Why removing this ban is a victory for our enemies.
The Obama administration lifted the 18 year ban on allowing the media to cover the return of coffins carrying American soldiers killed in war. The left rejoiced at this move, suggesting that this was true sunlight (which is apparently less important during the passage of laws like the stimulus bill), and that Americans need to see the cost of war first hand. The media implied that this was a silly law, put in place because of former President George H.W. Bush's vanity. Bush Sr. enacted this law after being shown in a split screen laughing as coffins were being brought back from the Gulf War. Furthermore, as the media is quick to point out, such media coverage was allowed during Vietnam, so it's about time we put aside these Bush era practices and move forward, right?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - STM
Can't see how showing flag-draped coffins helps anyone, though ... except that you live in a democracy that guarantees the right of a free press to tell a story.
If part of that story is about the price America's has paid in human lives for the Iraq conflict, so be it. I notice that we and British always show pictures of the flag-draped coffins coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a legitimate story, no matter how distasteful.
But let's hope they don't start taking snaps or vision of individual coffins, over there, and identifying them just for the sake of it. There's got to be a limit.
27 - Cindy
O.A.
I read the entire obnoxious piece of trash you pass off as thinking. I even tried to be civil to you.
I didn't in fact say that you are a [personal attack deleted] (please fill in with your favorite, make it really ugly too).
What does repeating the same bullshit serve?
The U.S. is in a war that was created based on lies and all you care about is winning it?
You are a [personal attack deleted] and I only wish I could pay your fare to Guantanamo myself.
28 - Hope and Change?
STM..there is no longer a free press in the US....it has been hijacked by socialisy zealots...
They are so deep in Barrys ass...they no longer care about what is true...they only care about proping up their empty suit of a leader..
29 - Cindy
I've watched just about every televised Bush speech, as well as many talk show appearances by his administration (just like I now do with the Obama admin). I NEVER HEARD BUSH MAKE THE CASE THAT 9/11 WAS LINKED TO IRAQ. EVER. I don't know where you get this crap from, but you can't rewrite what happened.
I got it from the quotes in the Senate Intelligence Committee link I gave you.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor. Chill out, Cinders...]
30 - The Obnoxious American
"I read the entire obnoxious piece of trash you pass off as thinking. "
Based on your comments you could have fooled me.
"You are a [personal attack deleted] and I only wish I could pay your fare to Guantanamo myself."
The last refuge of a bad argument, attack the debate opponent and not the idea itself, because you know that this position cannot be defended without going "ad hominem."
31 - The Obnoxious American
Obviously I touched a nerve and I know why, because Cindy as much as you'd love to forward a narrative that Bush lied to get us in war, you have no answer for the points I raised about the previous two presidents also supporting a removal of Saddam (well, actually, prior to Bush, Clinton was the only president favoring that). So keep on repeating your mantras withough addressing the valid points I've made here. Keep acting as if I am the enemy and not the people out there who are a real threat to our security. It just lessens your viewpoint, nothing more.
32 - STM
Cindy, I lived in Baghdad as a kid. I still have some contact with Iraqis today. Most were very happy - overjoyed, actually - to be liberated by the coalition from the clutches of the Ba'athist dictatorship, which had been run by Saddam as a mid-eastern version of Stalinism.
Their favourite party tricks included feeding people feet first into industrial paper shredders and putting children into a bag full of starving cats - in front of their parents.
No one was sad to see them go, whatever we know today about the reasons the US wanted the war - and the world's a better place without them. I have some personal experience of them, and they weren't very nice people ... that's the best way I can describe them.
It wasn't the invasion but what happened afterwards that Iraqis didn't like. It all went pear-shaped at Abu Ghraib.
Had the US approached things a bit differently, we might have been looking at a very different outcome.
I'm not a poster child for unnecessary wars but these are people who belong in the same dustbin of history as the Stalinists and the Nazis.
33 - Cindy
When I'm arguing with a 'debate opponent', I'll be sure to let him know you said so.
I was so trying to be good today.
34 - Cindy
O.A.
If you think I'd defend Bill Clinton, you'd be mistaken.
35 - Cindy
#33 @ O.A.
36 - Cindy
Will do Big C. Must have been anticipated withdrawal from thinking about trying to become completely rational and non-insulting.
Guess it's like a smoker who tries to quit and smokes an entire carton in one day. lol
37 - Ma rk
Cindy, before you give in to the myth of rationality, I suggest this fun little book.
38 - zingzing
obnoxious,
maybe you should read entire comments before responding to them, as you quote the same stuff i quote as if it's an answer to the stuff i had to say about the quote.
not your best form.
39 - Cindy
Mark,
Wittgenstein, he was a bigwig in the field of logic I think. I just looked at that link, but it looks like fun. :-)
40 - roger nowosielski
It's first time I've ever heard of this incident. Quite probable, though, because W must have been very intolerant - although that's not the general opinion shared by his colleagues, G.E. Moore, Russell. He was humble, too, a high school/elementary country teacher - very ascetic and unpretentious. Disavowed his aristocratic background in favor of simple life. His room was barren, too. just a writing table, a chair.
41 - zingzing
"I NEVER HEARD BUSH MAKE THE CASE THAT 9/11 WAS LINKED TO IRAQ. EVER. I don't know where you get this crap from, but you can't rewrite what happened."
neither can you. at least know what you're talking about before you go and use the caps lock.
42 - Ma rk
Hi Rog. Neat book that places both Popper and Wittgenstein in their historical settings.
43 - roger nowosielski
I wonder, though, about the accuracy. W was a legendary figure, so it's not far-fetched that some stories might be invented. Some spoke of him as being in the presence of a God.
44 - Cindy
Well, I can't say I'll mind being on Karl Popper's side.
I like this bit:
"...the same Popperian theory of extreme verification and the boldness (if not violence) in putting forward his own opinions is the actual negation of British politeness and understatement..."
This is funny:
Compare it to the famous debate on evolution at the British Association meeting in Oxford in 1860 between Darwinists and their opponents like the palaeontologist Robert Owen and Bishop 'Soapy Sam' Wilberforce. There, T.H.Huxley ('Darwin's Bulldog') baldly stated that he would rather be descended from an ape than from a Bishop who made specious and ridiculous arguments.
45 - roger nowosielski
Logic first, The Tractatus, but that was the Vienna Circle, the positivist stage. His revolutionary work was in philosophy - Philosophical Investigations, published posthumously.
46 - roger nowosielski
Latter W steered clear of politics and religion - his only preoccupation, the nature of human understanding. Was envious of Shakespeare, though. As was Freud.
47 - Cindy
Wittgenstein believed that philosophy boiled down to nothing more than a series of linguistic puzzles, while Popper thought philosophy involved real problems that immediately affected the world at large.
Sounds familiar Roger. Do you think?
48 - Cindy
Well, I guess it must be a common stand-off.
I'll try to be less violent.
(you don't have a poker around do you?)
:-)
49 - roger nowosielski
W was right. Most of so-called philosophical problems are pseudo-problems, resulting from confusion (mainly due to mixing of language-games) and hidden metaphysical assumptions. Metaphysics was anathema to W. These "problems" basically dissolve. All you've got to do is let the fly out of the bottle. And yest, I'm been trained by a second-generation W's teacher - only at one remove from "the master." I consider it a pretty good pedigree.
50 - roger nowosielski
My weapon is incisive logic, natural brilliance, disarming personality, charm, etc - in short, God's gift to both women and men. Must I go on?
51 - Cindy
lol
That's a fair assessment. :-)
52 - roger nowosielski
I knew you'd agree. I should have already been a legend in my own lifetime.
53 - Cindy
Don't push your luck! :-)
(just kidding lol)
Time to go out. I could use some dinner and a cocktail, or two. cya later.
54 - Dr Dreadful
Obnox @ #21:
What struck me about those two paragraphs you saw fit to requote is that they defeat their own intent.
If the main and only purpose of waging a war is to win it, then why worry about whether press photographers want to take photos of flag-draped coffins?
It's no more 'politicizing' or 'exploitation' than is the silent scrolling of the photos of war dead at the end of PBS' Newshour.
55 - Mar k
I wonder, though, about the accuracy.
Yup, there's always that...ain't history grand?
56 - Dr Dreadful
My weapon is incisive logic, natural brilliance, disarming personality, charm, etc
"Our four main weapons are incisive logic, natural brilliance, disarming personality, charm and nice red uniforms - FIVE! Our FIVE main weapons are..."
57 - El Bicho
From looking at some of these threads, I thought Roger's weapons were tangents and hissy fits.
58 - The Obnoxious American
"If the main and only purpose of waging a war is to win it, then why worry about whether press photographers want to take photos of flag-draped coffins?"
I'm not sure why you are posing the first part of your comment as an if. There is only one reason why we would wage a war, to win it. Purpose is not the same as reasoning.
To answer the question, read the article. But a synopsis is, the left wing, anti war media will use these coffins to make a political point, regardless of whether we must prevail in the war we are fighting, which by the way, we do. We always do. Don't believe me that that's all this is about? See the part about Bush Sr.
"It's no more 'politicizing' or 'exploitation' than is the silent scrolling of the photos of war dead at the end of PBS' Newshour.
I don't watch Newshour, but perhaps you're right that both are equally politicizing and if so, shame on Newshour.
Here is where the line is. Telling the stories of our troops, putting a personal face on the brave soldiers who have sacrificed for this country is something we should do more of. A lot more of. And by the same token, the media should ensure not to forget to celebrate the soldiers who have accomplished amazing things fighting for this country and lived to tell about it as well, there are just as many if not more stories like this which we never hear about.
Bottom line, and as much as it annoys you to hear this, you, me, handyguy, and even Cindy are all on the same team and we ALL suffer is we leave Iraq a mess. You want to have a discussion about the reasoning behind going to war, I'm all for that and will support your right to question why and whether we should have gone to war in Iraq. But we can have that debate without parading an endless video loop of coffins that not only distorts the story, ignores all of the good that has been accomplished, and cuts our national resolve off at the knees, just to make a political point. That's ALL allowing media coverage of fallen soldier's coffins does.
