Bush hides the bodies. Where's the outrage?

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 60
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Existence I used to agree with you, soldiers are nothing more then trained killers. An army guy was the one who convinced me of this. But now the US armed forces are more involved in peacekeeping, and less in war.



    Second, the blame for Iraq is squarely in Washington. Troops follow orders. Period. Some of them are probably just there to pay for college. I am most likely going to join the armed forces to pay for my college education. I don't believe in war except in the most dire circumstances, such as fighting Hitler or defending countries that truly need help. I do not support just saying we'll help them..cough..Liberia. or only fighting countries for ulterior motives, like in Iraq and most other wars the US has engaged in.



    South America is the next stage of war. They are as poor as anywhere and we are royally screwing the lower Americas. There again peaceful solutions would be cheaper and actually work. Namely, admitting America has a drug problem, and treating it with rehab and other domestic programs. cough Rush cough...



    I don't see how any of this material in this thread is new. We all know what Bush is doing. It's just whether you agree with it or not. The American professor in my cold war politics class mentioned that in the Gulf of Tonkin we were lied to...what showed up on the radar after the "attacks" were flying fish. He claimed this wasn't lying, however. Just politics. He said we need to be lied to sometimes. Conservatives...
  • Reply 42 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kraig911

    keyboardf12 i know that you can look through the majority of news websites.. and what now.. but don't you question the validity of the press of this? I mean why would they release such a thing? the timing? the press especially AP is out to deconstruct this war... but please don't be fooled by spin.



    its as if the liberal media is looking for reasons I mean they just don't like it plain and simple why do they not understand its falling upon deaf ears.




    kraig. i just don't agree with anything you mentioned above. there is no liberal media. I am sorry to say. and I do not mean diresepect in this case but the vast majority of times people are seeing what the are conditioned to see. Believe what they want to believe.



    Some media leans left. Some media lean right. But the vast majority of the media is simply guided by the bottom dollar and laziness.



    Someone on this boards once called the LA times a "democratic propaganda machine" during the arnold/recall period.Simply because of the timing of their story on arnold's serial sexual batteries.(Of course if ahnold never did those things there would be no story.)



    Yet this same LA Times broke the story of troopergate during the clinton white house. Was the LA times part of the "conservative" media when they went after clinton? Then suddenly changed their stripes to go after ahnold?



    Was it the media that put those 16 words in the state of the union? Was it the media that disallowed any CIA intellgience up to the start of the war that did not show Iraq to be part of terrorism? Was it the media that blames the sailors of the USS Lincoln for the mission accomplished sign?



    Finally, Was it the media that outed the wife of a CIA agent last summer, potencially endagering lives or national security?



    So the media can not report on any "bad" stories during a war? Or is it that any "bad" story during the war is part of a "liberal media agenda"? (To say nothing of the fact that not only would USA Today be part of the liberal media, but also those interviewed in the story.)



    Using that same logic that means the press could NEVER report on anything remotely "bad" during a time of war.They could never show the effects and cost of war such as the caskets of the dead returning home.(wait we can't see this and thus this thread)



    We would then cease to have a free press and instead just another propaganda machine. Is this what we want?



    The messenger brought these messages. People do not like to hear that their government can lie and do bad things.Break the mold. The vast majority of media is owned by 5 greed corps. that put the welfare of themselves ahead of you and I. Let's start looking at it from that angle.



    To move the thread back:



    Why was this policy only enforced on the eve of the iraq war?



    The answer seems drenched in politics. Where's the outrage?
  • Reply 43 of 60
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by liquidh2o

    No but we did sign a contract that says we will serve in peace time and in war and will obey and abide by the commands of the Chief of Armed Forces.



    And by your reasoning you're saying we shouldn't have a military.




    Right. Someone forgot to take their anti-crazy pills when he said that.
  • Reply 44 of 60
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    If the soldiers who died in Iraq were actually fighting for their country, you would have a point there.



    It's not like they are allowed to just not go fight if they disagree with the conflict. Stop punishing them for the choices of their commanding officers. Seriously.
  • Reply 45 of 60
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by The General

    I hope you get beat up in the street.





    That's the difference between people like me and people like you. I vehemently disagree with the sentiment expressed by Existence but I also do not wish harm onto him because he has expressed such thoughts.



    I hope you have a happy life. I disagree with you but I still hope you have a happy life.
  • Reply 46 of 60
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Don't be so obtuse. I know you were referring to the soldiers (and them not being worth honoring because they fight, etc). However, that doesn't mean that their families are not involved in this discussion. The government not allowing the dead to be honored properly, by definition, brings the families into the discussion.



    Indubitably.
  • Reply 47 of 60
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    It's not like they are allowed to just not go fight if they disagree with the conflict. Stop punishing them for the choices of their commanding officers. Seriously.



    Hang on there....if there's any blame to apportion for this godawful mess without end, lay it on politicians, the commander in chief, and his generals. Everybody knows that the troops at the dangerous end signed up for the task of defending America, and have no choice but to carry out orders. Even if the reasons for the job they are doing are outside of, or extra to "defending America", as is the case in the Iraq war, the troops still have to carry out those orders. Your conclusion to my statement is twisted wildly beyond relevance!
  • Reply 48 of 60
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    dbl post
  • Reply 49 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Liquid, uh, that's almost total bollocks.



    You quote 'media' that says the fallen died for something they didn't believe in. During the war, that never happened. Simple. End of story. Not even al-Jazeera said that. End. Of. Story. Just your fantasy media. The media was embedded up tha wazzoo.



    When did the media put nice big letters above corpses (the corpses that never made it onto TV due to Gummint diktat) saying people died for Bush's lies? Didn't happen. Hasn't happened. Your fantasy.



    ... and you go from those fantasies to say "That's the media of which you speak" (if I may improve your grammar). But what media is that exactly? Socialist Worker newspaper maybe. Fox News or the BBC, I think not.



    You're saying you'd rather have restrictions on what can be reported so that some non-existent section of the media can't misrepresent it. Frightening.




    this is pathetic, closed minded thinking. You really think you read every newspaper and magazine that comes out?

    You really think negative things have not been said towards bush and our military after Operation Iraqi Freedom?



    To quote your saying "Your Fantasy." Until you can grow up and stop being so narrow minded, you're being ignored.



    And just an insiders tip. I'm in the military, so yes i get the privelage(disprivelage, your call) of seeing and hearing about this SHIT every day. I've been there, I've seen what goes on, i've been spat on, and i've been cheered for. And i've been here in the states, and see what gets reported.



    Can you honestly say the same?



    Yeah.
  • Reply 50 of 60
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by liquidh2o

    this is pathetic, closed minded thinking. You really think you read every newspaper and magazine that comes out?

    You really think negative things have not been said towards bush and our military after Operation Iraqi Freedom?



    To quote your saying "Your Fantasy." Until you can grow up and stop being so narrow minded, you're being ignored.



    And just an insiders tip. I'm in the military, so yes i get the privelage(disprivelage, your call) of seeing and hearing about this SHIT every day. I've been there, I've seen what goes on, i've been spat on, and i've been cheered for. And i've been here in the states, and see what gets reported.



    Can you honestly say the same?



    Yeah.




    Listen GI Joe, I know for a fact that negative things were said about Bush and the operation.



    I also know that the media in this war was the most controlled of any war of the modern era, with the freedom of reporting the most circumscribed since the invention of the radio. To think any different is fantasy. Saving Private Lynch for God's sake: you don't still believe the Pentagon version of that do you? And tell me, which version do the masses belive in? Which of the 'liberal' TV networks tell this incident the way it happened?



    On this fundamental point you are just wrong. I've given you a specific example, now you give me one where the major TV networks and radio stations have twisted the truth. You're in anti-liberal La-La Land: fantasy.



    I didn't read every paper or watch every TV programme, just the mass media, who were controlled very effectively. It may upset you that there was a tiny amount of media not reporting the stories the way the White House wanted, but WE CALL THAT DEMOCRACY and I believe that's what the damn war was about.
  • Reply 51 of 60
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    but WE CALL THAT DEMOCRACY and I believe that's what the damn war was about.



    Democracy? Would that be reason #11?
  • Reply 52 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Listen GI Joe, I know for a fact that negative things were said about Bush and the operation.



    I also know that the media in this war was the most controlled of any war of the modern era, with the freedom of reporting the most circumscribed since the invention of the radio. To think any different is fantasy. Saving Private Lynch for God's sake: you don't still believe the Pentagon version of that do you? And tell me, which version do the masses belive in? Which of the 'liberal' TV networks tell this incident the way it happened?



    On this fundamental point you are just wrong. I've given you a specific example, now you give me one where the major TV networks and radio stations have twisted the truth. You're in anti-liberal La-La Land: fantasy.



    I didn't read every paper or watch every TV programme, just the mass media, who were controlled very effectively. It may upset you that there was a tiny amount of media not reporting the stories the way the White House wanted, but WE CALL THAT DEMOCRACY and I believe that's what the damn war was about.




    ok mr. ignorant. Just to clarify something, and to show WHY i hate the media both ways. Jessica Lynch is the most overhyped press during this war, and wrongfully so. They turned her into a super-hero. While I respect her and consider her a hero for what she went through, what led up to her capture is another story. If you ask most people in the military, there is another story about what she did during the attack and why she survived. And mind you, the press didn't report any of it, which made me sick to my stomach.



