Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I think this is a good move, to allow the families the choice. Discuss. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/p...-_n_170250.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Now how is that going to work? Four bodies come off a plane, one's family agrees to have the body photographed and three do not. Do they even think these things through? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Now how is that going to work? Four bodies come off a plane, one's family agrees to have the body photographed and three do not. Do they even think these things through? Who needs to think when you're appeasing your base by doing everything differently from the last administration? Although since it's Gates' decision, that's not a fair criticism. Does seem poorly thought-out, though..."Let's do what they do in Arlington Cemetary". Because transporting coffins en masse is just so damn similar to individual funeral ceremonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 Now how is that going to work? Four bodies come off a plane, one's family agrees to have the body photographed and three do not. Do they even think these things through? Bush was the one that changed it from the existing policy to not show them. They are working on the specifics now. But it's not like it's a totally new policy, it's going back to the older (and I think better) policy. You don't think the public should be able to see that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Now how is that going to work? Four bodies come off a plane, one's family agrees to have the body photographed and three do not. Do they even think these things through? Ask the families before they are flown back to Dover. Take the ones that are allowed to be photographed off first, then ask the photographers to leave and take the rest off. Or if there are enough for multiple flights (hopefully not but possible), segregate the flights by those that have permission and those that don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Ask the families before they are flown back to Dover. Take the ones that are allowed to be photographed off first, then ask the photographers to leave and take the rest off. Or if there are enough for multiple flights (hopefully not but possible), segregate the flights by those that have permission and those that don't. What a cluster !@#$. It should be yes we photograph or no we don't. It won't work and this is why I don't want the government handling something big like healthcare. It will be a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Bush was the one that changed it from the existing policy to not show them. They are working on the specifics now. But it's not like it's a totally new policy, it's going back to the older (and I think better) policy. You don't think the public should be able to see that? Bush the First, to be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What a cluster !@#$. It should be yes we photograph or no we don't. It won't work and this is why I don't want the government handling something big like healthcare. It will be a mess. Then let's go back to the original rule of yes for all, which worked fine throughout our history. The reason it was changed was that GHWBush was seen joking at a press conference on a split screen as coffins were coming off a plane during Desert Storm. So it was done to avoid further political embarrassment, and to avoid having Americans be reminded of the cost of war, which may prompt them to push to end it sooner. Protecting the families wasn't the primary motivation, but that's the excuse they used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Bush the First, to be specific. Correct. it was put in place in 91 and Clinton could have changed but didn't. it's only becuase of the media idiots was this even brought up as an issue, to make Bush two look bad. Again, right, wrong or indifferent, any policy to make W seem stupid. it's all media BS. Like the morons who had to cut through yards to see the plane down in Clarence Center. They felt they had some right to see and steal debris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Correct. it was put in place in 91 and Clinton could have changed but didn't. it's only becuase of the media idiots was this even brought up as an issue, to make Bush two look bad. Again, right, wrong or indifferent, any policy to make W seem stupid. it's all media BS. Like the morons who had to cut through yards to see the plane down in Clarence Center. They felt they had some right to see and steal debris. It wasn't an issue during Clinton because we didn't have many casualties during that time. It became an issue during Iraq because it prevented Americans from seeing the human cost of the Iraq occupation on a daily basis, because Bush knew it would be politically damaging to his policy of war of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 We had less soldiers killed per year than died from accidents, illness, suicide, etc. during Clinton's term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 It wasn't an issue during Clinton because we didn't have many casualties during that time. It became an issue during Iraq because it prevented Americans from seeing the human cost of the Iraq occupation on a daily basis, because Bush knew it would be politically damaging to his policy of war of choice. Which is why he allowed for embedded reporters during the surge to Iraq. He didn't want anyone seeing anything because it would be politically damaging... I have to admit; the way you perceive things is damn near an art form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 It wasn't an issue during Clinton because we didn't have many casualties during that time. It became an issue during Iraq because it prevented Americans from seeing the human cost of the Iraq occupation on a daily basis, because Bush knew it would be politically damaging to his policy of war of choice. Really, you need to do some research, because you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Pasta Joe and others here remind me of the Creationists I argue with on another board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 We had less soldiers killed per year than died from accidents, illness, suicide, etc. during Clinton's term. That occurs all the time regardless of who's the president. Which is why he allowed for embedded reporters during the surge to Iraq. He didn't want anyone seeing anything because it would be politically damaging... I have to admit; the way you perceive things is damn near an art form. How nice of him to "allow reporters" to report. That was their way of restricting their freedom of access to report what, where, and when they wanted, so like the pictures of caskets, they could control as much as possible the stories coming back to Americans. Really, you need to do some research, because you're wrong. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. There were few if any American casualties from the NATO intervention in Bosnia, which was the largest military operation during Clinton's terms. Compare that to Bush and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What I mean is that the # killed in combat was less that the # that normally die during peacetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What I mean is that the # killed in combat was less that the # that normally die during peacetime. but taking pictures of troops who died in a car accident, plane crash, etc... doesn't fulfill the agenda of the media to make the old President look bad. Isn't it great that Obama's 16 months and all troops out is now at least 20 months and then we'll still have over 50K troops. I guess that's two more promises broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 but taking pictures of troops who died in a car accident, plane crash, etc... doesn't fulfill the agenda of the media to make the old President look bad. Isn't it great that Obama's 16 months and all troops out is now at least 20 months and then we'll still have over 50K troops. I guess that's two more promises broken. It's wasn't about making him look bad, it was about showing the consequences of his bad decisions. If he looked bad, that's on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 It's wasn't about making him look bad, it was about showing the consequences of his bad decisions. If he looked bad, that's on him. So wanting so show dead soldiers in 100% political? Oh I get it now. Time to grow up man. It has nothing to do with honoring people who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our country. You're a !@#$ing !@#$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 It's wasn't about making him look bad, it was about showing the consequences of his bad decisions. If he looked bad, that's on him. but it's an agenda. The first rule of newspapers used to be to report the news not to make it. Whatever happened to that? The whole 4th estate and fabricating sh-- is BS. yeah fox does it, i'm sure, I wouldn't know because I don't watch, but I see sh-- all the time from CNN and Wash Post that I know are false because of some of the places I have worked and specificially things I've worked on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts