Bush hides the bodies. Where's the outrage?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Finally, someone stopped their stenographic duties for this administration:



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...opinion.dover/



The story discuss how rummy and bush JUNIOR have blocked all press and access to the servicemen and women that gave up their lives for this country in iraq.



Quote:



The scene so familiar to older Americans -- of the military honor guard in white gloves, respectfully accompanying from the aircraft to the waiting loved ones the remains of the fallen warrior in the coffin covered by Old Glory, often with a military band offering an appropriately solemn piece -- was simply banned. George W. Bush's war against Iraq could not flunk the Dover test because there would be no Dover test.



...





Where is the outrage on the part of the press? Are we lapdogs? The administration in full spin control insists that the reality on the ground in Iraq is much more positive than the press reports. Yet the administration denies reality at home -- the reality of the recent heroism of this nation's fallen sons and daughters.



By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.




In yet another act of the politicization of this war, bush JUNIOR is trying to spin the war to his advantage. Is he so afraid of support dropping that he will even hide the "fallen"? I know all he wants is for the press to mention how many schools are opening, see no evil, hear no evil. I happen to believe that if there were public homecomings it would not be hard for him to spin it into more support for cheney's war.



Of course, maybe his handlers don't want him to speak to the families since they are deathly afraid he's say something stupid. Again. and again. and again.



Say you are for the military during your presidential campaign? CHECK



Once Elected:



Cut benefits to military? CHECK

Cut salaries to military? CHECK

Worry about halburton deals before ceramic vests? CHECK

Land on a Carrier dressed up in a flight suit? CHECK

Blame the sailors for your premature "mission accomplished" sign? CHECK

Go after the wives of people that disagree with you? DOUBLE CHECK



Block all coverage of the bad things in this war? WORKING.....



Don't our families and servicemen deserve better?

Why should he be allowed to do this?



Where's the "compassion" in this "conservative"?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 60
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    You mean where's the fake outrage.
  • Reply 2 of 60
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
  • Reply 3 of 60
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Threads like these would benefit from being a bit more focused. Either on the single issue of not honoring fallen soldiers or something like the question if Bush is marketing the war communication more than usual.



    I see threads on Bush here that is no less unfocused than the right winged almost blinding hate for Clinton.
  • Reply 4 of 60
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Threads like these would benefit from being a bit more focused. Either on the single issue of not honoring fallen soldiers or something like the question if Bush is marketing the war communication more than usual.



    I see threads on Bush here that is no less unfocused than the right winged almost blinding hate for Clinton.




    Good Anders.



    Let's stay focused
  • Reply 5 of 60
    I personally would not like to see trained killers like soldiers get honored.



    A Bush administration policy I actually agree with!
  • Reply 6 of 60
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Threads like these would benefit from being a bit more focused. Either on the single issue of not honoring fallen soldiers or something like the question if Bush is marketing the war communication more than usual.



    I see threads on Bush here that is no less unfocused than the right winged almost blinding hate for Clinton.




    You're absolutely right in terms of focusing the thread. Although I think it's important that people don't equate Bush-hatred with Clinton-hatred. The two are vastly different beasts. One may argue that Bush-hatred is much more policy oriented while Clinton-hatred is more personally oriented. As you can see, keyboard disagrees with certain Bush policies, and only mildly insults his person (only a capitalized, italicized "junior"). So to even compare the right-wing's blinding personal hatred of Clinton to keyboard's relatively unfocused hodgepodge of dissatisfaction with Bush policies... is wrong.
  • Reply 7 of 60
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    I personally would not like to see trained killers like soldiers get honored.



    A Bush administration policy I actually agree with!




    These trained killers voluntarily sign up to defend our country with their lives. It is people like you who give liberals a bad name and allow people like Ann Coulter to get away with such "liberals hate our country" drivel.
  • Reply 8 of 60
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    I don't agree that there is a lack of focus underlying this thread. If Bush changed a policy of honouring, in a certain public fashion, the returning dead soldiers, I think that this is a fair topic for comment and criticism, both specific and general.



    My own take is that this change by the Admin. was intended to help ensure that the U.S. does not dwell excessively about the human costs of the war. Many in the Administration recall that such "excessive" - in their view - thought about the costs of war undermined the campaign in Vietnam, and they are anxious not to repeat that mistake.



    It should also be kept in mind that - although the Republicans take a flag-waving pro-military stand - this is a stand about the military in general, not necessarily a stand that is based on a great concern about the ordinary G.I. I think that many in the Administration feel that the general U.S. population has been too "soft" in the recent past and that there should be more willingness for ordinary G.I.s to serve and die, without much fanfare, for their country.



    Whether the Administration will succeed, in the long run, in sweeping the sacrifice under the carpet is, however, an open question. I, personally, doubt that they can.



    Also, I heard this morning that the U.S. has recently put out a web-ad to engage volunteers to serve on Draft Boards. Administration commentators have emphasized that the Boards - discontinued in the early 70s - actually started again in 1980 (under Carter, I believe) and have continued to be staffed even in the absence of an actual Draft. They say that the current engagement of volunteers is just normal re-staffing on the Boards and there are no immediate plans to reinstate the Draft itself.



    We'll see about that, however. If the occupation of Iraq continues to require vast amounts of soldiers and continues to be bloody, there could be pressure on the U.S. military. Already sign-up for U.S. Reserve forces is down. And if there would be a campaign in Syria, Iran, or perhaps even N. Korea, the Draft might be necessary very quickly.
  • Reply 9 of 60
    I truly think that he



    a) is doing a diservice to those family member and servicemen and women.



    b) I would like to hear any reasons other than the obvious as to why in the first time (ever?) did this president change the policy?



    c) But along the lines the politicalization.. i really think that a few speeches and a few funeral showings could actaully resolves the american people.



    Showing sacrfice of course has the potential to drop support in the short term but no more then lying about 16 words or using aircraft carriers for stump speeches.



    By giving more speeches that are not photo ops and instead "telling it from the heart" along with a non ban on our retuning falling has the potencial to sway the people more.



    So i ask again, why did this president change the policy?





    And what is this country saying when this admin can change the rules at Dover and the american people sit back and don't say a word.
  • Reply 10 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    These trained killers voluntarily sign up to defend our country with their lives. It is people like you who give liberals a bad name and allow people like Ann Coulter to get away with such "liberals hate our country" drivel.



    A country is nothing more than imaginary lines. And pre-emptively attacking another country based on lies is not "defense". Some pathetic sense of nationalism/jingoism is not an excuse for murder.



    Ann Coulter, as usual, misrepresents her opponents. I don't "hate" our country. No, I just don't value imaginary lines used to delineate different populations of people used as a justification to kill.
  • Reply 11 of 60
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    A country is nothing more than imaginary lines. And pre-emptively attacking another country based on lies is not "defense". Some pathetic sense of nationalism/jingoism is not an excuse for murder.



    Ann Coulter, as usual, misrepresents her opponents. I don't "hate" our country. No, I just don't value imaginary lines used to delineate different populations of people used as a justification to kill.




    The soldiers did not decide to preemptively attack another country. The blame cannot be placed on them.
  • Reply 12 of 60
    The WAPO has coverage on it now.





    Quote:

    Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins



    The photos of coffins continued for the first two years of the current Bush administration, from Ramstein and other bases. Then, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, word came from the Pentagon that other bases were to adopt Dover's policy of making the arrival ceremonies off limits.




    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct20.html
  • Reply 13 of 60
    Quote:

    Cut benefits to military? CHECK

    Cut salaries to military? CHECK



    Please inform me of these pay cuts I'm supposedly getting, as well as the removal of benefits, because they haven't happened to me yet.
  • Reply 14 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    The WAPO has coverage on it now.







    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Oct20.html




    You want to honor them by showing their coffins on national television, and on the cover of newspapers? That is not an honor, that is a dis-service.



    I want my family and close friends to be close by, not someone from NBC or FOX, with video cameras and microphones, trying to conduct interviews, and put a "spin" on how i might have or have not felt about dying for my country. And then having those same people speak with my family bringing up more uneeded drama.
  • Reply 15 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by liquidh2o

    You want to honor them by showing their coffins on national television, and on the cover of newspapers? That is not an honor, that is a dis-service.



    I want my family and close friends to be close by, not someone from NBC or FOX, with video cameras and microphones, trying to conduct interviews, and put a "spin" on how i might have or have not felt about dying for my country. And then having those same people speak with my family bringing up more uneeded drama.




    take a look at how it was handled from vietnam till just before the war. that's what i am talking about.



    why did the policy change for this war?





    update:

    wold blitzer will be covering this topic as well on his show going on now.
  • Reply 16 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    take a look at how it was handled from vietnam till just before the war. that's what i am talking about.



    why did the policy change for this war?





    update:

    wold blitzer will be covering this topic as well on his show going on now.




    I find only a policy that states a service member who dies in the line of duty will be given a right to burial by the armed forces. This hasn't changed.



    Our media is horrible. One minute they're saying we shouldn't be over there, what we're doing is wrong, etc.. the next they're saying they don't get access to the burial of America's "heroes." Excuse me, but I wouldn't want to be planted on the cover of some newspaper with a media twisting headline like "These people died for Bush's lies!"



    The media is doing what they do best. Distorting and twisting things to create drama to get attention and ratings. I don't believe for a second that most members of the media give a real damn about these servicemen that are dying. No, they're more concerned about the story that this person can bring them now that he/she is dead.



    I'd say keeping the burial private, is to preserve honor, and to not dilute what will be the last moments that friends and family will have to make peace and let go of the deceased.



    edit: still waiting for your proof on reduction in benefits/pay for service members
  • Reply 17 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    The soldiers did not decide to preemptively attack another country. The blame cannot be placed on them.



    Oh, so they were forced to join the military now? When conscription was practiced, you might have had a point, but not today. They share the blame equally with those that sent them.
  • Reply 18 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Oh, so they were forced to join the military now?



    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.
  • Reply 19 of 60
    this congressman discusses the veteran's benefits in the 2004 budget



    http://www.house.gov/budget_democrat.../700.htm#back1



    Although there is a slight increase in 2004. the level stays the same thru 2008. That's like saying the price of bread in 2008 is going to be the same as it is now.



    Elligiablty seems to be another way of cutting benefits in the form of shifting of the goal line as to who gets what vis a vis when they joined. (today or x years ago.) There will also be new fees(and in some cases higher fees) instigated. And for some higher income veterans benefits will be lost.
  • Reply 20 of 60
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Don't listen to liquidh2o! He's one of those trained killers!
Sign In or Register to comment.