Insight Magazine

Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . . . . . Vol. 13, No. 46 -- Dec. 15, 1997 . . . . . . . . www.insightmag.com

The Burials at Arlington

By Paul M. Rodriguez

A House committee promises to get to the bottom of Clinton administration claims that politics or favoritism were not involved in waivers for burial given to unqualified candidates.

Disclosure Quiets Uproar Over Arlington Burials" was the Washington Post's headline following Army secretary Togo West's Nov. 21 press conference during which he rejected allegations that anything is amiss with America's national war cemeteries. West was effective. His Pentagon conference, staged to answer an Insight report, dealt with the 71 waivers the Clinton administration has granted to civilians so that they could be buried at Arlington National Cemetery. According to West, all the waivers were aboveboard. There had been no favoritism or the buying of Arlington burial plots by political donors, as Defense Department and cemetery sources had alleged to Insight.
. . . . The Post wasn't alone in concluding that West successfully had answered the allegations. Several other newspapers reported the same. And federal lawmakers, such as Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, backed off as well from earlier criticism. The details the Army secretary supplied for the 71 waivers led Specter to say they all "appeared in order." Game, set and match to the administration?
. . . . Not according to Rep. Terry Everett, the Alabama Republican who chairs the Veterans' Affairs subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and who since June has been probing the way Arlington burial waivers have been granted by West. In particular, the congressman remains concerned about 10 waivers West granted over the objections of the national cemetery's superintendent, and he plans to pursue hearings in January.
. . . . The Insight report that sparked a nationwide furor and brought West to a full-court press conference contained several allegations:
. . . . * The Clinton administration has granted more Arlington burial waivers than previous administrations;
. . . . * Of the total waivers, 12 to 20 did not fit past criteria for exemptions;
. . . . * A number of waivers initially were rejected by Arlington Cemetery officials but overridden by West;
. . . . * At least one person still living has gained future burial rights.
. . . . All those claims made to Insight by military and Arlington cemetery sources have been confirmed by West or administration spokesmen.
. . . . Two other allegations have not. The Army secretary insists favoritism played no part in his nearly one dozen overrides. But he hasn't been completely clear about the major considerations involved in each case -- nor to what the superintendent objected.
. . . . And the administration is adamant that no large donor to the Clinton/Gore campaign or the Democratic Party ever has been rewarded with a burial plot in America's most hallowed cemetery. This ignores the case of Larry Lawrence, the San Diego businessman and former ambassador to Switzerland. But more about that later.
. . . . Why were the military and other Americans suspicious of the Clinton administration on these matters? Maybe because of the administration's record.
. . . . The White House response to any story that questions any action by the president or his administration has been, "We didn't do it." That was so with early revelations about the health-care task force, the White House Travel Office firings, the FBI files caper, the White House Office Data Base story, the kaffeeklatsches, the Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers, the White House visits of John Huang and fugitive Charlie Trie and on and on.
. . . . Even Cokie Roberts observed on ABC's This Week that the backdrop painted by the Clinton White House has caused skepticism among people who initially are told by all the president's men that stories are false -- only to learn later that they are true or not what aides claimed.
. . . . It has been left to the press and government investigators to get at the full facts -- and then only after many months of nagging questions, disregarded subpoenas, threats of criminal contempt and impending action for obstruction of justice, spending millions on special prosecutors, lists that grow like Pinnochio's nose, endless blaming of the dead guys ... and even miracle tornados.
. . . . Now comes the Arlington National Cemetery story -- one that touches a deep nerve among veterans and all patriotic Americans. The authentic emotion that surged from millions furious at even the possibility that anyone not qualified might have been waived by the Clinton administration for burial at Arlington because of money, politics or favoritism could be summed up by the overwhelming sentiment that if even one person bought or politicked or cronied his way in -- well, that was one too many.
. . . . The emotional outcry was broadcast nationally by talk radio, which saw the deeper significance of the story, causing the White House to respond to the allegations reported by Insight.
. . . . As with the stories on Filegate, Travelgate, Donorgate, the Big Brother computer and the rest, the spinmasters carefully denied anything improper and cited past administrations. They even branded the article as a "conservative right-wing" conspiracy fueled by "hate radio" to embarrass the president and West.
. . . . But many questions remain. Specifically, what are the standards for burial in Arlington National Cemetery? How does one weigh considerations for one person to qualify and another to be rejected? For that matter, who was rejected, and by what standard? If one Tuskeegee airman was waived, does that mean the 100 or so others will be dug up and moved to Arlington or welcomed for burial when their times come? Or will they be rejected ... again?
. . . . What about police officers who are military veterans and die bravely enforcing the law? Will all be waived through, or just one now and then when the president sees his numbers slipping with the law-and-order people? And what about women on temporary military duty who are killed in auto accidents: Are they all to be waived or just when the spirit of compassion for women in the military strikes the president as good politics?
. . . . But most especially, if politics and money were not considerations in these decisions, then how was Larry K. Lawrence waived? Service as a merchant marine -- an honorable job in which thousands died bravely during World War II -- has never been grounds for burial at Arlington, rightly or wrongly. So what consideration was used? Was it that Lawrence was an ambassador, a political appointee rewarded for contributions and loyalty to the Democratic Party? As the American Legion said: If just "one person had been buried in Arlington as a gesture of political patronage," then it would dishonor the fallen.
. . . . Such questions are not rhetorical but strike at the issues raised by the sources who spoke to Insight on condition of anonymity. One such source who handled these issues for a number of years notes that the rules requiring military service and honors were designed not only to insulate cemetery officials but also the families. "The position [historically] was that if you allow one, you open the floodgates to hundreds waiting in the wings" who rightly then expect themselves or family members also to be buried at Arlington.
. . . . Exceptions for burial are supposed to be made for people such as Joe Lewis, the heavyweight boxing champion who received the Legion of Merit for his military service. Moreover, until recently, not even some of the children of those buried at Arlington could get in. One such case was a son of Sen. Robert "Bobby" Kennedy. When the family sought a waiver, it was denied and the Kennedys accepted this without recourse to political favoritism, recalled one source.
. . . . Insight raised such issues in last week's article, "Is There Nothing Sacred?" -- not to embarrass the administration but to obtain facts that even congressional investigators and top military brass could not get after many months of asking. Putting aside the emotionalism and fanfare orchestrated by the Clinton administration, it is time for answers.
. . . . Allegations raised by Insight's sources have not yet been investigated by authorities. And they must be, even if that means ugly hearings in which witnesses face the threat of perjury for lying about the behind-the-scenes goings-on involved in some waivers and rejections.
. . . . The House Veterans' Affairs Committee -- and others -- should subpoena responsible people from the various chains of command; secure the documents in the case jackets and other "files" that may exist; and depose those who have investigated, reviewed and/or approved waivers as well as those families of combat veterans who were rejected for burial at Arlington. There are many who would testify. That done, the committee should use this evidence to draw up tighter rules, and ones not subject to political whim or vulnerable to abuse.