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

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.

"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?

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?

"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.

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.

"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

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

"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?

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