"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:54:07 -0500, DSK wrote:

JohnH wrote:


Much ado about nothing.

So JohnH, I assume (from something in one of your post a while back) that
you were in the military. You think it's great to have a CinC who turns his
back on
military casualties?

DSK
Yes, I was. The President is not "turning his back on military
casualties". This
is a great example of tripe developed by libs. No one could reasonably
expect
the President to welcome every plane that arrives at Dover carrying
wounded or
deceased military. He does have a few other things to do.

I'd like to hear you repeat that for a room full of ex-parents, widows and
fatherless children.

DSK wrote:
So JohnH, I assume (from something in one of your post a while back) that you were in the military.

JohnH wrote:
Yes, I was.

.....You think it's great to have a CinC who turns his back on
military casualties?

The President is not "turning his back on military casualties".

Oh, I see. What do you call it when he refuses to acknowledge them, much less to attend ceremonials in their honor?

... This
is a great example of tripe developed by libs.

Yes yes, of course.


No one could reasonably expect
the President to welcome every plane that arrives at Dover carrying wounded or
deceased military. He does have a few other things to do.

Agreed.

So how come he doesn't greet even ONE plane? Or at least acknowledge them from his busy busy desk?

DSK

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Preventing the public display for propaganda purposes of the liberals IS
treating the deceased with dignity and deserved attention. If the media
'papparazzi' (sp) need pictures of caskets, they should get permission
from the
next of kin to videotape the funeral.

Much ado about nothing.

That's why this is the first time in history this has happened, because it's
about nothing?

Should the American public be shielded from the real cost of war because
"we're fighting for a bigger purpose?"

I hope your parents weren't so calloused when you were in the military. If
my kid were shot and killed defending our country (which is why maybe the
Bush Admin. doesn't want them seen) I'd want the whole freakin' country to
see what my family had sacraficed and feel the weight of war.

Do you have children?

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:44:57 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1038394944443


This is so disappointing considering we ask our men and women in the
military to risk their lives, their limbs and their mental health fighting
on behalf of our country.

To go to war under false pretenses is one thing, to treat the men and women
who were wounded or killed with anything less than the dignity and attention
due a person in such circumstances is a travesty. The American people have
a responsibility to support these people whether it be monitarily,
emotionally or spiritually. They and their loved ones have paid a huge
price.

To sweep their tragic circumstances under the carpet is inhumane and
sickening. Shame on us.

jps

Preventing the public display for propaganda purposes of the liberals IS
treating the deceased with dignity and deserved attention. If the media
'papparazzi' (sp) need pictures of caskets, they should get permission from the
next of kin to videotape the funeral.

Much ado about nothing.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


We certainly don't want Boobus Americanus to see those bodies coming
home en masse, eh? Might make ol' Boobus question Republican
authoritarianism.

--
Email sent to will never reach me.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:21:47 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

Preventing the public display for propaganda purposes of the liberals IS
treating the deceased with dignity and deserved attention. If the media
'papparazzi' (sp) need pictures of caskets, they should get permission
from the
next of kin to videotape the funeral.

Much ado about nothing.

That's why this is the first time in history this has happened, because it's
about nothing?

Should the American public be shielded from the real cost of war because
"we're fighting for a bigger purpose?"

I hope your parents weren't so calloused when you were in the military. If
my kid were shot and killed defending our country (which is why maybe the
Bush Admin. doesn't want them seen) I'd want the whole freakin' country to
see what my family had sacraficed and feel the weight of war.

Do you have children?

I have children, one of whom is married to a soldier in Baghdad. I just talked
to her. She thinks the idea of televising her husband's return, if killed or
wounded, is sick. I agree. I sure don't recall seeing the body bags being
unloaded at Travis during the Vietnam war. What would be the purpose?

You didn't address the media getting permission from the next of kin to
videotape the funeral. Wouldn't that accomplish the same purpose, only better? I
doubt if many parents or spouses would want the funeral displayed for the
liberals benefit. But if they didn't want that, then why should the media be
allowed to violate privacy as the wounded or deceased are unloaded at Dover?

Again, much ado about nothing. The important thing is that the wounded or
deceased are given the dignity and respect they deserve. Parents and spouses
could always put the funerals on public display if they desired.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:00:31 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:54:07 -0500, DSK wrote:

JohnH wrote:


Much ado about nothing.

So JohnH, I assume (from something in one of your post a while back) that
you were in the military. You think it's great to have a CinC who turns his
back on
military casualties?

DSK
Yes, I was. The President is not "turning his back on military
casualties". This
is a great example of tripe developed by libs. No one could reasonably
expect
the President to welcome every plane that arrives at Dover carrying
wounded or
deceased military. He does have a few other things to do.

I'd like to hear you repeat that for a room full of ex-parents, widows and
fatherless children.

I have been the Survivor Assistance Officer for my share of casualties. Not one
has ever had the idea that their son's remains be met at the CONUS arrival
facility by the President. If it's such a big shortcoming, why hasn't the Senate
minority leader, Daschle, made the trip to Dover? Is he being disrespectful? He
isn't the President, or CinC, but so what? He considers himself to be a very
important person with much higher standing than the President.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:21:47 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..

Preventing the public display for propaganda purposes of the liberals IS
treating the deceased with dignity and deserved attention. If the media
'papparazzi' (sp) need pictures of caskets, they should get permission
from the
next of kin to videotape the funeral.

Much ado about nothing.

That's why this is the first time in history this has happened, because it's
about nothing?

Should the American public be shielded from the real cost of war because
"we're fighting for a bigger purpose?"

I hope your parents weren't so calloused when you were in the military. If
my kid were shot and killed defending our country (which is why maybe the
Bush Admin. doesn't want them seen) I'd want the whole freakin' country to
see what my family had sacraficed and feel the weight of war.

Do you have children?

I have children, one of whom is married to a soldier in Baghdad. I just talked
to her. She thinks the idea of televising her husband's return, if killed or
wounded, is sick. I agree. I sure don't recall seeing the body bags being
unloaded at Travis during the Vietnam war. What would be the purpose?

I do. In fact, I saw the body bags being loaded in Saigon. And showing
them on TV serves a purpose. It drives home the death and destruction
for which George W. Bush is responsible. These servicefolk are dying,
after all, because of his trumped-up war.




--
Email sent to will never reach me.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:12:32 -0500, DSK wrote:

DSK wrote:
So JohnH, I assume (from something in one of your post a while back) that you were in the military.

JohnH wrote:
Yes, I was.

.....You think it's great to have a CinC who turns his back on
military casualties?

The President is not "turning his back on military casualties".

Oh, I see. What do you call it when he refuses to acknowledge them, much less to attend ceremonials in their honor?

... This
is a great example of tripe developed by libs.

Yes yes, of course.


No one could reasonably expect
the President to welcome every plane that arrives at Dover carrying wounded or
deceased military. He does have a few other things to do.

Agreed.

So how come he doesn't greet even ONE plane? Or at least acknowledge them from his busy busy desk?

DSK

He acknowledges them every time he speaks. Your comments are bordering on, nay,
have become ridiculous.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:21:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:21:47 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

Preventing the public display for propaganda purposes of the liberals IS
treating the deceased with dignity and deserved attention. If the media
'papparazzi' (sp) need pictures of caskets, they should get permission
from the
next of kin to videotape the funeral.

Much ado about nothing.

That's why this is the first time in history this has happened, because it's
about nothing?

Should the American public be shielded from the real cost of war because
"we're fighting for a bigger purpose?"

I hope your parents weren't so calloused when you were in the military. If
my kid were shot and killed defending our country (which is why maybe the
Bush Admin. doesn't want them seen) I'd want the whole freakin' country to
see what my family had sacraficed and feel the weight of war.

Do you have children?

I have children, one of whom is married to a soldier in Baghdad. I just talked
to her. She thinks the idea of televising her husband's return, if killed or
wounded, is sick. I agree. I sure don't recall seeing the body bags being
unloaded at Travis during the Vietnam war. What would be the purpose?

I do. In fact, I saw the body bags being loaded in Saigon. And showing
them on TV serves a purpose. It drives home the death and destruction
for which George W. Bush is responsible. These servicefolk are dying,
after all, because of his trumped-up war.

Harry, you and I probably saw the same special on the Tan Son Nhut (not Saigon)
Mortuary operations. Body bags were not a nightly show on TV. Did you think what
you saw of body bags presented the deceased in a dignified manner?

Who are you (et al) to say that Americans aren't aware of the death and
destruction occurring in Iraq? Are you (et al) so presumptuous as to think that
only you can appreciate the fact of a soldier getting killed or wounded and that
other Americans must see caskets? You (et al)must hold yourself in some sort of
elevated regard if you believe that.


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:11:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:44:57 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1038394944443


This is so disappointing considering we ask our men and women in the
military to risk their lives, their limbs and their mental health fighting
on behalf of our country.

To go to war under false pretenses is one thing, to treat the men and women
who were wounded or killed with anything less than the dignity and attention
due a person in such circumstances is a travesty. The American people have
a responsibility to support these people whether it be monitarily,
emotionally or spiritually. They and their loved ones have paid a huge
price.

To sweep their tragic circumstances under the carpet is inhumane and
sickening. Shame on us.

jps

Preventing the public display for propaganda purposes of the liberals IS
treating the deceased with dignity and deserved attention. If the media
'papparazzi' (sp) need pictures of caskets, they should get permission from the
next of kin to videotape the funeral.

Much ado about nothing.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD


We certainly don't want Boobus Americanus to see those bodies coming
home en masse, eh? Might make ol' Boobus question Republican
authoritarianism.

See previous response to this ridiculous tripe.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD