|
| Posted by: Tree
- Donor [599393013] Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 11:02
not a big fan of Kucinich, but this bit of website animation is right on...
hard hitting, but the truth... |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 11:17
|
Love that animation. Very cool.
|
|
| | | 2 | sarge33rd
ID: 40110412 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 13:04
|
gotta agree, it's high time for a change in the Administration.
|
|
| | | 3 | Sludge Leader
ID: 25919714 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 13:29
|
Yeah, swell. I really wish politicians and their staffs would learn to add, subtract, multiply, and divide.
1.99 deaths per day * 7 days per week = 13.93 deaths per week, not 14.93.
At least they got the deaths per month right.
|
|
| | | 4 | Sludge Leader
ID: 25919714 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 13:34
|
Although as long as I'm being nitpicky, there are an average of 30.42 days per month this year... That's an average of 60.53 deaths per month. They could have gotten almost an extra death per month if they had been a little smarter.
|
|
| | | 5 | James K Polk
ID: 329341615 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 13:50
|
lol
|
|
| | | 7 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 14:21
|
Love that quote in your link, Greg:
She seemed to have little interest in the difficult diplomatic work of persuading her foreign counterparts to go along with the positions of her government, preferring to lecture or speak in declarative sentences, or simply to read verbatim from her briefing books. She seemed to assume that her mere assertion of a US policy should be sufficent to achieve the support of other nations.
Damn, she should be working for Bush!
pd
|
|
| | | 8 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 14:36
|
Greg - you seem to miss the bigger, and main, issue of the video feature - that being that a heck of a lot of americans are dying in a war that is becoming more and more unpopular every day.
and, to use an argument that's been used against me, did half the country want to go to war? or was it just half the people that were polled at that particular time?
and if we took a poll now, and over half of the country wanted to pull out of iraq, would you support that?
you do seem pretty keen on what the polls say, after all...
|
|
| | | 9 | biliruben Leader
ID: 49132614 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 14:57
|
I wasn't in favor of going in unilaterally, but I'm also not in favor of getting out with the job unfinished.
I think a competent president would have both done a better job of selling the American people and the world community using facts, not lies and rhetoric, as well as a better job of anticipating and deminishing the "post-war" occupation mess. That is enough of indictment to toss Bush and his dubiously motivated string-pullers back into some ditch in Texas and let him squirm with the rest of the spineless slimy things.
|
|
| | | 10 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:05
|
That was the biggest bunch of crap I have ever seen.
That's funny, Greg. I supported the war and made my pro-Iraq war case several times on these boards, but I'll maintain that Bush's preventing the media to show American corpses returning from Iraq is the 'bunch of crap'. I think Sarge, whom I know also supported the war would agree.
|
|
| | | 12 | biliruben Leader
ID: 49132614 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:19
|
Give the power to declare war back to our representatives in congress.
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:21
|
Greg, we didn't go into WWII to stop the Holocaust either. There's good evidence we even encouraged Hitler in that way by refusing to acknowledge any problem at all with the Jews.
Your posts seem to have taken on a particular schematic: I like a lot of what you say at first, and then suddenly you take a wrong turn.
pd
|
|
| | | 14 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:25
|
GregW, I'm not necessesarily arguing that the President's motive for bringing us to war was profit for his powerful constituants, but what does broad support for anything that the President endorses have to do with the President's specific motives? No one denies that there was wide American support, but as a counter to the argument that Bush's intentions were less than noble, your argument makes no case.
|
|
| | | 15 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:28
|
It's the very definition of political slop that the money for popular programs and initiatives go toward the politically connected. In this case, Chaney's good buddies.
pd
|
|
| | | 17 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:42
|
Greg, I'd believe that if, indeed, the President used that as his reason. As I stated many times on this forum, that was reason enough for us to take Saddam out them.
The stated reasons, however, had to do with Saddam's risk against , not his treatment of his own citizens. As we now know that the risk assessment of Saddam against us was overblown, the President seems to have stepped back to plan B, citing the removal of Saddam as reason enough for the invasion. I agree, and am happy that the President has joined us finally.
But the pre-war justifications were nothing about Saddam vs. the Kurds. It was all about taking him out before he got his hands on some messy stuff (or, before he got his hands on the delivery technology to use the messy stuff we were convinced he had).
The question of empathy is a good one that you should take up with Bush.
pd
|
|
| | | 18 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:45
|
was hell bent on killing as many Americans as he could
I hate statements and clauses like that. At the risk of being called unpatriotic, a terrorist and Saddam apologist (again) what in the world makes you say that? If he really was "hell bent" on killing as many Americans as possible, don't you think he would have succeeded in killing at least a few more of us than he has over the years?
I'm not about to say that he did it out of greed, but really, Saddam's desire to kill Americans was certainly not the President's primary motivation for leading us to war.
|
|
| | | 19 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:48
|
I disagree, MITH, as I mentioned in #17. Bush used the fear of Americans being killed as the justification regardless of Saddam's past actions (Greg is arguing that our primary motivation to going to war was Saddam's past attrocities against other people in the region, which simply isn't the case).
Greg, at the very least the ability of Chaney's buds to acquire multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts should give you pause.
pd
|
|
| | | 20 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 108231015 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 15:53
|
But the pre-war justifications were nothing about Saddam vs. the Kurds.
PD, that's just completely wrong. Sadaaam's treatment of his people was defintely a major reason given for the War. i rememeber countler anti-War diatribes, before the War, about how Bush need to make his mind up about the reason for going to War, because he kept using the humanitarian reason in addition to the national security one.
|
|
| | | 21 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 16:05
|
PD, I know that that was the President's biggest selling point, but I don't believe he was being entirely honest in that regard. Back when most of the world thought that Iraq had banned WMDs, I was arguing that they were not a serious threat to us, and I never believed that they were or likely to be in the forseeable future. If Saddam was so bent at killing Americans at any cost, then he would have managed to kill a good number of us in his day. If he was not willing to kill as mass numbers of Americans if it brought the wrath of the American military upon him, then he wasn't interested in killing mass numbers of Americans.
|
|
| | | 22 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 108231015 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 16:10
|
I think he'd have been happy to do it vicariously.
|
|
| | | 23 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 16:12
|
If so, MBJ, then why didn't he ever? I really hate defending the motives of someone like Saddam, but I just don't see any reason to believe that he was really so intent on killing American citizens.
|
|
| | | 24 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 16:13
|
MBJ: My point was overstated, I think. Bush was always primarily interested in taking out Saddam because of his threat against the US. The "humanitarian" aspect was always given as being a benefit of taking him out, not as justification in the first place. I should not have used the word "nothing" the way I did.
Using Anti-War statements to frame Bush's argument is, IMO, using the exact wrong source (like using WMD to quote Clinton). Anti-war protestors parse Bush's arguments to far too much to be used in any contextual way.
pd
|
|
| | | 25 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 108231015 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 16:15
|
I not convinced that he didn't. We'll see. We know that he certainly attempted to kill American citizens (like the former Pres. Bush)
|
|
| | | 26 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 53116415 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 16:20
|
Doesn't it give anyone pause that we can't even decide amongst ourselves the reason(s) why Bush committed us to Iraq? It's been demonstrated that the vast majority of the rhetoric leading up to the invasion was exactly that - empty rhetoric.
So why, exactly, did we go?
And why, exactly, are we planning on abrogating our responsibilities to the Iraqi people (who are supposed to be the number one or two reason we're even there) with a plan that by all accounts will allow us to pull out (miraculiously!) right before the presidential election and leave the job unfinished?
Far be it from me to suggest that the timing is politically expedient for the president and his party, but what happened to "establishing democracy" and making the ME a safer place? The time tables were all calling for a much longer deployment with higher numbers of troops and materials - but I guess it could just be a coincidence that as the tide of public opinion turns, the administrations plans convieniently fit into election cycle...
|
|
| | | 28 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 16:31
|
what happened to "establishing democracy" and making the ME a safer place?
Yh8er, that's precisely what I think The President's primary motive was. Show the region that America can save some of their oppressed brethen from a secular dictator. Show them how citizens of a Middle Eastern nation can prosper in a liberal democracy and hope to start a ideological shift among some in the region toward a more favorable opinion of democracy at first, and eventually western culture. For the record, I still beileve in this long term goal, and while there are some counteractive flaws in the methods we have employed so far, I do think that that goal is still achievable.
|
|
| | | 31 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 17:01
|
Greg, the nature of no-bid contracts can only lead to one answer to your simple question: We can't know.
|
|
| | | 32 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 17:01
|
I just find it easier to believe that our President saw a need to go war to rid the world of a dictator that had directly or in directly cause the the death of 10 to 20 million human beings...
not saying it didn't happen, but 20 million? do we have facts to back this up?
We found 20 labs designed for chemical and biological warfare development and there is currently an alert that terrorists may attempt to attack our water supply. It is not far fetch it may be with something designed in Iraq. We had pictures and audio recordings of movable chemical weapon producing trailers and discovered them after the main conflict.
absurd. we have more labs than that in this country, and there wasn't any proof the labs had been used any time recently....
additionally, there have been threats to attack our water supply for as long as i've lived. heck, when i was a little kid, Batman had to stop the Joker from putting some sort of laughing gas poison in the water supply...thank god he got there in the nick of time!
|
|
| | | 33 | sarge33rd
ID: 40110412 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 17:20
|
the "why" we went to war, is n9o longer in my mind relevant. the fact is we did. It is now historic fact, that this armed event occured. To continue to debate it, is to me pointless. What IS relevant at this stage, is A) How long do we stay? B) At what cost(s) do we stay? C) How much aid are we getting in this effort from the other coalition forces/governments?
I supported the initial invasion. Still do for that matter. I most certainly do NOT support, no bid contract awards by our govt. Who decided Greg, that Haliburton was best suited? Cheney? No conflict of interest there now is there? I mean really, how could one even THINK there might be? Just because one govt honcho, got awarded a multi-million dollar govt contract to a buddies company, w/o benefit of competing bids....
Continued deaths are going to be a reality in Iraq, even after we pullout entirely. Sad truth is, there is little historic difference between that entire region and SE Asia. The regions are both comprised of groups of people, who for the past several hundred years, have been at war with their neighbors. The real question then is, How many more American lives is it going to "cost" before we decide enough is enough. They (the local people) apparently dont want our help any further. Lets give them what they seem to want. Remember Mogadishu? The internal "civil wars" waged by various warlords? We leave now, thats what they get. I'm for staying for awhile longer. Try and establish a police presence, comprised of Iraqi's. Once thats in place, we need to get the hell out of there.
|
|
| | | 35 | James K Polk
ID: 329341615 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 17:40
|
I don't think there's any debate over whether Saddam desperately lusted after WMDs.
|
|
| | | 38 | biliruben Leader
ID: 49132614 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 18:14
|
I don't even count a million from your link, and most of those could as easily be attributed to our policies.
The Iran-Iraq war casualties are commonly estimated at around 1 million for both sides combined.
You should get your audio equipment checked or start supplying it with higher quality content.
|
|
| | | 39 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 18:19
|
Saddam was a murderous pig, but your math isn't doing you any favors. The story itself says "many hundreds of thousands of people." Going with the high estimates in every category I can find in your link:
Saddam's relatives: 40 Campaign against Kurds, 1987-88: 100,000 Chemical attacks, 1983-88: 30,000 1991 uprisings: 250,000 Children due to malnutrition: 400,000 Summary executions: 9,795
|
|
| | | 42 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 431145417 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 18:56
|
wow. the best I can come up with is a hearty "f*ck you", greg - in post 27 you give a completely unsubstantiated 'We found 20 labs designed for chemical and biological warfare development" quote, and then go on to question my "originality" (or independence) of thought two posts later. You must be one of that 65% of Americans who think that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, too.
Ugh.
Time for another sabbatical from the boards, there's waaayy too much inane and partisan sniping rearing it's ugly head again. As if there's not enough of that everywhere else today... I start to lose faith when any dissenting opinion is met with derision (a la Baldwins current "unworthy of response" kick and gregs overall GOP worship).
Have a safe and happy holiday all. See you in '04.
|
|
| | | 43 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 533817 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 19:01
|
Keep in mind that the 1991 uprising deaths can be attributed, in part, to the fact that the US encouraging said uprisings, then abandoning the uprisers and putting them at the mercy of Saddam and his henchmen.
Keep in mind that the deaths due to malnutrition can be, in part, linked to the embargo, albeit Saddam used the money targeted for humanitarian aid for palaces and mistresses. Still, the embargo caused extreme suffering among the Iraqi people.
As one of the few in this forum old enough to be of draft age during Vietnam, I clearly remember all the reasons we were given why the war was necessary. Stop the spread of Communism(terrorism) Change the political landscape of SE Asia(Middle East) Obtain billion dollar contracts for vice president's former corporation..I guess that only applies now.
|
|
| | | 45 | Tree Donor
ID: 30119419 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 20:17
|
Grew W - it's beautiful. you spew out numbers, then can't back them up. you had mis-information...you are a republican! congrats! now you too can join GW Bush's cabinent, because you've got the skills to throw out random numbers, then gloss over them...huzzah!
|
|
| | | 46 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 20:21
|
Hey, give him credit. I respect it anytime someone's willing to type out "I stand corrected."
|
|
| | | 47 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 20:37
|
I agree. And I agree with #44 as well. A dark day in the modern presidency.
pd
|
|
| | | 48 | Baldwin
ID: 10351021 Thu, Dec 04, 2003, 21:46
|
Examples of this are legion and beyond acceptance. Many Russians soldiers after WWII were sent back to certain death instead of being patriated to the west as they begged for their life.
Refuges, among them Hmong tribesmen who were special allies of the USA during the VN war, were forced from their Thai refugee camps back to certain death at the hands of Viet Nam.
Speaking of Iraq, the Kurds were repeatedly asked to help the CIA only to be abandoned to Saddam's genocides. Turkey had their own genocidal policies towards the Kurds and America needed Turkey as an ally in the cold war more they wanted to do right by the Kurds.
|
|
| | | 49 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 22:22
|
How long are dems going to beat to death the perfectly normal no bid contracts until normal bids can be made? As long as uninformed people they are hoping will vote for them will listen. Career [not political] contract specialists have testified before Congress on how and why who got what contracts [and was not NO BID, limited companies with secret clearances that DoD did business with were contacted to bid on different contracts THAT HAD TO BE IN PLACE before a war started. It was not a normal open to the public one year bid process. Kindf of like cleanup after 9/11 was not an OPEN normal bid process. Just pure BS.
The VP has no ties except for insured deferred compensation payments. I'm not even going to answer this non issue again. I've got links to Congressional hearings on the subject, etc. It is only a political rhetoric issue for the uninformed voters they are looking for.
=============
Have no idea what Kucinich is saying? Is he a real person. I take it has something to do with deaths in Iraq? 1.99/day. That's tough. War $ucks. Oh, 2.57/day was the number of military personel that died while Clinton was in office. The military is a big organization. Loses people every day.
=============
MITH - .. but I'll maintain that Bush's preventing the media to show American corpses returning from Iraq is the 'bunch of crap'. Yes, what a bunch of crap [your statement]. Just more BS. It is US government policy since 1991. TYPICAL - everything is BUSH.
But I'd have no problem with the media showing US 'corpses' returning if the media cared about the 'corpses' returning and that was why they wanted to show them. But as ex-military I do have a problem with MEDIA wanting to use pictures of 'flag draped coffins' for something other than showing respect. So I support not letting the media on bases while bodies are returned to their loved ones UNLESS the individual family asks for media coverage after the body is turned over to the family.
==============
Maybe we should start with READING the joint resolution [H.J. RES. 114] PASSED by Congress in OCT 2002 that has ALL the REASONS [maybe Sen Kerry shoud read it too, since he thinks he was misled]. Anyone that 'claims' they don't know why we went to war, is either lying, saying so for political reasons, or just ........ SINCE when was there ONLY one reason? For political reasons you can zero in on one reason that may look good for political gain now, but that's just political.
Just a few items in resolution OTHER THAN THE WMD - and at the end it covers the war powers act.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, .... to end its support for international terrorism
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security ..
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things ... supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region ..
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other [NOT AL QAEDA - for those who still think war on terror is only to punish those responsible for 9/11] international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President 'to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary.
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either
(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq [KEY - it says OR] or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
|
|
| | |
| | | 51 | Tree Donor
ID: 341135521 Fri, Dec 05, 2003, 22:39
|
Career [not political] contract specialists have testified before Congress on how and why who got what contracts [and was not NO BID, limited companies with secret clearances that DoD did business with were contacted to bid on different contracts THAT HAD TO BE IN PLACE before a war started.
it's amazing to me bids "had to be in place before a war started", yet some sort of exit strategy did not have to be in place before a war started.
it's BS.
as for the Cheney connection, you're right, there's no point in re-hashing it. why rehash something that you have no defense for?
|
|
| | | 52 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 217351118 Sat, Dec 06, 2003, 08:30
|
MITH - .. but I'll maintain that Bush's preventing the media to show American corpses returning from Iraq is the 'bunch of crap'. Yes, what a bunch of crap [your statement]. Just more BS. It is US government policy since 1991. TYPICAL - everything is BUSH
Steve, it's one thing to have a ridiculous policy on the books. It's a whole other thing to enforce it. We'd been watching caskets return home right up to the months before the Iraq invasion. Yes Steve, it is Bush. Rather disingenious of you to paint it otherwise.
Washington PostSince the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.
To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.
In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains.
A Pentagon spokeswoman said the military-wide policy actually dates from about November 2000 -- the last days of the Clinton administration -- but it apparently went unheeded and unenforced, as images of caskets returning from the Afghanistan war appeared on television broadcasts and in newspapers until early this year. Though Dover Air Force Base, which has the military's largest mortuary, has had restrictions for 12 years, others "may not have been familiar with the policy," the spokeswoman said. This year, "we've really tried to enforce it."
|
|
| | | 53 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 07:03
|
MITH - well I'm glad they are enforcing it because from your tone [and members of the media], I am glad you are not able to pay 'your respects' from the TV. Anyone that wants caskets on TV for political reasons is ........ can't find words to fit.
If this is what you guys are really worried about, wow.
And then you link to the the WASH POST. It actually has the truth hidden in the story, but still blames everything on Bush. Why not.
As you know, DOVER is the site most mentioned when the media is discussing this [where almost all military 'caskets' enter USA]. SO I STAND BY WHAT I SAID. FROM YOUR LINK - Dover Air Force Base, which has the military's largest mortuary, has had restrictions for 12 years, 2003 - 12 = 1991.
And it says "MILITARY WIDE back to 2000" [CLINTON]. So we now have a President that enforces policy that CLINTON put in place. BUT DOVER REGS GO BACK TO 1991. Always been in place at DOVER since 1991.
WASH POST even says why it wants the caskets shown in the first sentence - [so] that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.
And why do you want the caskets all over the news 24 hours a day? Same reason as WASH POST? You want on Dover AFB to see caskets, join the Air Force. Or find a soldier being laid to rest in your area and attend the service and pay your respects if you are 'really concrned' about SEEING A FLAG DRAPED MILITARY CASKET.
I'm really hearing some widespread outcry from the American people as to why they are not seeing the CASKETS on the nightly news. Makes you wonder about those that are concerned ????
It looks like the left is losing it.
|
|
| | | 54 | Tree Donor
ID: 61127610 Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 07:54
|
Anyone that wants caskets on TV for political reasons is ........ can't find words to fit.
oh. my. God.
thr reason they're NOT on TV is for political reasons. it's brilliant twisting of reality to think otherwise...
I'm really hearing some widespread outcry from the American people as to why they are not seeing the CASKETS on the nightly news. Makes you wonder about those that are concerned ????
it's called "lying by ommission" Steve. The American people deserve to know the truth, and the harsh realities of war. People die. American people die.
besides, after all, most of us have seen caskets by now, and a large portion of us have seen caskets draped with American flags. so, why now, does it matter?
politics steve, politics. that's why you're not seeing them.
|
|
| | | 55 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 08:00
|
I can't believe the left wants to use military caskets for 'politcal reasons'.
GOP fires back at Hil
[Pentagon spokeman Bryan] Whitman said closing Dover to reporters was challenged in the courts during the Persian Gulf War, but the federal courts upheld keeping the arrival of coffins away from the media.
"That has been the policy for more than a decade," he said - including when Clinton's husband was President.
Dover was closed to the public during former President Bill Clinton's administration when soldiers and sailors were brought home in coffins from Somalia and the destroyer Cole.
"The guiding principle, with regard to casualties, is that we want to respect the integrity of the families," Whitman added.
Clinton's office referred yesterday to a line from her speech.
"As Sen. Clinton said in her address, there is too much at stake to treat war as a political spin zone," said spokesman Philippe Reines.
But she wants to use the dead for political spin.
Wolf Blitzer transcript
BRYAN WHITMAN, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: That's correct, Wolf. This a policy that's over a decade old. It's a policy that has been the policy of several administrations. And it is not new.
WOLF: ........ There was deep concern at that time that those images could undermine morale on the home front. Isn't that right?
WHITMAN: Well, I don't think that's the real reason. The underlying reason is, you know, there is nothing more important that this nation can do than to honor its war dead, to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that we enjoy. Over time, though, we have determined that the most appropriate place to render those kind of honors is at the graveside. And at the graveside, because that is where family and friends, that is where members of the unit, and that's where the news media can gather together to honor these great American heroes.
[MITH - like the way this guy thinks. Go to the graveside and pay your respects]
BLITZER: Well, what would be the downside of just letting camera crews in at Dover just to see these coffins arrive ...
First of all, the mission at Dover is a mission .... ..... is a function that is clinical rather than ceremonial in function.
... this is a policy that has been challenged over the years. And the courts have had an opportunity to look at this. And they have cited some important aspects of the policy, when making their ruling and upholding the government's position. And that is, that with respect to the privacy of the families involved, and with respect to not imposing an undue hardship on families that may feel compelled if ceremonies were held to travel great differences and at some financial expense to be able to go and be part of a ceremony that they would feel compelled to be part of.
WOLF: .... at the very tail end of the Clinton administration, the Defense Department moved to expand this ban of coverage of caskets returning not only to Dover, but to all U.S. military facilities around the world. What was the logic behind that?
WHITMAN: Again, the same principles apply. First and foremost, we want to take into account the families. It is the families grieving at this time. And it is looking out for their rights and for their wishes, and for their desires.
And we think that the policy provides the type of balance. I mean, your writer there that wrote in the e-mail is absolutely correct that we need to be able to honor our veterans and those who have fallen in defense of freedom. And we believe the best way to do that though is at the graveside. And again, we do it out of a respect for the family's privacy. And because it's at that point in time in which the proper honors really can be rendered with everybody involved that wants to be involved in terms of the unit, the family, the friends.
===============
I could not agree more Bryan Whitman. Bravo Zulu to the Pentagon. Why is this the correct policy? If Hillary, MITH and tree don't like it, it has to be correct. And must be what the majority of americans would want, especially the families concerned. Want to show respect, attend a funeral or memorial service.
Or pick a charity to donate to - Combined Federal Campaign - Military, Veterans & Patriotic Service Organizations of America Federation and Member Organizations
I give to DAV, member of Fleet Reserve which has scholarships for dependents, Navy Relief [all without watching a single casket on CNN].
|
|
| | | 56 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 08:24
|
tree - no it's political spin that wants it on TV. Bunch of Sicko's. Why is it YOU that is concerned. You could care less. Except .... Spin it all you want. Everyone knows.
Nothing is being ommitted. You get your numbers every night on the news. XX since .... We know it by heart. And you can attend any service you want IF YOU WANT TO SHOW RESPECT. But I don't think you give 2 cents. SO IT'S POLITICAL. The Bush administration is showing respect for families [like Clinton did].
The word I was looking for was 'disgusting'. Just needed you to post to think of it.
Politics, politics tree, that's the digusting reason YOU want to see them.
I am glad you will not get your way.
I could care less what you want to see on a military base. Join the military. Or get one of the families you want to show respect for to take you on base. If you want to see a casket to SHOW RESPECT, I'm sure you can find a way.
tree - "besides, after all, most of us have seen caskets by now, and a large portion of us have seen caskets draped with American flags. so, why now, does it matter?" - well, you tell me. WHY DOES IT MATTER TO YOU?
Let's have some more spin. Because you 'really' care? You want it for the others, so they will 'really care'. Right. Attend a service.
|
|
| | | 57 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 08:45
|
tree - when did you finally realize you were missing out on all the deceased military returning to the USA for the last 12 years? When did it become important to you? When some democrat thought this would be good political spin? Or the WASH POST told you to be concerned. Or I guess it was Dennis who woke you up. I never heard you ask before for coverage of ALL deceased military returning to the states. Or are you just interested in those returning from IRAQ for some reason. Iraq? Wonder why?
Maybe I missed you asking to see those from Afghanistan? Or the USS Cole [there was some president named Bill that was ignoring terrorists back then - those bodies might have been bad for Clinton and Gore - right before an election. Did you want to see those return? I didn't. And I didn't call the DNC asking if they could get coverage on CNN either. Why? Because I don't need to see a casket on CNN to show respect for those who give their lives serving their country.
But then I'm not a desperate democrat who is paranoid about Bush being president. Keep digging deeper and deeper and try and sound like you reeeeeeaaaaaaaly care.
|
|
| | | 58 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 217351118 Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 09:52
|
Steve 53 MITH - well I'm glad they are enforcing it because from your tone [and members of the media], I am glad you are not able to pay 'your respects' from the TV. Anyone that wants caskets on TV for political reasons is ........ can't find words to fit.
My tone? If anyone is doing anything for "political reasons" around here, it's you in post 53. Let's look at my tone in every word I have said in this thread and here at Rotoguru on the subject. It won't take up much space so it shouldn't be too hard to measure my tone:Post 10: but I'll maintain that Bush's preventing the media to show American corpses returning from Iraq is the 'bunch of crap'.
Post 52: Steve, it's one thing to have a ridiculous policy on the books. It's a whole other thing to enforce it. We'd been watching caskets return home right up to the months before the Iraq invasion. Yes Steve, it is Bush. So to sum up, in my initial response to the ad, I addressed the first (and only well-taken) issue within it. And then I didn't breach the issue again, until you called me on it. One would think that if I were so bent on seeing the issue propagandized, I'd have made a bit more of a stink.
So please explain to me how exactly this is so scathing a critique that it is a sure sign that I am only interested in expoliting the images of our dead defenders of freedom. Please, explain to me how the above is any more scathing language than you might use when speaking out aganst a policy or action you resent. This is an extremely serious charge, one that I take more seriously than being called unpatriotic - something I also took very seriously and was called numerous times at this forum before and in the early stages of the war - EVEN THOUGH I SUPPORTED IT. So what do I do? Should I go fishing around for recent and similarly structured posts from you and other posters so that I may prove myself innocent of your charge? I'm reminded of an Open Letter to Paul Krugman that you linked and pasted last month.
That's quite a "Type M" argument you've formulated against me with surprisingly little to go on, there steve. I didn't offer an explanation of my position on this matter. Who in the hell are you to assert what my motivations for my position are? My suggestion to you is to heed the advice that you so strongly supported less than a month ago, unless you are happy to continue to eat your own foot, @sshole. .................................................
And then you link to the the WASH POST. It actually has the truth hidden in the story, but still blames everything on Bush. Why not.
As you know, DOVER is the site most mentioned when the media is discussing this [where almost all military 'caskets' enter USA]. SO I STAND BY WHAT I SAID. FROM YOUR LINK - Dover Air Force Base, which has the military's largest mortuary, has had restrictions for 12 years, 2003 - 12 = 1991.
And it says "MILITARY WIDE back to 2000" [CLINTON]. So we now have a President that enforces policy that CLINTON put in place. BUT DOVER REGS GO BACK TO 1991. Always been in place at DOVER since 1991
And it says "MILITARY WIDE back to 2000" [CLINTON]. So we now have a President that enforces policy that CLINTON put in place. BUT DOVER REGS GO BACK TO 1991. Always been in place at DOVER since 1991.
The Post article reads says "Pentagon spokeswoman said the military-wide policy actually dates from about November 2000 -- the last days of the Clinton administration -- but it apparently went unheeded and unenforced, as images of caskets returning from the Afghanistan war appeared on television broadcasts and in newspapers until early this year.
I did not deliberately misreprent the article. I am every bit as disappointed in Clinton over this as I was/am with President Bush. Further, had I been aware of this ban during the Afghan war I would have commended Bush for not enforcing the ban at that time. Of course, he would have undermined that credit anyway by enforcing it as soon as he led us to a far less popular war. Given that I don't believe I actually saw any exploitive images of returning caskets by the media (as you charge they were seething for a chance to show), I guess we'll chalk this up as a pre-emptive strike against the media?
WASH POST even says why it wants the caskets shown in the first sentence - [so] that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.
And why do you want the caskets all over the news 24 hours a day? Same reason as WASH POST? You want on Dover AFB to see caskets, join the Air Force.
Wow, if you are a man of any character, you should be highly embarrassed by your words here now. LOL, what would Arnold Kling say? But since this is about as close as you'll come to genuinely asking me to state my position I'll do so, even though you seem perfectly happy to tell the world what it is for me.
As a general position, it's political censorship. Even if the media is exploiting such images (were they? I sure didn't think so (but then again, I'm an exploiting propagandizing pinko-peacenik--weenie)). The government should not be able to simply ban all coverage as they have. Simply put, America has no choice but to trust her media and if the government decides otherwise, what are we left with? Obviously, we can't have Geraldo Rivera running around Iraq drawing spewing military secrets to the masses on live TV, but keeping America reminded of the real cost of war as that expense comes home does not make isn't quite the same. Banning such images is a disservice to the American people who need to be reminded of that cost, and it does a disservice to our enlisted and the risk they accept in order to defend us.
Realistically, the images of flag covered caskets have become much more potent since the advent of television. Pictures of anything in a newspaper or in Time and Newsweek do not carry the weight of watching and hearing a ceremony play out in front of you. Well today, conservatives are fond of pointing out that the most watched television news source is one that aligns itself with them. So let them do their jobs.
|
|
| | | 59 | Tree Donor
ID: 61127610 Sun, Dec 07, 2003, 13:11
|
|
|
| | | 60 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 21:58
|
Maybe we can get some cute animation for these dead.
Everytime I hear someone say we had no "right" to go into Sadaam's Iraq without someone else's say so, I think of these things. Until the Left adopts this cause as the victory for humanity that it is, they will have little to no room to speak of any moral causes or human rights.
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 22:08
|
Given that Saddam was given a free pass by the last Republican President, and everytime the last Democratic President did anything he was assailed by the Right for doing so only to prop up his poll number, I'm not seeing many clean hands on the Right side of the aisle.
I suppose you'll also be loathe to look to the Right for "moral causes" or "human rights" for its support of a wide range of questionable characters?
Came across this editorial from 1998, which might seem dated but seems to hit on some nice points.
pd
|
|
| | | 62 | j o s h
ID: 101156818 Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 22:18
|
the last Democratic President did anything he was assailed by the Right for doing so only to prop up his poll number
I seem to remember hearing it was to divert attention away from his private's life. Although I suppose it could be one in the same.
|
|
| | | 63 | Tree Donor
ID: 361115822 Mon, Dec 08, 2003, 23:30
|
impressive...in just a few months, the "war effort" managed to kill about 13,000 Iraqis - roughly 20 percent of what Saddam killed in 23 years.
about 25 percent of those killed were non-combat civilians. so, let's see....approximating 3,500 in 6 months, give us 23 years and we'll top Saddam by a cool 100,000...
that's what i think of when i think of us over there. i think of the thousands of dead iraqis and the hundreds of dead coalition soldiers that are on the hands of this country.
|
|
| | | 64 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:03
|
MITH [58] - you think it's political sensorship? Sensorship would be not releasing the names, numbers, etc of casualties in Iraq.
Not sure where to start.
Are you saying, post [10] was nothing - "I'll maintain that Bush's preventing the media to show American corpses returning from Iraq is the 'bunch of crap'." I called your statement a "bunch of crap" - where did I think of those words. And I still think rightfully so. If you disliked the GOV's policy that has been in effect since 1991 at DOVER and siad that, I might have said I disagree MITH, I don't think anyone has a right to view someones son or husbands casket return to the USA. Exceptions should be made on an individual basis or at the request of the immediate family. I made one little response to your comment in a long post [49] [basically copying your comment].
And in post [52] you linked to WASH POST as some type of 'evidence' to show me it was ALL Bush because you stated, "We'd been watching caskets return home right up to the months before the Iraq invasion. Yes Steve, it is Bush. Rather disingenious of you to paint it otherwise."
I am glad to see that you are now "every bit as disappointed in Clinton over this as I was/am with President Bush. Further, had I been aware of this ban during the Afghan war I would have commended Bush for not enforcing the ban at that time." - you again pretty much make my point. Until media or democrats made a political issue out of caskets, you did not even know or even care. But your first comment was BIGGEST BUNCH OF CRAP. So you went from not caring to this is the BIGGEST BUNCH OF CRAP .... . And you question why it made me 'wonder' about motives of those writng about this in the press or those posting? And talk about TYPE M - you didn't question the policy, questioned motives of Bush.
You want to talk about my TYPE M RESPONSE - I am not a Princeton professor writing for the NY Times, so if I act like Paul Krugman here in response to Krugman type posts, so be it.
Finally, when we are talking about military caskets and the Commander in Chief and the subject of caskets only comes up when one side has a political agenda [if not you, you seem to have bought into it], then I take offense at the tone and at that point I could care less what anyone thinks about my tone in response. I respond. I don't start many of these agenda threads [MITH - and I know you don't either].
If I took your comments about Bush's crap and link to WASH POST incorrectly, so be it. From my point of view, it did not seem like you were disappointed with President Clinton's policy too.
|
|
| | | 65 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:14
|
MITH - and my position might be more than just militay caskets. I sometimes have a problem with the media in general when they are covering 'funerals' [anyones casket]. Memorial services, fine.
But military touches closs to home. I have to beleive [as DOD has said] that families, OMBUDSMAN, military spouses organizations and military chaplains had input on this policy that started years ago. So I do not see it as sensorship. I see it as compassion.
If families want to invite the press to memorial services, that is great. All for that.
|
|
| | | 66 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:21
|
In many ways you are right (particularly with anything having to do with a service, such as a memorial service for a particular soldier or a service for members lost from a particular base).
And I agree that I dislike the way the media treats it. But I also realize at the same time that it is news. And I also realize that this Administration simply lacks the ability to make decisions that do not have a political component. I do not blame them for this (they are, after all, politicians!) but this decision to enforce the rule at this point in time was not made to give the families privacy. It was made to give Bush political cover.
pd
|
|
| | | 67 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:26
|
BTW, I'd love Sludge to comment, if he could, on the methodology used in the survey for the link in #60.
pd
|
|
| | | 68 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:36
|
Tree - you claim Saddam only killed 65,000 Iraqi's in 23 years [20% of 65,000 = 13,000]. Can't think, can't do math.
300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves
that's what i "think" of when i think of us over there. i "think" of the thousands of dead iraqis and the hundreds of dead coalition soldiers that are on the hands of this country. The left's position. LEt Saddam alone, he's not that bad a guy. They were his people.
And then there is the 500,000 that dies 'because of sanctions' that turned out to have died because Saddam used oil for food money on palaces and had vaccines horded up in warehouses to only be used for friends.
So you can blame these 500,000 that some groups blames on sanctions on Saddam too.
These type of arguments are why Dean and dems are going to go nowhere in the short term. No matter what you say in your haste to attack Bush because of hate, when it is examined closely, it makes it look like you would prefer that Saddam still be in power. And the massive deaths to contiinue, just so you can have more social programs at home. Compassionate liberals. Is that a joke. Compassion for themselves only. And that does not sell with thinking America.
|
|
| | | 69 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:41
|
In another words, 13,000 'may have died' [have not digested 'the report'] in the short term so that close to a million have a chance to live over the next 23 years.
I can see where that suks if it takes money out of liberal programs and costs them ploitical power. YES, that's what I'd be thinking about too tree when blasting the USA and Bush. Makes me real sure we need someone you support in the White House. :)
|
|
| | | 70 | Sludge Leader
ID: 2210372916 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:48
|
Four things that jump out immediately that would concern me that are really interrelated (in addition to the reasons already given in the story):
1) Says it has a >90% response rate, an absurdly high percentage. Pollsters here would kill for that. (Am I still allowed to use "kill" in that context?) Even though the nonresponse rate was so low, you have to examine why someone wouldn't respond. If there was a consistent reason for the <10% to not respond (for example, a very large number of them are very pro-Saddam or, conversly, the deaths of their family members is too painful for them to talk about), then that could serve to significantly bias the results.
2) Would anti-Saddam folks have significant motivation to inflate the numbers of dead relatives or to invent dead relatives? If you're pro-Saddam, it's kind of hard to deflate your number because of that pesky hard floor of zero.
3) What was the makeup of the population pre- and post-military action? Has it changed significantly? Have a significant number of Saddam's loyalists/supporters been driven from Baghdad? How has the population changed since the military action? If the 6.39 million is current, then it doesn't much matter, but if that is from a pre-war census, how much has that number changed?
4) Finally, if someone just didn't answer the door, were they considered a nonresponse? Or was a nonresponse just someone that answered the door but refused to answer questions? It would seem to be a no-brainer, but the story indicates that a nonresponse is someone who didn't agree to participate. If that's the case, then that 90% response rate is inflated.
|
|
| | | 71 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:50
|
sludge [70] - thanks for your initial analysis of the 'report'. I think I'll pass on further review of it and save some time.
|
|
| | | 72 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 00:54
|
The whole household could have been wiped out as well. Hard to answer if you're all dead.
It would be interesting to see whether the wording was tight - whether they defined household and stressed they were only interested in cohabitants.
If my brother down the block had been killed, I might be tempted to say yes to the question - have the world acknowledge his death even though he didn't technically live with me.
Doesn't really matter to me, however. If he killed 10,000 or 100,000 he was still one bad dude.
|
|
| | | 73 | Tree Donor
ID: 1111196 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 07:08
|
Tree - you claim Saddam only killed 65,000 Iraqi's in 23 years [20% of 65,000 = 13,000]. Can't think, can't do math.
Steve - i'm starting to wonder not if you DO read, but if you CAN read.
1. i didn't claim ANY of that - it was from MBJ's link.
2. the article MBJ linked to referred 65,000 dead IN BAGHDAD.
dude, work on the reading comprehension part - it's pretty key when trying to digest information.
and to clarify - there is no doubt that Saddam was "one bad dude"...but everyday more-and-more U.S. and coalition soldiers are dying, and there has GOT to be a better way.
do i know that better way? no. but i'm not the one who our children into iraq without having one clue how to get them out.
|
|
| | | 74 | Sludge Leader
ID: 2210372916 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 09:13
|
It may be a cold hard fact of life, but you can't equate one death to another as if they're on the same financial balance sheet.
|
|
| | | 76 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 09:57
|
Edited for grammar and other mistakes.
Steve 64 you think it's political sensorship? Sensorship would be not releasing the names, numbers, etc of casualties in Iraq. No, the ban is censorship.Main entry: 2censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ Date: 1882 : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable It seems rather clear to me that whether or not you are in favor of the ban, a President who enforces it does so because he believes coverage would be otherwise objectionable. And frankly steve, I still stand by my "bunch of crap" statement as far as the policy itself is concerned. If you feel that this statement of mine is more crap, then so be it, I'm not surprised and I certainly am much more interested in your opinion of why than I am in your assessment that this position of mine comes from some desire to exploit our dead soldiers as propaganda - which of course is a completely unsubstantiated attack on my personal character. But then, so be it, right? It's nice to have an accurate guage for where I stand with you.
Until media or democrats made a political issue out of caskets, you did not even know or even care. But your first comment was BIGGEST BUNCH OF CRAP. So you went from not caring to this is the BIGGEST BUNCH OF CRAP .... .
Well, I didn't know, so I certainly could not have known to care. And for whatever it's worth, the "biggest bunch of crap" statement wasn't actually my words. That gets attributed to GregW. For some reason he has since removed all his posts from this thread, but a quick look at post 10 should make it clear that I was simply using his own words in my response to him. Not that I didn't mean it at the time, but I probably wouldn't have phrased it quite that way. To be honest, I really don't see what the big deal is about that sentence of mine. I thought it was Bush's policy and I called it a bunch of crap. I expect you would refer to something you understand to be a left-imposed policy that you don't like in similar fashion. Considering what you've shown yourself willing to say and attribute to me, it doesn't seem like you are one to hold many punches when discussing issues you feel strongly about. Perhaps I should look up some old threads to see how you might have commented on some of Clinton's policies that you may not have favored.
And you question why it made me 'wonder' about motives of those writng about this in the press or those posting?
Uh, no. Interesting choice of words, tho. You most certainly did not "wonder" about my motives. I would have been happy to explain myself if you wondered aloud or asked about my motives. You could have then responded to my explanation with why my position was flawed and we could have come to some level of understanding. But instead, you attempted to brand me, and did so in no uncertain terms:
well I'm glad they are enforcing it because from your tone [and members of the media], I am glad you are not able to pay 'your respects' from the TV. Anyone that wants caskets on TV for political reasons is ........ can't find words to fit.
Maybe it's me, but there doesn't appear to be much in the way of "wondering" in there. I'm curious, how do you typically respond to such charges?
And talk about TYPE M - you didn't question the policy, questioned motives of Bush.
Well, one of us seems to misunderstand what Kling means by "type M argument". It's type M to assert upon the subject some ignoble or malicious motives. From the Kling piece:A hypothetical example of a Type M argument would be, "People who want to get rid of the minimum wage are just trying to help the corporate plutocrats." .......................................... Type M arguments are about the alleged motives of individuals who advocate policies. So I implore you, show me where I have made any alegations regarding President Bush and this policy, besides the mistake on my part of simply attributing the thing to him.
OK, there is this much from my own post 58: Further, had I been aware of this ban during the Afghan war I would have commended Bush for not enforcing the ban at that time. Of course, he would have undermined that credit anyway by enforcing it as soon as he led us to a far less popular war.
There's a type M accusation, I suppose. But I'll be damned if it isn't a very strong one. Care to make a case that your argument for me being a dead-GI-exploiting-SOB is as strong as mine that says that Bush is more willing to let the media show our returning dead in a popular war than he is in an unpopular one?
Finally, when we are talking about military caskets and the Commander in Chief and the subject of caskets only comes up when one side has a political agenda [if not you, you seem to have bought into it], then I take offense at the tone and at that point I could care less what anyone thinks about my tone in response.
Apparently.
|
|
| | | 77 | Deadeyes
ID: 198319 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 11:15
|
someone's got to die for freedom. Who is it going to be: YOU TREE, YOU PERM DUDE, YOU, you you you you. Dont mess with the power.
|
|
| | | 78 | Deadeyes
ID: 198319 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 11:19
|
... mean to say Dont mess with the power of freedom.
|
|
| | | 79 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 12:13
|
you forgot "These Colors Don't Run," and other assorted bumper sticker slogans....
|
|
| | | 80 | Sludge Leader
ID: 25919714 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 13:17
|
And of course Tree has never been guilty of using slogans.
|
|
| | | 81 | biliruben Leader
ID: 49132614 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 13:18
|
...unless he's chasing rock-wielding palestinian children with a tank.
|
|
| | | 82 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Tue, Dec 09, 2003, 14:07
|
hey, let that be a lesson to you - don't throw rocks at people in tanks. that's just plain stupid.
|
|
| | | 83 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 108231015 Wed, Dec 10, 2003, 09:05
|
Interesting interview with the new RC Bishop of Kiruk
Bear in minf that the church capaigned against the invasion of Iraq; if only the Western Left could realize what the Bishop does:
Q: How is life today in Iraq?
Bishop Sako: Saddam had transformed Iraq into an enormous military barracks. Two wars and 12 years of embargo resulted in a mass exodus of Iraqis abroad and a million deaths.
Today the people are happy about the change, the renewed possibility of freedom. In a few months, 80 new parties were formed, five of which are Christian. Freedom of press made possible the opening of dozens of new newspapers. Of these, six are Christian. There are also some Christian TV broadcasts originating in Mosul.
All this was not possible under Saddam!
Q: But the price of all this was a war.
Bishop Sako: Yes, but the target was not the civilians.
Q: You defend what the Americans did.
Bishop Sako: I am not trying to say that they are angels! They have their interests; they came to Iraq for that reason, not to free the Iraqis. But the fruit is, in fact, liberation.
Q: It is feared that Saddam's men are still in circulation.
Bishop Sako: There are no longer any people tied to the dictator. There are instead Arab combatants that entered Iraq, paid by the fundamentalist movements of neighboring nations or even by their respective governments
|
|
| | | 84 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 111131108 Wed, Dec 10, 2003, 09:32
|
someone's got to die for freedom. Who is it going to be: YOU TREE, YOU PERM DUDE, YOU, you you you you.
Then surely you're going to enlist, deadeyes.
|
|
| | | 85 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Wed, Dec 10, 2003, 09:43
|
Ahh, I knew you couldn't stay away that long.
|
|
| | | 86 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 111131108 Wed, Dec 10, 2003, 09:45
|
*laughing*
|
|
| | | 87 | John Budge Donor
ID: 51042247 Wed, Dec 10, 2003, 11:05
|
Let me know when we find the WMDs.
|
|
| | | 88 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Wed, Dec 10, 2003, 16:44
|
Hey, I was in Air Force ROTC ya grunt.
|
|
| | | 89 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 01:07
|
NO TREE - I responded to WHAT YOU SAID.
tree [63] impressive...in just a few months, the "war effort" managed to kill about 13,000 Iraqis - roughly 20 percent of what Saddam killed in 23 years. YOU DIDN'T SAY BAGHDAD.
MITH [76] - Until this point I have this to say. ................ yada.
OK, this point. Finally, when we are talking about military caskets and the Commander in Chief and the subject of caskets only comes up when one side has a political agenda [if not you, you seem to have bought into it], then I take offense at the tone and at that point I could care less what anyone thinks about my tone in response.
Apparently. [I'm glad you agree] and followed in [65] MITH - and my position might be more than just militay caskets. I sometimes have a problem with the media in general when they are covering 'funerals' [anyones casket]. Memorial services, fine.
But military touches closs to home. I have to beleive [as DOD has said] that families, OMBUDSMAN, military spouses organizations and military chaplains had input on this policy that started years ago. So I do not see it as sensorship. I see it as compassion.
If families want to invite the press to memorial services, that is great. All for that. I see no comment about that post, so I'm not sure what your feelings are about the families rights [or privacy].
If you don't like it, fine, but show me anything where it is your right to have camera's at DOVER AFB for YOU. You know how many people are dying, so that is not censored. You can call it censorship if you like. I don't care. Like I said, unless a FAMILY asks for live coverage, I do not see it as YOUR RIGHT. I'd call it a 'privacy issue'.
|
|
| | | 90 | Tree Donor
ID: 121101019 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 07:06
|
If you don't like it, fine, but show me anything where it is your right to have camera's at DOVER AFB for YOU.
do you need me to post the entire Constitution for you, or since it's fairly irrelevant to the Bush regime, does it render it irrelevant to you?
or, if you prefer, we can stop after the First Amendment.
|
|
| | | 91 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 07:09
|
ummm...sorry, but if the 1st Amendment is your claim of "right" - then you never had one. You don't have a "right" to watch caskets come off of an airplane any more than you have a right to watch me take a leak.
|
|
| | | 92 | Tree Donor
ID: 121101019 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 07:25
|
i don't have the "right" to watch caskets. but there sure is the freedom of press to take the pics...that's who's rights are being trampled on.
|
|
| | | 93 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 108231015 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 07:48
|
Nope. They don't have the right to watch me pee either.
|
|
| | | 94 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 10:08
|
apples and oranges. apples and oranges.
|
|
| | | 95 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 16:08
|
Steve 89
.......... yada
Fair enough, Costanza.
But military touches closs to home. I have to beleive [as DOD has said] that families, OMBUDSMAN, military spouses organizations and military chaplains had input on this policy that started years ago. So I do not see it as sensorship. I see it as compassion.
I'd like to see some evidence of that. Most of what I have read ties the first Bush's ill-timed press conference regarding our involvement in Panama in 1991 which unfortunately happened at the same time as the first dead Americans were returning to Dover from that same conflict. TV news stations ran a split screen showing Bush hamming it up (making light of his difficulties with a stiff neck with a 'duck-walk', I read recently) in one pane and the Dover event in the other. The White House supposedly expressed considerable outrage over the coverage. While I certainly feel that outrage is warranted, its also a serious gaffe on the part of whoever scheduled that presser. Understand that the media most certainly planned on covering the two events before they were aware that they would happen simultaneously. In 1991, satellite feeds had to be booked further in advance than today and uplinks took considerably more time and effort to coordinate. Bailing out of one event or the other live would have meant wasting thousands of dollars already spent in preparations, and also surrendering to their competetors' superior coverage of the two simultaneous notable live events, while the more ethical option forced a network to choose just one. The media most certainly handled it unethicly, but really, that type of coverage was predictable. The White House should have forseen this and postponed the President's presser.
I wonder if there was any calling for the banning of coverage before that presser.
I see no comment about that post, so I'm not sure what your feelings are about the families rights [or privacy].
I've never lost someone close to a military conflict, so there could certainly be issues here I'm not considering, but I don't see how it's a privacy issue in the least. Those caskets are anonymous. So exactly what families' rights are you citing? I'm open to the possibility that you can enlighten me here. But I'll need to hear a solid explanation for how solemn, respectful coverage of our returning dead (admittedly, a split screen also featuring a Presidential newser regarding the same conflict that these GIs are returning from is anything but respectful) is a violation of these families' rights.
|
|
| | | 96 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 16:24
|
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT [other than to keep saying the media has a right, but saying it does not make it true] from [#55]... closing Dover to reporters was challenged in the courts during the Persian Gulf War, but the federal courts upheld keeping the arrival of coffins away from the media.
If the media had a right, the dems and press would not be crying about it, they would be taking the pictures.
But go ahead - find it in the Constitution for me where the press has a right to take pictures of caskets any time, any place they want.
FAMILIES privacy protected.
....... some media and other organizations challenged this policy, claiming the First Amendment allowed them access to Dover. However, the courts supported the policy, and in 1996 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the decision.
The court's decision was based on reducing the hardship of families and friends of the deceased, who may feel obligated to travel great distances to attend arrival ceremonies if such ceremonies were held, Falk said.
"To expose a loved one's casket or themselves to the media is a '180' from the respect that we owe that family," she added.
FAMILIES 'PRIVACY' RIGHTS SUPERCEDE THE MEDIA 'FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHTS
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT!!!!!
"It's a time of grief, of loss. The families are in shock, in disbelief," she added. "Over the years, the families have told us that their privacy is very important. They don't want to see on TV a casket that might contain their loved one's remains before they've had a chance to grieve."
Out of respect for families' privacy, defense officials do not allow arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Dover Air Force Base or Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, or any other site where remains are transferred.
All four service branches participated in the formulation of this policy, said Mark Ward, senior policy advisor for casualty, mortuary and funeral honors. "It was based solely on protecting and keeping the considerations and concerns of the families," he said.
DOD LINK
|
|
| | | 97 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 16:34
|
"find in the Constitution"....when a guy says this, you know he's run out of steam on an argument. Sorry Steve, but if this is the standard you are using, find it in the Constitution that the government can bar the public from the caskets coming in the first place.
|
|
| | | 98 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 17:12
|
But go ahead - find it in the Constitution for me where the press has a right to take pictures of caskets any time, any place they want
are you f*cking kidding me? find it in the Constitution where you're allowed to walk down the street, or type on a computer or eat tv dinners or fart in the privacy of your own home...jeez louise....
|
|
| | | 99 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 17:26
|
wait---we're allowed to fart?
|
|
| | | 100 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 17:35
|
Damn, you're right!
|
|
| | | 101 | biliruben Leader
ID: 49132614 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 17:37
|
How long have you been holding that, PD? Hopefully not since the Patriot Act was, er... passed, for you family's sake.
|
|
| | | 102 | James K Polk
ID: 329341615 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 17:39
|
You're only allowed to fart if you don't believe in global warming, though.
|
|
| | | 103 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 18:52
|
find in the Constitution"....when a guy says this, you know he's run out of steam on an argument
WTF? When someone, as did tree, says they (or the press) has a Constitutional right to do something - it not unreasonable at all to ask them to demonstrate that right. Is it in the Constitution? Is there some caselaw that interprets the Constitution that way?
Nope. tree just baldly asserts it and you guys act like SteveH is off base to ask him to back up his assertion with some fact. It's not a right, it's not in the Constitution and there's not any caselaw. Tree was dead-ass wrong in his statement - if that's cool with PD and JKP - then fine - but don't act like Steve's off base for calling him on it.
|
|
| | | 104 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 19:46
|
There is a Constitutional right to a free Press, but the mechanics of that (or any other minutia having to do with the actual practice of those rights) are not spelled out in the Constitution.
It's like me asking sarge where in the Constitution it says he can blow away a home intruder. It doesn't. The point is, of course, that the Constitution be the complete record for how rights are administered in this country.
pd
|
|
| | | 105 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 19:50
|
Nobody disputed the freedom of press. tree asserted that he (then changed it to the press) had a Constituional right to see coffins come off a plane. Neither he nor the press has that right.
|
|
| | | 106 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 20:03
|
He could, of course, only see the caskets through the press, through the administration of their free access to information. As could the community from which those soldiers are drawn. I'd think a community would be very interested in seeing their local boys come home in a draped casket, but could only do so through the Press.
What is in dispute is whether their constitutional right to access outweighs the privacy of the families meeting those caskets. There is no dispute that they have a Constitutional claim, only whether it outweighs the privacy claim. "Constitutional right" does not mean "clear and unfettered right"--all rights are in balance.
Since the right of the Press exists in order to afford people the right to information which is critical to government, the claim of the Press in this particular case seems particularly strong, since the Administration's application seems timed in order to preclude information critical to itself.
Now, I don't know that it trumps the right of families to privately claim their loved ones caskets. But I believe there is less of a claim on their part if they are not seen, or if the caskets are not identified. The ban seems far too broad, IMO.
pd
|
|
| | | 107 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 20:25
|
Freedom of the press doesn't (or at least shouldn't) confer any rights on reporters not enjoyed by the general public. It's a right to report what you see (in this case) not a right to go anywhere you want.
Toral
|
|
| | | 108 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 21:22
|
The general public cannot go into a number of areas the press can, Toral. War fronts. Presidential press conferences. Sold-out sporting events.
Indeed, the whole notion of "accreditation" relies upon the idea of access not given to the general public.
I'm sorry, but I have to reject the thought of reporters being unable to access areas the general public cannot. It simply isn't practiced. And I think the Press would find it very difficult to uncover government doings if they were held to that standard.
pd
|
|
| | | 109 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 21:30
|
War fronts. Presidential press conferences. Sold-out sporting events.
All because they were invited (/allowed). Not because they have a Constitutional Right to be there. If they did, they wouldn't need an invitation.
Toral
|
|
| | | 110 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 21:32
|
Indeed, the whole notion of "accreditation......
You're really mixing your argments to the point of making me dizzy, PD. Accreditation and sold out sporting events have zilch to do with the right of free press granted in the First amendment. Sorry but your way wrong here and, I think, a bit confused, by the crap you here on the news. (A lot of people think the press has some holy First Amendment right to not reveal their sources too. That's why reporters go to jail when they exercise it - they get bad info in journalism school and spew it on the news)
The right granted in the first amendment has to do with publishing - not access. If the press had photos of the coffins - absoltely they could publish them. However, the press has no more Constitutional right to go places than does you or me. (And regardless of whatever they taught JKP in newspaper school.
|
|
| | | 111 | James K Polk
ID: 329341615 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 21:57
|
I was a lit major.
|
|
| | | 112 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 22:06
|
:)
|
|
| | | 113 | James K Polk
ID: 329341615 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 22:07
|
And if you're talking about constitutional rights, then yes, we are not granted greater freedom of access. If something takes place on public property, or in a publically accessible place, we ought to be allowed to cover it.
|
|
| | | 114 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Thu, Dec 11, 2003, 22:12
|
PD 97 I saddened by your comment. :) You cannot run out of steam against a tree argument. He makes it too easy. And sporting events and presidential press conferences ..... in a discussion about viewing caskets?
AGAIN, show me where I am wrong. Not, YOU DON"T LIKE IT or IT IS YOUR RIGHT. When you go to court you have to use the Constitution or case law to prove you have the right. I said the Courts upheld the governments Constitutional right to not allow cameras for family privacy. I JUST ASKED SHOW ME.
BUT NO! My argument has lost steam. Let's see. Who is not watching caskets on TV? Whose argument has lost steam? Case Law says NO RIGHT.
============
tree 98 - now that is a statement from someones argument that has run out of steam [or never had any]. I need to reprint this sewction just for the laughs:
are you f*cking kidding me? find it in the Constitution where you're allowed to walk down the street, or type on a computer or eat tv dinners or fart in the privacy of your own home...jeez louise.... - Are you f*cking kidding me? That's the best you can do? Keep your day job if you were planning on a career as a stand up comedian. :):)
|
|
| | | 115 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 00:31
|
Toral, so the government should invite the press in, is that your understanding of the freedom of the press? Note that I did not say the Press does not have limits, but a free people need to enjoy free access to information, even information which can be politically damaging to the Administration.
MBJ, I did not, of course, say anything about journalists protecting sources. Perhaps you have gone astray yourself?
Steve: They were just examples. But I certainly believe that the government keeping the public completely away from images of returning dead soldiers is prior restraint (heck, it's practically the definition). Images of returning caskets is also the very definition, for many conservatives, of how we "lost Vietnam." Given the efforts to spin the media reporting as much as possible, the blanket ban is much like any other zero tolerance rule: Designed to shield the wielders from having to think.
Nonethless, it's important not to distort my position: I don't believe the Press can go and do anything without limit (sorry Mr. P). As Earl Warren put it in a mid-1960s case upholding a U.S. ban on travel to Cuba, “The right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.” [italics mine]
pd
|
|
| | | 116 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 14826271 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 08:44
|
the government keeping the public completely away from images of returning dead soldiers is prior restraint (heck, it's practically the definition)
No. Maybe in your own lexicon; but, again, First Amendment prior restraint refers to a prohibition on publishing, not access. If you don't want to ubderstand, that's fine. But the gov't keeping reporters off of a miltary airbase has nothing to do with First Amendment prior restraint.
BTW, "gone astay". No. But your insistance on believeing the myth that the press has some inalienable right to back stage passes everywhere brought to mind the other myth, asa an aside. That's why I put the comment in (), 'cause it was parenthetical to the discussion.
|
|
| | | 117 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 09:35
|
If you don't want to ubderstand...
...your insistance on believeing the myth...
Feeling a bit sharp this morning?
Sorry we disagree, and more sorry that I seem to have insulted you in doing so. I've re-read my posts, and have nothing to add to them: One can't publish without access to the news. And any rights (Constitutional or no) are in balance with others. Insulting thoughts when spoken aloud, it appears.
pd
|
|
| | | 118 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 108231015 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 10:34
|
Come on PD. Disagreement, even calling your (in this case, tree's) position dead wrong, doesn't mean I'm being "sharp" and I know you know that.
I really don't know if the press should be taking pictures of those caskets. I just know they don't have a Constitutional right to do it.
|
|
| | | 119 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 10:43
|
As I pointed out myself, MBJ, I don't know either--in fact, I was just about to ask if Steve knew the procedure there (are the families there, maybe in a viewing area? Are the caskets identified at all?).
"If you don't want to understand" however, is a sharp phrase, unworthy of your usual posting style and level.
pd
|
|
| | | 120 | Toral Sustainer
ID: 2111201313 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 13:45
|
I believe the problem may arise, PD, because you don't distinguish between what the free-press guarantee has been understood to mean, both in jurisprudence and history, and what it should mean. If you want to take the position that the guarantee should extend to this situation, at least presumptively, subject to a balancing test, fine; that's your interpretation of the Constitution. But it hasn't been understood that way in law or history. To me, it seems like a prototypical example of the liberal approach: if I think it's a good idea, it must be in the Constitution somewhere, and I'll find some place to shoehorn it in.
I note the policy itself was universally panned on the comment shows over the weekend. My solution is to let the next of kin decide for each soldier. If we're talking about moral (not legal) "rights", I think the next-of-kin has a much higher standing than the "public's need to know".
Toral
|
|
| | | 121 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 14:05
|
And you certainly might be right--I'm not disagreeing with the balance being tilted in the favor of the family, particularly when they (and the soldier) can be identified.
On the flip side, I don't see a privacy issue at all when soldiers or family members are not identified.
pd
|
|
| | | 122 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 15:16
|
PD - one of the other reasons given is the families would feel compelled to come to Dover [or point of entry] if it was covered on TV. Dover is a mortuary. It prepares the bodies for release to family. The remains are then taken [and accompanied] to whatever funeral home the family desires.
From DOD link in post #96. =============== The Carson Center [DOVER] is a mortuary, Falk said, and it is inappropriate for media to be at a mortuary.
"The mission of a mortuary is to prepare remains with dignity, care and respect," she added. "If we expose that process to the media we lose that."
The court's decision was based on reducing the hardship of families and friends of the deceased, who may feel obligated to travel great distances to attend arrival ceremonies if such ceremonies were held, Falk said.
... Falk added that until the remains go through "a very careful, methodical process," it is not known whose remains are in which casket [I do not think this is normally the case - PD: I am sure in most cases there is a tag on each flag drapped casket identifying remains - which are verified at Dover and prepared for shipment to family]. "It's unfair to ask a family to go through this when you don't have 100 percent identification," she said.
============ [But usually the remains are not ready for release or shipment to the family].
|
|
| | | 123 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 141046261 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 15:22
|
Thanks, Steve. It's better to know the background on these things. I appreciate the insight.
pd
|
|
| | | 124 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300 Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 17:28
|
PD - I looked and it appears families would have to travel to point of entry at own expense [with assistance and coordination of a CAO/CACO]. Dependants are authorized travel on normally scheduled Military Transport Aircraft. I do not remember ever seeing any arrangements made by CAO/CACO officers for families wanting to meet remains at point of entry when I stood duty as CNO Area Rep for the Casualty Assisatnce Program. But I am sure some families do.
Some interesting reading if you do searches for [did not link because there were numerous items]
Military or Army or Air Force Casualty Assistance Officer [CAO in Army & Air Force] [Program]
Military or Navy or Marine Corps Casualty Assistance Call Officer [CACO in Navy & Marine Corps] [Program]
|
|
| | |
| | | 127 | Baldwin
ID: 20337320 Sat, Apr 10, 2004, 13:18
|
For those who just gotta see caskets and pictures of human remains, Iraq is the place.
|
|
| | |
| | | 129 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 17:56
|
How cheerful you must have been after finding that pic Tree. Eureka!
|
|
| | | 130 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 17:59
|
Baldwin, i wasn't looking for it. but government censorship is news...
|
|
| | |
| | | 132 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 13:06
|
Now that the Dover photos are out, I'm curious about some of the opinions that were expressed way back when, when there was a debate on the boards over whether they should be kept out of the public's sight. I know steve houpt was a passionate believer in not releasing the photos, but I'm not sure he's around the boards much now.
So for anyone else who didn't support releasing these photos, do you think they are disrespectful, or an invasion of privacy? Do you think they are simply intended to stir up antiwar sentiment?
|
|
| | | 133 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:07
|
Their release was of course intended to stir up anti-war sentiment. I expect the release at the same time as the news of the Tillman death will do the exact opposite.
|
|
| | | 134 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:10
|
The release by whom, Baldwin? The government? The media? I saw those photos all over supposed right-leaning media. You're arguing that the reason that Matt Drudge and FOX News Channel bombarded us with them was to stir up anti-war sentiment?
|
|
| | | 135 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:16
|
I am speaking of the motives of the women who got fired for doing so. I am correct on that and it's been posted in this forum. Do I really have to dig it up again?
|
|
| | | 136 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:26
|
No, I believe I heard the same. So what? My point is that her intentions aren't the issue. Did you think that the media's use of the photos was disrespectful to the families of the fallen soldiers? Was it an invasion of their privacy?
|
|
| | | 137 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:27
|
The motives of the woman who provided the photo in post 128? You're wrong.
|
|
| | | 138 | sarge33rd
ID: 16329266 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:34
|
indeed JKP. The photos were NOT taken for political purpose, in that the intent had nothing to do with stirring up much of anything. That is, outside of a sense of empathy for the families. The photo was taken because the woman in question, found the sight to be a stirring one. A sentiment, I would have to agree with.
In answer to MITH's question, No. I do not find the photos offensive. No names are included to ID the fallen. They are (in terms of the photo), anonymous personnel. I fail to see how I can be insulted, when I am not identified.
|
|
| | | 139 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:38
|
...[They] say their decision to go public had nothing to do with politics.
But it turns out that four years ago the duo, Tami Silicio and Amy Katz, sued Halliburton, then run by Vice President Dick Cheney, naming Cheney in the suit. __________________________________________________
Radio host Siegel said on Friday that the Katz-Silicio lawsuit against Cheney raises questions about the politics behind the casket-photo story, saying the two women likely had an ax to grind against the Bush administration.
He also chastised the press for not noting the Katz-Silicio lawsuit, asking, "What does that say about the Seattle Times, which printed the photo without doing any investigation?"
Ms. Katz insisted last night that neither she nor Silicio had any political motivation, telling MSNBC that they thought publishing the photo was a good way of honoring the fallen troops.
She admitted, however, that she has retained an agent to help sell the casket photo, with the proceeds to be divided between charity and a fund to help pay Silicio's debts in the wake of her firing. If you believe the action was not meant to harm the Bush/Cheney war effort I have a bridge to sell you.
|
|
| | | 140 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:41
|
I don't have a blanket position on the use of the photos however. If it was done to make the sacrifices those boys made futile then that would be disprespectful in the extreme but I am sure not every report had that thrust.
|
|
| | | 141 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:53
|
but I am sure not every report had that thrust.
This indicates that you felt there was a strong presence of such a thrust. Or is that not how you are leaning?
|
|
| | | 142 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 14:57
|
Knowing how liberal the media is, I have no doubt many reports were intended to fuel the 'let's cut our losses and run like little girls' POV which makes the sacrifices those boys made less than worthless.
I of course can't monitor every report.
|
|
| | | 143 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:03
|
Interesting. I'd beinterested in seeing some mainstream reports that used the photos to further that POV. How about just one?
|
|
| | | 144 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:09
|
First of all, it's false on its face to say the Seattle Times printed the photo without doing any investigation. I've read plenty on the process they went through in making the decision to run the photo.
Second, did you read what Silicio's lawsuit was about?
"Tami Silicio drove a truck for the company, which she noted is traditionally a male profession. When she refused sexual propositions from co-workers, they started calling her names like 'bitch' and 'whore,' according to a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
"Additionally, the coworkers told her 'you should be at home pleasing a man and not at work trying to be one.' After reporting this to upper management, she was fired in retaliation, according to the complaint." So your argument is that because she filed this lawsuit over her firing and sexual harrassment four years ago, she now can't possibly be honest when she says she thinks this photo honors our war dead? Wouldn't that be kind of like arguing that it's impossible for George W. Bush to have decent intentions in Iraq, because he has an ax to grind from the early 90s?
Nobody has come out and disputed any of the current descriptions of Silicio as one who has great respect for U.S. soldiers and their families. Bringing up an unrelated lawsuit from before the war is a classic smear. And the way Newsmax reported it is classic Newsmax (which is also to say "classic smear.") Notice how the characterization of the suit goes from "sued Halliburton, naming Cheney" to "complaint against Cheney's company" to "lawsuit against Cheney."
I think you are the gullible one on this, Baldwin.
|
|
| | | 145 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:12
|
I may when I have the time. I would however point out how sure Tree is that these photos made that point. Why were liberals clamboring for these photos? It's obvious.
|
|
| | | 146 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:13
|
I'd be curious how she feels about her son joining the marines. The reports haven't said.
|
|
| | | 147 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 15:21
|
Well, her son says she'll be proud of him. Do you have any reason to doubt him?
When you get around to doing your research, there's plenty of links to start from here. Be sure to hit this link, which will give you a list of places that ran the photos front-page.
I've been reading plenty on this Baldwin, and I just don't think your assumptions match up with the reality of coverage. The photos are solemn, respectful, dignified. The coverage has reflected that.
|
|
| | | 148 | sarge33rd
ID: 16329266 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 17:55
|
...and I just don't think your assumptions match up with the reality...
Nothing new there though, is there really?
|
|
| | | 149 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, Apr 26, 2004, 21:09
|
I'm sure most of them are careful. Being obviously disrespectful would be a real broadcasting third rail. I am also sure most of them share the feelings of NPR which has been beating the retreat drums as hard as they can since the beginning.
|
|
| | | 150 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Tue, Apr 27, 2004, 10:39
|
I am also sure most of them share the feelings of NPR which has been beating the retreat drums
If you mean to accuse the media of wanting to see the US pull out of Iraq, I don't understand where you are getting this. I don't believe I've noticed any mainstream outlets implicitly (or otherwise) in support a pullout. Even most leftist columnists that have commented on the issue have made clear that they don't support a pullout. In fact, I can only think of a handfull of recognizable people that espouse leaving Iraq, and none of them is taken any more seriously than Dennis Kucinich.
|
|
| | |
| | | 152 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 14:27
|
This is 'respectfully' banging the retreat drums. You can't call them on it but if they had their way they'd make every one of those deaths go for nothing.
|
|
| | | 153 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 15:17
|
Baldwin: our resident thought-cop.
|
|
| | | 154 | bibA Donor
ID: 261028117 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 15:53
|
So Baldwin - Why do you think they believe as they do? Stupidity? Love of terrorists? Death wish?
|
|
| | | 155 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 18:01
|
Instapundit on Nightline...I'LL NEVER TRUST NIGHTLINE AGAIN -- because its producer, Leroy Sievers, claims to be unaware of when ratings sweeps take place:Koppel, also in the announcement, acknowledged that Memorial Day might have been "the most logical occasion" to do the program. Ya think?
"But we felt that the impact would actually be greater on a day when the entire nation is not focused on war dead," he said.
Ah yes, and, of course, Memorial Day falls outside the May sweeps, when viewer levels are used by the networks to set advertising rates. Memorial Day is also traditionally a day of very low television viewing. He forgot to mention that stuff.
Sievers and others we spoke with at ABC News insisted they did not realize that the May sweeps start tomorrow. - WP
So Nightline is staffed by either clueless idiots unfit to work in TV, or by shameless liars who think we'll fall for anything. Which is it?
Who cares? - Instapundit
|
|
| | | 156 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 18:02
|
bibA
Start a thread on it. It's a good question.
|
|
| | |
| | | 158 | Tree
ID: 403512920 Thu, Apr 29, 2004, 22:54
|
Sinclair Stations to Boycott 'Nightline' Tribute
the only people who think this is a bad idea are those who are fearful that the American public might actually see a light switch flicker on when they realize that there are names to go along with the numbers.
i mean, while we're at it, why don't we knock down the f*cking Vietnam Vet monument in D.C. - i mean, we don't need to know their names, don't we?
get real people...
|
|
| | | 159 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Mon, May 03, 2004, 16:16
|
Koppel to Read Names of Saddam's Victims
(2004-04-30) -- ABC-TV journalist Ted Koppel, who caused a firestorm of controversy with his plan to read the names of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, today announced that in the interest of balance and fairness next week he will read another list on his show, Nightline.
"I would never want anyone to accuse me of bias. After all, I'm a journalist, devoted to accurately portraying world events," said Mr. Koppel. "So, next week I will read the list of Iraqis who were raped, tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein's regime after President George H.W. Bush declared victory in the Gulf War on February 28, 1991."
Mr. Koppel said next week's Nightline will be a "special extended episode starting Friday and running non-stop until the day I retire from ABC." -
Scrappleface
|
|
| | |
| | | 161 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519 Mon, Jan 09, 2012, 05:43
|
Tony Blankly, dead at 63. From 1990 to 1997, he served as press secretary and general adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ultimately earning a reputation among political friends and foes as one of Washington’s most genial, quick-witted and effective operatives.
Mr. Gingrich, campaigning in New Hampshire on Sunday for the Republican presidential nomination, called his former press secretary a “very dear friend” and a key part of the team behind the 1994 Contract With America.
“His father had been the accountant for Winston Churchill. Tony grew up with this deep passionate commitment, that I think he got from his dad, for freedom,” Mr. Gingrich said. “Tony was a very special person. He was more than a great professional. He was a great human being. He was a caring and loving person. He was a tremendous amount of fun, remarkably erudite and educated.”
Born in London, Mr. Blankley became a naturalized American citizen after his parents moved to California after World War II. As a child, he acted in such television shows as “Lassie,”“Highway Patrol” and “Make Room for Daddy,” and appeared in movies with such stars as Humphrey Bogart and Rod Steiger.
He met Ronald Reagan at a 1950s-era USO performance and later volunteered to work on all of Reagan’s campaigns for governor and president.
A Loyola Marymount University law school graduate, Mr. Blankley later served six years in the Reagan administration in a variety of positions, including speechwriter and senior policy analyst. He also spent 10 years as a prosecutor with the California attorney general’s office.
Mr. Blankley joined the staff of John F. Kennedy Jr.’s George magazine as a contributing editor before taking over The [Washington] Times‘ editorial section in 2002. His clear simple and surefooted writing revealed his mastery of political analysis.
How does one family figure in the lives of Winston Churchill, Reagan and Gingrich [at the peak of his influence]? Remarkable good fortune, humble, pleasant, a character of integrity in all aspects of life as far as I can tell.
|
|
| | | 162 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Mon, Jan 09, 2012, 10:30
|
Sad. Didn't know he was sick.
|
|
|
|