OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

Jim wrote:

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


It's just the latest of the Bush scams to manipulate public opinion.
Hide the bodies; there are no war casualties.

--
Email sent to will never reach me.

OT I am ashamed
 

"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

OT I am ashamed
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:


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


It's just the latest of the Bush scams to manipulate public opinion.
Hide the bodies; there are no war casualties.

What about the fact that this is the continuation of a 12 year old policy?

OT I am ashamed
 

What about the fact that this is the continuation of a 12 year old policy?

???????

Clinton used to publicly meet planes carrying bodies from Kosovo. So how is
forbidding any coverage of the saddest possible consequences a continuation of
a 12-year-old policy? Is it a 12-year-old policy with 8 years off when there
wasn't a Bush in the WH?

OT I am ashamed
 

Jim wrote:

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...=25162&lang=en

We should all be very ashamed.

Rick

OT I am ashamed
 

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:56:19 -0500, Jim wrote:

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

If the televising of caskets is so important, and if the families of the
deceased servicemen/women need public exposure for some type of 'closure', then
why are all the funerals not televised? Nothing is prohibiting the networks from
televising funerals, if the families so desire. And if the families don't desire
the public viewing of the caskets, then the media should not be entitled to air
the scenes.

Much ado about nothing.

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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.

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

OT I am ashamed
 

"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.

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

"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?

OT I am ashamed
 

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.

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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.

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
What about the fact that this is the continuation of a 12 year old
policy?

???????

Clinton used to publicly meet planes carrying bodies from Kosovo. So how
is
forbidding any coverage of the saddest possible consequences a
continuation of
a 12-year-old policy? Is it a 12-year-old policy with 8 years off when
there
wasn't a Bush in the WH?

Clinton just wanted to be seen as compassionate to our service members in
the hope that it would get him re-elected.

If a policy is put into place and then ignored the poilicy still exists. I
believe that you need to look up the definition of policy.

OT I am ashamed
 

Clinton just wanted to be seen as compassionate to our service members in
the hope that it would get him re-elected.

Must have worked.

If a policy is put into place and then ignored the poilicy still exists. I
believe that you need to look up the definition of policy.

Do you believe that the "policies" of one president are automatically binding
on all of his successors? Laws are, but policies are a matter of executive
discretion.

OT I am ashamed
 

JohnH wrote:

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.

I don't recall a lot of outrage whenever the media showed bagged remains
carried past lines of workers in the WTC wreckage.

I don't recall a lot of outrage at photos of Reagan pinning medals on
the coffins of Marines at Dover.

I don't recall a lot of right wing protests at Carter, Reagan, Clinton,
or George 1st grabbing all the sad photo ops that Dover provided.

Spare us your outrage and your hypocrisy. It smells of Bush's failed
adventures and decaying jingoism.

Rick

OT I am ashamed
 

"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.

OT I am ashamed
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

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.

We're not talking about the asshole in office never attending a single
funeral, we're talking about the systematic hiding of casualties and the
poor treatment the people who've been injured in Iraq are receiving.

Our heros are second class citizens whose benefits, pay and basic humane
treatment (such as bullet proof vests) are overlooked or purposely denied by
this administration.

Shame on all of us for letting this happen.

OT I am ashamed
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

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

He avoids it like the plague. He didn't have the balls to serve out his
term in the military and he doesn't have the balls to step up and take the
heat for the death of our fathers and sons in Iraq.

OT I am ashamed
 

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

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.

We're not talking about the asshole in office never attending a single
funeral, we're talking about the systematic hiding of casualties and the
poor treatment the people who've been injured in Iraq are receiving.

Our heros are second class citizens whose benefits, pay and basic humane
treatment (such as bullet proof vests) are overlooked or purposely denied by
this administration.

Shame on all of us for letting this happen.



It's part of the Bush program of hiding from the public and hiding from
the media so the tough questions aren't asked.

We can't have the presidential doofus put on the spot, after all.

--
Email sent to will never reach me.

OT I am ashamed
 

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:51:43 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"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.

What is the difference between televising funerals, with the next of kin
permission, or televising caskets without? Your desire that caskets be shown to
Americans, who don't understand or appreciate death, would be accomplished.
Also, the dignity and privacy of the deceased and the NOK would be protected.
Seems reasonable.

I'm not trying to hide anything. I am respecting the dignity and privacy of the
deceased and the NOK. You seem hell bent on violating that privacy - turning it
into a spectacle for your (et al) own agenda.

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

OT I am ashamed
 

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:30:21 GMT, Rick wrote:

JohnH wrote:

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.

I don't recall a lot of outrage whenever the media showed bagged remains
carried past lines of workers in the WTC wreckage.

I don't recall a lot of outrage at photos of Reagan pinning medals on
the coffins of Marines at Dover.

I don't recall a lot of right wing protests at Carter, Reagan, Clinton,
or George 1st grabbing all the sad photo ops that Dover provided.

Spare us your outrage and your hypocrisy. It smells of Bush's failed
adventures and decaying jingoism.

Rick

Does my response indicate, to you, outrage? Geez, I hope I never get angry with
you guys.

What is outrageouos is your belief that only you (et a few al's) can appreciate
the death of a soldier without seeing his coffin come out the back of an
airplane.

What is wrong with my suggestion that the funerals be televised? Is it that most
families would not allow the media to do so? Could it be that privacy is
desired?

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

"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.

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

"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.

OT I am ashamed
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

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!!!

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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

OT I am ashamed
 

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