    Especially when given the fact that people like Shoshona Johnson went through the same thing and received NO attention what so ever. And what about some of these military members who come home due to medical reasons to find themselves living on the streets now thanks to the military? Nothing reported on that either. It makes me sick to my stomach that shit goes unreported.



    Not only that, but i agree the press/media was controlled because they were embedded with us. It was done to prevent anti-american propoganda by Iraq. Now when they spewed off something saying "americans attacked innocent civilians in x scenario" the media is right there with coverage to prove this false. And in the same respect, we don't have to listen to any opinionated journalistic "i wanna win an award" crap either. They're seeing what's happening and it's being taped. It can't get any more true than that.



    But that's because i'm liberal, right? Get your story straight.



    I still firmly believe that allowing media/press to a service members burial is a disgrace to that person. They have plenty of photos prior to their deaths, why can't they use them? Why can't they let the family have a peaceful burial? Those are the points i'm arguing. Now tell me again why you're calling me an ingrate liar?
  • Reply 53 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Listen GI Joe, I know for a fact that negative things were said about Bush and the operation.



    I also know that the media in this war was the most controlled of any war of the modern era, with the freedom of reporting the most circumscribed since the invention of the radio. To think any different is fantasy. Saving Private Lynch for God's sake: you don't still believe the Pentagon version of that do you? And tell me, which version do the masses belive in? Which of the 'liberal' TV networks tell this incident the way it happened?



    On this fundamental point you are just wrong. I've given you a specific example, now you give me one where the major TV networks and radio stations have twisted the truth. You're in anti-liberal La-La Land: fantasy.



    I didn't read every paper or watch every TV programme, just the mass media, who were controlled very effectively. It may upset you that there was a tiny amount of media not reporting the stories the way the White House wanted, but WE CALL THAT DEMOCRACY and I believe that's what the damn war was about.




    What networks tell it like it happen? None of them. Nothing was reported on how a marine convoy got carpet bombed by its own forces. Nothing got reported about the medical conditions people are now experiencing while being over there, and the military's reluctance to do anything about it. Nothing was reported about Shoshona Johnson or any other captor's during the war.



    I don't base my opinion on any network/media. I base it on what I saw and through others who were there with me.
  • Reply 54 of 60
    remind me again who that reporter was reporting spin against america and then was dismissed? And not only that, almost everything he said was false, and opinionated?



    Is that not media spin at its best?



    and if you meant GI Joe as an insult, i consider it more of a compliment



    You stay here and keep posting, and i'll keep working to protect your ability to do that. 8)
  • Reply 55 of 60
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by liquidh2o

    remind me again who that reporter was reporting spin against america and then was dismissed? And not only that, almost everything he said was false, and opinionated?



    Is that not media spin at its best?



    and if you meant GI Joe as an insult, i consider it more of a compliment



    You stay here and keep posting, and i'll keep working to protect your ability to do that. 8)




    We're actually close in opinion I think. I called you GI Joe because you pissed me off, but I actually have a million times more respect for you then the arseholes that would spit on brave people doing what they're told. And yes, protecting me (apart from Iraq, when our leaders have made the world a whole lot more dangerous ... but that's another thread).



    Anyway, we both agree that there's no liberal slant in the media. The fantasy evil media would report all the bad stuff about the US army (all that carpet bombing stuff) which it DIDN'T and would debunk the Private Lynch ... again, it DIDN'T. Not liberal actions. In fact, that's what a conservative-leaning media would do. And can I point out that both of these ommissions make the US Army sound a BETTER thing then it actually is?



    I mean, how does not telling about Army screwups mean there's an anti-Army distortion going on?
  • Reply 57 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    We're actually close in opinion I think. I called you GI Joe because you pissed me off, but I actually have a million times more respect for you then the arseholes that would spit on brave people doing what they're told. And yes, protecting me (apart from Iraq, when our leaders have made the world a whole lot more dangerous ... but that's another thread).



    Anyway, we both agree that there's no liberal slant in the media. The fantasy evil media would report all the bad stuff about the US army (all that carpet bombing stuff) which it DIDN'T and would debunk the Private Lynch ... again, it DIDN'T. Not liberal actions. In fact, that's what a conservative-leaning media would do. And can I point out that both of these ommissions make the US Army sound a BETTER thing then it actually is?



    I mean, how does not telling about Army screwups mean there's an anti-Army distortion going on?




    the media isn't anti-military or pro-military. It's pro-drama->pro-ratings->pro money



    That's it. It spins whatever will give it the most drama and thus bring in viewers.



    They have pictures of the people that died over there. But if they had pictures of them after the fact, that brings more drama to the table, and that'll interest more people, and bring in higher ratings.



    I could give a hoot about whether the media is pro or anti military. I just want to know the facts, and the media isn't usually going to be the source for it.



    I think we agree for the most part, i think it just got lost in the heat of discussion.
  • Reply 58 of 60
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kraig911

    keyboardf12 i know that you can look through the majority of news websites.. and what now.. but don't you question the validity of the press of this? I mean why would they release such a thing? the timing? the press especially AP is out to deconstruct this war... but please don't be fooled by spin.



    its as if the liberal media is looking for reasons I mean they just don't like it plain and simple why do they not understand its falling upon deaf ears.




    Folks, I just want to clairfy that if conservatives say " The liberal media " enough times people might come to believe it's real. This is strictly a notion held by conservatives. The press is motivated by one thing and one thing only.......ratings.
  • Reply 59 of 60
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    WASHINGTON



    Who can blame poor President Bush? Look at his terrible dilemma.



    There are those who say the chief executive should have come out of his Texas ranch house and articulated and assuaged the sorrow and outrage and anxiety the nation was feeling on Sunday after the deadliest day in Iraq in seven months. An attack on a Chinook helicopter had killed 15 American soldiers, 13 men and 2 women, and wounded 21.



    There are those who say Mr. Bush should have emulated Rudy Giuliani's empathetic leadership after 9/11, or Dad's in the first gulf war, and attended some of the funerals of the 379 Americans killed in Iraq. Or one. Maybe the one for Specialist Darryl Dent, the 21-year-old National Guard officer from Washington who died outside Baghdad in late August when a bomb struck his truck while he was delivering mail to troops. His funeral was held at a Baptist church three miles from the White House.



    But let's look at it from the president's point of view: if he grieves more publicly or concretely, if he addresses every instance of bad news, like the hideous specter of Iraqis' celebrating the downing of the Chinook, he will simply remind people of what's going on in Iraq.



    So it's understandable why, going into his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush wouldn't want to underscore that young Americans keep getting whacked over there, and we don't know who is doing it or how to stop it.



    The White House is cleverly trying to distance Mr. Bush from the messy problem of flesh-and-blood soldiers with real names dying nearly every day, while linking him to the heroic task of fighting global terror.



    It's better to keep it vague, to talk about the "important cause" and the "brave defenders" of liberty.



    If he gets more explicit, or allows the flag-draped coffins of fallen heroes to be photographed coming home, it will just remind people that the administration said this would be easy, and it's teeth-grindingly hard. And that the administration vowed to get Osama and Saddam and W.M.D., and hasn't. And that the Bush team that hyped the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq has now created an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. And that there was no decent plan for the occupation or for financing one, no plan for rotating or supporting troops stretched too thin to guard ammunition caches or police a fractious society, and no plan for getting out.



    As the White House points out, Mr. Bush cannot fairly pick and choose which memorial services to go to, or which deaths to speak of.



    "If a helicopter were hit an hour later, after he came out and spoke, should he come out again?" Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, told The Times's Elisabeth Bumiller, explaining Mr. Bush's silence after the Chinook crash. The public, he added, "wants the commander in chief to have proper perspective, and keep his eye on the big picture and the ball."



    The ball for fall is fund-raising. President Bush has been going full throttle since summer, spending several days a week flying around the country, hitting up rich Republicans for $2,000 checks. He has raised $90 million so far out of the $175 million he plans to spend on a primary campaign in which he has no opponent.



    At fund-raisers, Mr. Bush prefers to talk about the uptick in the economy, not the downtick in Iraq. On Monday, arriving for a fund-raiser in Birmingham, he was upbeat, not somber. As Mike Allen of The Washington Post reported in his pool report, "The president, who gave his usual salute as he stepped off Marine One, appeared to start the day in a fabulous mood. . . . An Alabama reporter who was under the wing shouted, `How long will U.S. troops be in Iraq?' The president gave him an unappreciative look."



    Raising $1.8 million at lunch, he stuck to the line that "we are aggressively striking the terrorists in Iraq, defeating them there so we will not have to face them in our own country." He didn't want to depress the donors by mentioning the big news story, the loss of 15 American soldiers, or sour the mood by conceding the obvious, that the swelling horde of terrorists fighting us there will not prevent terrorists from coming after us here. Maybe we should all be like President Bush and not read the papers so we don't get worn down either.



    Perhaps the solution to Mr. Bush's quandary is to coordinate his schedule so he can go to cities where he can attend both fund-raisers and funerals.



    The law of averages suggests it shouldn't be hard.__



  • Reply 60 of 60
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Hang on there....if there's any blame to apportion for this godawful mess without end, lay it on politicians, the commander in chief, and his generals. Everybody knows that the troops at the dangerous end signed up for the task of defending America, and have no choice but to carry out orders. Even if the reasons for the job they are doing are outside of, or extra to "defending America", as is the case in the Iraq war, the troops still have to carry out those orders. Your conclusion to my statement is twisted wildly beyond relevance!



    Is Bush not a commanding officer? Are the generals not commanding officers? My conclusion is not twisted.
Sign In or Register to comment.