Pictures of Caskets

[Happy Monkey]

That may be, but it's a hair they're trying to split on the conservative talking point circuit.

[elSicomoro]

Juan Williams kicks ass...he's a reporter for NPR.

If we can't tell whose caskets those are, what does it really matter?

[richlevy]

I love the guy who stated that they should not show pictures and that it did not matter anyway, because Americans already knew the number lost and the pictures would not be giving them any more information. This is obvious false, since almost anyone knows that an image can convey information much more powerfully than numbers.

Anyone who has seen pictures from 9/11 knows that if those images were never shown and the incident was reduced to numbers, it would not convey the anguish of the situation. How anyone who represents people who splash these images into their campaign ads can sit there and make that statement is ludicrous.

BTW, I really am trying to be non-partisan about this. If I ever caught a spokesman for my point of view in this kind of bald-faced lie, I'm pretty sure I'd call him on it.

[TheLorax]

Why do you suppose the Pentagon does not have a problem showing bodies of US Citizens hanging from a bridge above a band of cheering Iraqis, but they do have a problem with the remains of men and women who died in a war that we claim to be proud of being treated with dignity and respect?

(yes that was one sentence – leave me alone)

"Quite frankly, we don't want the remains of our service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be the subject of any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified"
John Molino, a deputy undersecretary of defense

How is this unwarranted or undignified: http://www.thememoryhole.org/.

[tw]

Originally posted by Elspode
I thought the whole concept was to be sensitive to the families? What makes the need to be sensitive to the families of 9-11 less pressing than the need to be sensitive to the families of dead soldiers?

As I said, Koppel was quite blunt. He started with WHY we are not allowed to photograph arriving flag draped caskets. Because during a George Sr press conference, a freshly arrived C-130 was shown being unloaded of those caskets as George Sr spoke.

It has nothing to do with respect for families. That is administration rhetoric - better called lies. They don't want pictures shown for reasons political. And considering history of this administration, no one should have any doubt about their reasons.

Who are we to believe? Some nonsense myth about respect for families? For all we know, the casket may even be Columbia astronauts - and those pictures are permitted. Pictures of flags over boxes do not disprespect anyone - except maybe George Jr's approval polls.

Taking pictures of flag draped caskets that, for all we know, contains Saddam's $millions, show no disrepect to anyone. Koppel said, quite bluntly, why we are not permitted to see those caskets. Politics. Getting the right spin. It has nothing to do with the myths from an administration that has a long history of lying to have their way - such as five orange threat alerts that only help the administration's approval polls and don't stop terrorists. Furthermore - direct from Ted Koppel:

What could possibly be more respectful to our war dead and their grieving families than to show those coffins, shrouded in the national flag being returned home with reverence and sombre military honors.

One - we don't show caskets for reasons political.
Two - George Jr used those pictures in his campaign TV advertisements. Koppel even made sure we saw those flag draped caskets behind a portrait of George Jr. - in a George Jr TV ad.

[russotto]

I know why the Bush Administration is up in arms about that particular shot -- the way it is composed suggests an endless line of caskets.

Originally posted by russotto
I know why the Bush Administration is up in arms about that particular shot -- the way it is composed suggests an endless line of caskets.

671 caskets to date in the 2nd Gulf War. If you want names and pictures of the deceased, go to http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
The military seems to have no problem with honoring its war dead. Why does George Bush?

[TheLorax]

Don’t forget that Chaney was the one who tearfully talked about how he saw the sea of crosses at Arlington National Cemetery whenever he landed at the Pentagon.

Do you see any crosses in this picture?

[DanaC]

Shameful. If we're going to send soldiers to die we shold at least show them some respect .

This reminds me of a remembrance day ceremony at the Cenotaph in London. It was a little after the Falklands war and the government of the day ( Thatcher's lot) refused to allow the injured Falkland's veterans to attend. There were men still suffering the agonies of healing burns and plastic surgery and men who hadnt yet been fitted with their prosthetic limbs who were refused a presence at a remembrance for the war dead of Britain in two world wars, because it would have made uncomfortable airplay for the government in the run up to a general election. They were far too busy using the pomp and glory of those boys' victory to allow the pain of those that made the sacrifice to be shown.

[tw]

Originally posted by marichiko
671 caskets to date in the 2nd Gulf War.

For about every three dead, another comes home missing limbs. Just another statistic that 'blood and guts' Cheney would rather we forget. They also don't want us to know the number of missing limbs and permenantly disabled. After all, the entire war is based entirely on lies in the highest office. Best to suppress more facts. Facts that Koppel was quite blunt about. And Koppel was only discussing the dead.

In the meantime, anyone notice there still is no exit strategy? The expression is well understood - "light at the end of the tunnel".

[Undertoad]

Just for the sake of completeness, your number is a tad high (by 50-75 or so) because it includes non-combat / non-hostile related deaths.

[Happy Monkey]

It's also a little low because it doesn't count people who die from battle wounds later in the hospital.

We are now at 697 per US Central Command.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Just for the sake of completeness, your number is a tad high (by 50-75 or so) because it includes non-combat / non-hostile related deaths.

In the end, war dead are war dead.

[Elspode]

It often strikes me that logic isn't really the Bush administration's strong suit.