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


Did FDR great every body bag brought back from Germany? The south
Pacific?

Dave

JohnH wrote:

What is wrong with my suggestion that the funerals be televised?

Nothing at all. What I see as wrong is your cynical use of the hiding of
those deaths for your own political purposes.

This is the first time in US history that the news media has been
prohibited from covering a poignant and powerful symbol of American
military "sacrifice." Bush Sr. used the image of those caskets to
bolster his image. Did you protest then?

Bush followed every hearse after 9/11, he reveled in the images of death
until the dead of Afghanistan began to haunt his polls. Bush now fears
the power of the images of those caskets.

Is it that most families would not allow the media to do so?
Could it be that privacy is desired?

Are you speaking for them now? Those aircraft discharging their sad
cargoes at Dover are national symbols. Each individual funeral is a
local tragedy. They are covered locally, as they should be.

You are being disingenuous at best and more than a little hypocritical.
You wrote nothing here to complain of the scenes at WTC, you wrote
nothing to to complain of the scenes of dead Iraqis, Africans, so why
the sudden moral conversion when it comes to supporting the chimp's
cynical prohibitions at Dover, prohibitions imposed solely to protect
his political poll standings and diminish the negative impact of his
failed policies abroad.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in your position then you are truly blind.

Rick

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:10:10 GMT, bb wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 08:11:17 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

Your desire that caskets be shown to
Americans, who don't understand or appreciate death, would be accomplished.

Speak for yourself. I think Americans understand and appreciate
death.

bb
Read the entire thread, please. You need to send this to Harry and jcs.

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

"jps" wrote in message
...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...

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.

It's a hell of lot different to eat packaged beef and witness the feed
lots
and slaughter houses. You'd like for everyone to have a nicely packaged
product that hides the hideous realities of war.

Shame on you for signing onto this disgraceful practice of hiding the bad
news.

Doesn't surprise me.



I did not see a lot of cameras at Travis AFB when 50,000 dead came home from
South East Asia under a Democrat President. Where was your indignation
then. And they came home in an aluminum casket.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:18:26 GMT, Rick wrote:

JohnH wrote:

What is wrong with my suggestion that the funerals be televised?

Nothing at all. What I see as wrong is your cynical use of the hiding of
those deaths for your own political purposes.

This is the first time in US history that the news media has been
prohibited from covering a poignant and powerful symbol of American
military "sacrifice." Bush Sr. used the image of those caskets to
bolster his image. Did you protest then?

Bush followed every hearse after 9/11, he reveled in the images of death
until the dead of Afghanistan began to haunt his polls. Bush now fears
the power of the images of those caskets.

Is it that most families would not allow the media to do so?
Could it be that privacy is desired?

Are you speaking for them now? Those aircraft discharging their sad
cargoes at Dover are national symbols. Each individual funeral is a
local tragedy. They are covered locally, as they should be.

You are being disingenuous at best and more than a little hypocritical.
You wrote nothing here to complain of the scenes at WTC, you wrote
nothing to to complain of the scenes of dead Iraqis, Africans, so why
the sudden moral conversion when it comes to supporting the chimp's
cynical prohibitions at Dover, prohibitions imposed solely to protect
his political poll standings and diminish the negative impact of his
failed policies abroad.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in your position then you are truly blind.

Rick

Ricky, Ricky. I have not established a position. I have simply provided
alternatives and questions. You, et al, are all worked up (like a superball
bouncing off walls) about the lack of media coverage of arriving caskets. You
are the one with a political agenda. I am the one providing you with an
alternative -- televise the funerals! You'd get more tears and heart-rending
stuff to make Americans who (unlike you) don't appreciate death enough (assuming
they exist, which is your basic requirement).

I have no political purpose in hiding deaths. Show the funerals!

Did Bush really follow over 2000 hearses after 9/11? I didn't remember that.

You asked if I protested Bush Sr's use of caskets to "...bolster his image". No,
I did not protest because the action did not occur. I am not protesting now. You
are.

I asked the question, "Could it be that privacy is desired?" You somehow turned
this into me speaking for families. I simply asked a question. The families can
speak for themselves. I haven't heard any of them complaining of the lack of
media coverage of their deceased relatives' caskets arriving at Dover. Have you?
Shouldn't they be doing the ****ing and moaning since they're the ones who
suffered the loss?

No, I wrote nothing to complain of showing dead anybody! You, et al, are the
ones doing the complaining. I am just responding to it with reasonable
suggestions and alternatives, which you seem disinclined to address.

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of televising
funerals very tasteful?

Now, go and have a good day.

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

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:10:10 GMT, bb wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 08:11:17 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

Your desire that caskets be shown to
Americans, who don't understand or appreciate death, would be
accomplished.

Speak for yourself. I think Americans understand and appreciate
death.

bb
Read the entire thread, please. You need to send this to Harry and jcs.

You've been thoroughly exposed by Rick. You're hiding behind propriety as a
reason for not exposing the deaths of Americans. Your reasons are as
political as mine.

The problem is, you want to hide and I want to expose. Which of those
traits is more honest? Which of those serves America best?

Konservatives want to expose America to the travesty of 911 and hide them
from the horrors of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Democrats want to expose both.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news
I did not see a lot of cameras at Travis AFB when 50,000 dead came home
from
South East Asia under a Democrat President. Where was your indignation
then. And they came home in an aluminum casket.

Weak argument. I recall seeing actual footage of fighting on the evening
news and plenty of caskets coming off planes.

I was a teenager and plenty indignant!!!

Calif Bill wrote:

I did not see a lot of cameras at Travis AFB when 50,000 dead came home from
South East Asia under a Democrat President. Where was your indignation
then.

There was more than enough indignation to go around. There wasn't much
need for cameras there, the pictures were already taken in the jungle
while the blood was still flowing, and on the airfields where the bags
were stacked. There was little left to hide.

The military and the president(s) knew they had failed and were at least
looking for a way out. They weren't honorable enough to just walk away
and admit their failure and their complicity but, like GW Bush, they
were willing to kill as many Americans as it took to make themselves
look good until they could escape their responsibility.

This time Bush is trying to hide the fact that there is any blood
involved at all. He still believes he can distance himself from the
meaning of those "transfer cases."

The *******s haven't even got the guts to call them caskets.

Rick

JohnH wrote:

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of televising
funerals very tasteful?

Now, go and have a good day.

Let them eat cake, eh?

Your response is that of a patronizing and empty fool. You and your ilk
have no shame.

Rick

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:40:31 GMT, Rick wrote:

JohnH wrote:

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of televising
funerals very tasteful?

Now, go and have a good day.

Let them eat cake, eh?

Your response is that of a patronizing and empty fool. You and your ilk
have no shame.

Rick
Rick, you apparently didn't get my complete post. If you can't address the whole
thing, which I can understand, at least don't snip the hard-to-answer stuff.
Here, just in case you missed it:

Ricky, Ricky. I have not established a position. I have simply provided
alternatives and questions. You, et al, are all worked up (like a superball
bouncing off walls) about the lack of media coverage of arriving caskets. You
are the one with a political agenda. I am the one providing you with an
alternative -- televise the funerals! You'd get more tears and heart-rending
stuff to make Americans who (unlike you) don't appreciate death enough (assuming
they exist, which is your basic requirement).

I have no political purpose in hiding deaths. Show the funerals!

Did Bush really follow over 2000 hearses after 9/11? I didn't remember that.

You asked if I protested Bush Sr's use of caskets to "...bolster his image". No,
I did not protest because the action did not occur. I am not protesting now. You
are.

I asked the question, "Could it be that privacy is desired?" You somehow turned
this into me speaking for families. I simply asked a question. The families can
speak for themselves. I haven't heard any of them complaining of the lack of
media coverage of their deceased relatives' caskets arriving at Dover. Have you?
Shouldn't they be doing the ****ing and moaning since they're the ones who
suffered the loss?

No, I wrote nothing to complain of showing dead anybody! You, et al, are the
ones doing the complaining. I am just responding to it with reasonable
suggestions and alternatives, which you seem disinclined to address.

What position am I so hypocritical about. Do you not find the idea of televising
funerals very tasteful?

Now, go and have a good day.

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