral together in an official delegation?

I'm thinking back, and the last one I can come up with that had anything approaching this level of world importance and gravitas was that of King Hussein of Jordan. If I remember correctly, Carter (Mr. Mideast Peace) attended with Clinton (in office), Bush1 (who was excoriated by Hussein for Gulf War One--in fact, Hussein sided with Iraq) gave it a pass, Ford (hearing failing, eyes bad, may have had an operation that year) skipped it, Reagan was incapacitated, Chimp had not yet ascended to the Monkey Throne. So, there are your two presidents--it happened in 1999. Now, if you insist on TWO EX-presidents, that's a harder one to come up with, simply because no one really big has died since we have had this many hale and hearty former chief executives to do this sort of thing.

I think you miss the fact that there are Catholics in every damn country in the world--this was a BIG one, like the Pope or not. And since we established formal diplomatic relations with the Vatican only in the mid-80's, demanding the same treatment for former Popes is basically hogwash (JP had the job since 78)--the deciding factors are diplomatic ties, the political aspect, and sufficient importance of the deceased in the eyes of the world. With the poor reputation of the US in many countries that have a large Catholic population, it was hugely important to show great 'rispetto.'

Had Kerry been president, I would have expected a full delegation as will be represented today, but also to include Carter. And the odds are good we would have gotten way more than five seats, and our formal delegation would have been rounded out with the likes of Kennedy, Albright, Ray Flynn, and other key Catholics presently or formerly in government.

[BurtWorm]

78. It has nothing to do with liking the Pope or not.

It has to do with the appropriateness of a secular democracy bowing so low to the monarch of a church. I think it's this is an excessive and pandering display.

[MADem]

79. This was one of the largest funerals in HISTORY

MOST heads of state were there, with LARGE contigents of big guns from their own spheres in their delegations. Kings, Queens, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kofi Annan...if you fail to see the significance of this event, regardless of 'liking the guy or not' I just can't help you. I really don't care how you feel about him. I do find it a bit disconcerting that you can't, or won't, see how the entire world views this, though, and that US interests are served if we (for once) display some sensitivity to world view. This was the LARGEST audience for any funeral service in the history of the entire world, both present in Rome and via television.

This is not about BUSH, the few shots the RAI cameras took of him made me believe he didn't especially want to be there. What this shows me is that at least one idiot in his administration understands the import of this occasion to both Catholic citizens of the world and those impacted, for good or ill, by JP2--as Holy Father of the Roman Catholic Church, as a sovereign head of state, and as a political activist.

Bush led the delegation, he could have invited his mother, a couple of fatcat lobbyists, and the maid who cleans his bathroom. Instead, he invited his father (VP when we established diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 84), Clinton, Condi the SecState and the spouse. His call--five slots. As I have indicated, I would have greatly preferred that Carter be included, given his history with JP2, but that's a local, American political issue. The people trotting behind the delegation leader had to be "significant" in the eyes of the world to give the delegation any credibility at all.

List of attendees as of 5 Apr (five pages): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20709-1555792,00.html

This was an "A" list event.

[MADem]

81. Hey, I found a cite for you

See post 80, below, or if you are disinclined, click this link: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/rabinfun.html

There's your president, his wife, your two ex-presidents, the sitting SECSTATE, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and a shitload of US dignitaries as well. At a funeral for a leader of a religious state. In 1995.

Enough, already. I don't care for this crowd running the joint, but fair is fair, protocol is protocol. I wanted Carter there, but we, unsurprisingly, clearly did not have enough clout with this Holy See to get more than five seats.

[Inland]

19. So who does Condi represent, if Bush is already there?

The US head of state AND the secretary of state?

It's clearly hoping something good rubs off on Bush and Condi, both by their being there and by their being with Clinton and Bush Daddy.

[BurtWorm]

22. Exactly! What *good* is their attendance doing, really?

Where were they when the living Pope was telling them not to go to war in Iraq, the fuckers!

[MADem]

23. The Holy See gave the US five slots

The more senior the people filling those slots, the greater the "rispetto." It's a protocol thing. Our Vatican ambassador has a lot of clout, simply because, though we only have six percent of the world's Catholics, monetarily, we chuck in a much larger percentage of cash to their coffers.

Of course, the cameras in the Basilica are run by RAI, not CNN, not Faux, not MSNBC or any of the networks...so the coverage of those present will be up to the Italians. He may not get the good shots he's hoping for...and that's his real reason for attending.

[Inland]

32. Condi's just a hired hand.

And the respect shown by Laura going is, what?

If we really wanted to show respect, either or both would be replaced by, say, the Speaker of the House. Or the VP. Or......Carter. But Bush doesn't want to be seen with Carter. He wants to be seen with Clinton, a veritable rock star, or Bush Daddy, who is remembered as a true diplomat from America.

[MADem]

44. I am of the opinion that she should have given her slot to Carter

...but I think she wants an eyewitness to history moment for the book she will no doubt write when she leaves the WH.

[lenidog]

56. If the current President shows up for such events it is considered

proper decorum for his wife to show up. That is why Laura Bush is there. I have heard nothing from Carter about the Pope's death at all. Which is rather suprising, hell I have even heard from Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon but not Carter which is rather strange. So I can't speculate why he isn't going and really wont. For all we know Carter has reasons of his own for not wanting to go. Condi is going because it is expected again because of diplomatic decorum. Because she is the Secretary of State and by being so for good or bad the chief diplomat of the US.

[Inland]

60. No, BUSH is the chief diplomat for the US.

And he's the head of state. Condi works for him. That's her power, that's her stature, and that's her qualification to be S of S. Period.

Carter's reasons for not wanting to go is being told the WH had filled the card with other people. He was gracious about it.

I am entirely wondering about Laura appearing. I don't think Mrs. Clinton or Mrs. Poppy were invited. Clearly, this is simply another attempt for Bushie to make it a no-politics zone so that he and Rice can appear without getting evil looks. I mean, if Laura is there, it's almost as if they are attending as if they had a personal tie to the Pope.

[MADem]

66. Carter WANTED to go. He was dissed by the WH for his remarks at

...the Dem Convention in Boston. Carter was the guy who put the US on the path to establishing diplomatic relations with the Holy See. He was the first President to host a Pope at the WH. He was a key player on the road to diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

The reason he isn't talking is because he is a classy guy, and doesn't want to add to the imbroglio.

Spouses are fine, when there is ROOM, but when it is a tight fit, symbolic clout counts more. IMO, she should have stepped aside in favor of Carter.

[MADem]

64. The Pope ripped Bush1 a new one for invading over Kuwait

Clinton is pure cover for the both of them. Laura is just looking for material for her post-first lady book, so she can get a hefty advance. Laura should have stepped aside, and given the slot to Carter, who was the FIRST US president to host a pope in the WH.

Much as I hate Condi, she is appropriate because of her position. If Madeleine Albright was still in the job, I'd expect to see her there.

As for the VP, BAD idea. The standard rule is one OR the other. You don't put both of them in a foreign country at the same time, together. Security nightmare, and could lead to Kidney Stone Boy taking the oath should someone try getting violent during the proceedings.

[FreedomAngel82]

33. I agree

She isn't Catholic is she? It's rude that she's going instead of Carter, but then again these people only think of themselves so I'm not surprised.

[0007]

61. Condoleezza must prove her statehood & love for God

The Condi of Arc

[ClintonTyree]

3. The only reason bush is going....

is to make brownie points with the religious right and to have meetings with other like minded Nazis.
The other two Presidents are actually going to pay their respects.
For bush, it's just another photo-op and a chance to plot the end of the world with other gangsters of his ilk.

[BurtWorm]

5. There's no good reason for either Bush or for Clinton to go.

None. They expressed their condolences and sympathy. Going to the funeral is just grandstanding.

[lenidog]

15. On the other hand there is no good reason not for them to go

they are private citizens who happen to have been President of the US. If they want to go then they can go. They have all met him and probably respected him so wish to go. From what someone posted yesterday Fidel Castro is showing up and he is supposed to believe that the Pope is an opressor of the proletariat.

[BurtWorm]

16. I have no problem with their going as private citizens.

But they're going as part of the "official US delegation." It's costing us.

[Inland]

27. Bush gets even more than that.

He gets to stand with genuinely admired Clinton and Poppy in a no-booing, no-politics zone. Just being in Europe without huge protest rallies is a big plus for Bush. On TV, it will seem as if Bush's prescence isn't a provocation. It will give him the stature Clinton has.

That's why Condi is going, BTW: there isn't any need to have more than the head of state: why send his secretary too, if the real purposes is paying respects? The real reason is that Bush hopes some good feeling rubs off on her.

[FreedomAngel82]

36. Yep

Just like when he was at the Clinton library thing not long ago. He didn't care about that. His attitude towards people showed that. But Bush senior looked like he was enjoying himself. I won't be surprised to find the same thing with Bush junior at the Vatican. I can't wait to see those photo's. I bet they'll try to get a few crappy one's. Hehe.

[underpants]

4. Don't they all have to be there for the Triumvir ant meeting?

Or did I miss something?

:hide:

[alcuno]

6. How about 40 members of Congress?

Of course, they'll have to stand.

[BurtWorm]

7. That is also repulsive.

What's the history of US politicians attending papal funerals?

[kick-ass-bob]

8. Why? He was Pope during each of their presidencies.

It makes perfect sense to me.

Just because they haven't done it before means they shouldn't now?

[BurtWorm]

9. Look at the sea of pilgrims in Rome now and tell me they need

grandstanding US politicians added into the mix. :eyes:

[BurtWorm]

11. By the way, how much is this grandstanding costing the US taxpayers?

Aren't there better ways to spend our money than a political lark?

[kick-ass-bob]

18. there are a whole lot of things that money is better spent doing.

That argument gets tired pretty quickly.

Isn't part of politics playing nice with other countries? Diplomacy?

Sending some ex-Presidents isn't exactly over the top.

[BurtWorm]

20. Some diplomacy is always lovely. But this is a shitload of it.

From an administration that doesn't give an ounce of shit about diplomacy. It's a disgusting display.

[MADem]

12. A pope hasn't died in almost 27 years

And we didn't have a Vatican ambassador back then, either. State to State relations with the Holy See began under JP2.

The attendance by government delegations is NOT because of the Catholic thing, it's because of the Head of State thing. It is appropriate protocol--even though Vatican City is one of the smallest sovereign entities in the world, it wields great influence, simply because this last Pope pushed those political and social issues near and dear to his heart, and they often coincided with US interests. He secretly funded Solidarity's resistance efforts, for example...

Quite frankly, I think Carter should have LED the damn delegation. The Pope actually LIKED him. Bush got taken to the woodshed by the Pope (both of them, actually, for Gulf War 1 and 'Operation Iraqi Liberation').

[BurtWorm]

13. I don't have a problem with Carter attending as a private citizen.

Or with the US sending Cheney, if that's the protocol. But sending this group of heavyweights is ludicrous and excessive--and expensive. It's not necessary. It's a waste.

[MADem]

80. OK, how about this guest list at the funeral of a leader

Of an AVOWEDLY religious state????

Here's the list that attended RABIN's funeral in Israel:

President William J. Clinton
First Lady Hillary R. Clinton
Former Presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter
Secretary of State Warren Christopher
Secretary Robert Rubin
Secretary William Perry
Secretary Dan Glickman
Chief of Staff Leon Panetta
UN Ambassador Mrs. Madeleine Albright
National Security Adviser Anthony Lake
Middle East Peace Coordinator Dennis Ross
US Trade Representative Mickey Kantor
House of Representative Speaker Newt Gingrich
Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole
Senator Tom Daschle
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Alphonse D'Amato
Senator Chris Dodd
Senator Judd Gregg
Senator Russ Feingold
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Jesse Helms
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Joe Lieberman
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Senator Ted Stevens
Senator Claiborne Pell
Senator Paul Wellstone
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt
Former Secretaries of State James Baker, George Shultz, and Cyrus Vance
New York Governor George Pataki
New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
Former Mayor of New York Ed Koch

Here's the cite, for skeptics: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/rabinfun.html

I'll say one more time, I thought they should have found a way to get Carter there, but the dignitaries present from the US were appropriate and not excessive. I don't care for this administration, but just because they are jerks doesn't mean they should always behave like jerks when representing the rest of us poor bastards to the world.

[FreedomAngel82]

41. I agree

Of course that wouldn't happen though because Bush is just a big cry baby and spoiled brat. Wasn't the Pope good friends with Carter? I remember reading how the Pope would go over and visit with Carter and they'd work together on communsim and everything. I feel bad for Carter. :(

[MADem]

68. Carter was the first president to host a Pope at the White House

He was the guy who put the whole concept of diplomatic relations with the Holy See on the table. It didn't happen straight away, but he started the ball rolling. IMO, he should have been included.

[merh]

21. They are taking big dawg with them out of fear, not respect.

They don't think they will be in danger as long as they have him as their shield. You know, like a bad guy that grabs a hostage to protect him from the police.

They are cowards. They are using the big dawg and he doesn't see it or doesn't care. :mad:

[ArkDem]

30. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[FreedomAngel82]

43. Of course

We all know how these people work. I have mixed feelings on Bush senior personally. He seems to at least show respect for people unlike his son who doesn't do either. We all know that Clinton is still a very popular and well-known president and he once said that he thought he was the only one who liked Bush. I was like "well duh." :eyes: It's like Clinton though to be nice to everybody. It wouldn't be like him to be a mean person.

[tx_dem41]

24. This appears to be nitpicking to me.

I don't have a problem with 3 Presidents going. He was a Head of State, he was the "leader" of a sizeable population within the US, and this is a rare event (hasn't happened in 27 years). It probably would have happened more in the past, if the Presidents hadn't had to take a weeks long boat ride or a 2 day airplane ride.

[BurtWorm]

28. When Elizabeth II dies, will three presidents go to the funeral?

Do we want three presidents to go to the funeral?

[kick-ass-bob]

35. no one looks to her as the true leader

of the country or a major religion.


Maybe I should just say "nuh-uh", because it seems appropriate for the level of this "discussion"

[tx_dem41]

38. Honestly and respectfully...

it just doesn't bother me. War bothers me. Poverty bothers me. This doesn't

[BurtWorm]

45. It bothers me because it's a symbol of the loss of proportion

that the government used to have. It's not an outrage on the level of war or poverty, but it is still an outrage for a nation founded on the principles of democracy and separation of church and state to be bowing so low to the monarch of a church. It bothers me. Again, I don't mind if a delegation goes out of respect. I don't mind if ex-president's go as private citizens. I think it would have been decent if the Bush admin had sent Cheney and Carter and maybe some Vatican Ambassadors or--or anyone but the Bushes and Condi Rice! Just send the standard delegation, for chrissakes!

What they're doing is transparently showboating.

[tx_dem41]

47. Condi Rice needs to go...

because he was Head of State of the Vatican. I guess I would agree that it would be better if Clinton and Bush I go as private citizens, but then I would expect them to go.

[BurtWorm]

48. Does she attend the funerals of all heads of state?

Is that protocol? I'm not saying protocol shouldn't be followed. Not at all. I'm saying no MORE than protocol should be followed.

[MADem]

42. IMO, it depends on when she goes

If she went soon, I'd say all the living Presidents save Ford would turn up. Special relationship, and all that.

[BurtWorm]

46. delete

misread your post.

[lenidog]

54. I would lay even money on it

Since she has been Queen since 1953 (?) technically head of state of our closest ally and also technically head of state of some of our other allies. We may actually get more than 3 presidents Carter may get into the act.

[porphyrian]

29. I think it's dangerous.

There's a reason royal families don't fly together. How safe is the Vatican?

[theboss]

75. How is it dangerous? Bush I and Clinton aren't in the line of succession

If, God forbid, something happened to them, the country would have lost two productive private citizens.

Besides, I don't think security should govern every decision.

[FreedomAngel82]

31. I have mixed feelings

On one hand I do see your point and no US president has ever gone before. On the other hand I think it's okay because Clinton and Carter had a nice relationship with the Pope and Carter was friends with him and they worked together in the past. Bush is just going for points and he better represent us well. I don't think the Pope cared for Bush very much (at least BushII) so to me this is a way of him to try to invoke the Pope (like he does with 9/11) and to spit on his grave since the Pope was against his Iraq war.

[Selteri]

34. I disagree, sending the Secretary of Bu.. State in place of Carter is

total whoredome. JP2 visited JC's whitehouse, JC is a Nobel Prize winner and JC is a humanitarian who walks the walk.

Condi is a warmonger, just like her boss and his daddy before him.

The truth is, if the presidents want to go to a man who visited the US twice, good for them, but to bump Condi for Carter is just wrong and in poor taste.

As a sub-note - This is the modern world. Within 30 years we'll have presidents visiting space because of how safe things have become and commonplace. Things change, that's part of progress.

[BurtWorm]

39. The symbolism is all wrong. I agree that Carter, of all, should be there.

For the very good reasons you stated. But to me this is another instance of this administration just pissing and shitting all over decorum and decency. They have no sense of proportion. Everything is for political points for them. There's no one in the administration who has any sense of what's proper. I can't believe I'm the only one who finds this gross. No other head of state's death anywhere would get this response from this government because no other leader's death would have quite so much political gain to offer.

[mmonk]

40. No big deal

[Doctor_J]

50. I agree - let the Bushes stay home

They can have a photo op with the other "man of God" Tom Delay. Let presidents who actually care about human beings attend the funeral - Carter and Clinton

[theboss]

51. I can't get this worked up about things

My cholestoral was high the last time I went to the doctor. If I got upset everyday at something Bush did, I would be dead before I hit 40.

[BurtWorm]

52. I'm not exactly worked up about it.

I'm just stating something that seems obvious to me that I've heard no one else say.

[BurtWorm]

53. The Pope and Hypocrisy, By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/opinion/06kristof.html?hp

Published: April 6, 2005

President Bush and other world leaders are honoring John Paul II in a way that completely misunderstands his message. We pay him no tribute if we lower our flags to half-staff and send a grand presidential delegation to his funeral, when at the same time we avert our eyes as villagers are slaughtered and mutilated in the genocide unfolding in Darfur.

The message of the pope's ministry was about standing up to evil, not about holding grand funerals.

"Throughout the West, John Paul's witness reminded us of our obligation to build a culture of life in which the strong protect the weak," Mr. Bush said. Well, what about that reminder? What kind of a "culture of life" is it that allows us to shrug as Sudanese soldiers heave children onto bonfires?

[goodhue]

57. Doesn't really bother me except Carter should be included.

[fujiyama]

67. Is that Kucinich?

He looks very young. That's a nice pic. Hadn't seen that before.

[sleipnir]

58. Two were friends of the man. Why should they not go?

Would you begrudge your friends to attend your funeral?

I understand the political implications, but with Clinton and GBush the First are both known to be friends of the late pope. I see no reason why they should not go.

[BurtWorm]

59. As I said elsewhere, they should go as private citizens.

Not as official reps of the US.

[carpetbagger]

65. You want excessive? Just wait until Billy Graham keels.

I bet even Nixon shows up for that one.

[fujiyama]

69. I disagree

All the presidents had atleast met him. The Pope was in some ways a head of state...but more important he was a spiritual head for about a billion people.

I'm disgusted that the cockroach DeLay and his bitch Hastert are going, while Carter doesn't. I hate those two so much.

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. Why is it 'excessive'?

Care to elaborate?

[BurtWorm]

76. After years of never sending a single president to a pope's funeral

we suddenly send three? No one has given me a single instance of another leader being given this much deference by American presidents ever.

The Bushes are transparently trying to get a little Pope-magic to rub off on them. Why they invited Clinton and not Carter is a mystery to me. But why they didn't invite a single Catholic to form the official delegation is even more of a mystery.

[MADem]

82. The last pope died in 78, BEFORE diplomatic relations

You don't SEND a delegation if you don't have diplomatic relations. How difficult is that to comprehend???

And I invite, again, your attention to post #80.

[mbee]

72. I sent a letter of protest that Bush was there to the

Vatican.