59 - M ar k
Given enough emotional distraction that passed pawn might go unnoticed until it is too late.
60 - Dave Nalle
Re. #41. Zing, your link is about claims Bush made FOUR YEARS after the start of the Iraq War which have nothing to do with the arguments he made in starting the war, which as was pointed out earlier, were not based on al Qaeda being active in Iraq.
It's all long enough ago, surely by now we can admit that the war on terror doesn't have geographical limitations and is a war of cultures rather than of nations.
Dave
61 - Dr Dreadful
I'm not sure why you are posing the first part of your comment as an if. There is only one reason why we would wage a war, to win it. Purpose is not the same as reasoning.
Fine, if you're going to argue semantics, substitute 'given that' for 'if'. Although actually the primary reason for waging a war should be self-defense. There may be no hope of actually winning it - as with the Finns against the Soviets in 1940 - but one would hope to at least be able to see the enemy off.
Telling the stories of our troops, putting a personal face on the brave soldiers who have sacrificed for this country is something we should do more of. A lot more of. And by the same token, the media should ensure not to forget to celebrate the soldiers who have accomplished amazing things fighting for this country and lived to tell about it as well, there are just as many if not more stories like this which we never hear about.
Oprah Winfrey devoted her entire show to exactly that on Thursday. And I see plenty of such stories on my local news and in newspapers.
But we can have that debate without parading an endless video loop of coffins that not only distorts the story, ignores all of the good that has been accomplished, and cuts our national resolve off at the knees, just to make a political point.
Who said anything about 'an endless video loop'?
A news story about, say, the cost of the war also ignores the good that has been accomplished, but nonetheless is a valid story. The one isn't relevant to the other. Red herring.
You complain about left-wing propaganda, but blocking pictures which bring home the cost of war so as to make it seem more palatable is also propaganda. If a war is just, it ought to be justifiable to the public without hiding the truth.
62 - bliffle
IMO, it's not the main purpose of war just to win it. If that were true than one would, perforce, undertake wars one is sure to win., and that's the bullys way.
IMO, you undertake war to quell an enemy, to fend off a threat, even for vengeance. But mere winning is purposeless.
Winning is the hoped for outcome, but in many cases a stalemate is OK because one will have successfully exhibited ones willingness to do battle. Just examine the fighting history of most animals. Seldom a fight to the finish, to the win.
63 - bliffle
#59 â€" M ar k:
"...that passed pawn might go unnoticed until it is too late."
Which one?
And talking about chess, one might point out to OA that despite his dictum about "winning" it is nevertheless true that great chess masters, like great generals, often use tactical draws and even losses to accomplish their strategic goals.
Only the most foolish general considers tactical 'wins' as most important.
64 - bliffle
#60 â€" Dave:
"... surely by now we can admit that the war on terror doesn't have geographical limitations and is a war of cultures rather than of nations."
Just like communism!
Next thing you know we'll be talking about a "fifth column"!
You must be happy to be on familiar ground, Dave.
65 - The Obnoxious American
"IMO, you undertake war to quell an enemy, to fend off a threat, even for vengeance. But mere winning is purposeless."
And in those cases, fending off the threat, or quelling an enemy is winning.
"And talking about chess, one might point out to OA that despite his dictum about "winning" it is nevertheless true that great chess masters, like great generals, often use tactical draws and even losses to accomplish their strategic goals."
And the strategic goal is... to WIN.
Please don't waste my time with a silly conversation about "what winning means."
If you enter into a war without the goal to win the war, strategically, tactically, and every other way, then that's kind of stupid isn't it?
Which brings me to your position (not necessarily your's bliffle, but the one that suggest coffins should be politicized) - does this help us win? If it doesn't, or if it actually hurts our ability to win in the conflicts we are engaged in by shaking resolve, then not only is it stupid but arguably treasonous.
66 - The Obnoxious American
"Although actually the primary reason for waging a war should be self-defense. "
There have not been many wars fought in American (or other) history that fits this description. And this includes WWII - thank god America didn't purely view our involvement in that war by the prism you are suggesting. Even the Revolutionary war was not a war for self defense.
67 - Dr Dreadful
There have not been many wars fought in American (or other) history that fits this description. And this includes WWII...
And as I'm sure you know, the vast majority of Americans were at first against their country entering WWII, for precisely that reason.
And US involvement did begin as self-defense, to prevent another Pearl Harbor-scale attack.
Even the Revolutionary war was not a war for self defense.
Again, the majority of the American colonists were at first quite happy with the status quo.
In the first instance, the consensus would be that history proved most Americans wrong. In the second? Well, as Stan might agree, the jury's still out on that one! ;-)
68 - Cindy
Does winning a war on terror mean becoming the best terrorists? I think the U.S. is winning.
Even the U.K. thinks the U.S. is nuts now.
(no, I didn't mean just you Christopher :-)
69 - Baritone
Doc made a good point in his #54. Also, every Sunday George Stephanopoulis does a recounting of the week's war dead. Virtually every local TV station in the country carries stories when one or more local men and women have died in Iraq or Afghanistan. They often run extensive pieces showing the funeral cortege, the memorial service(s) and even the burials. Should all those treasonous bastards be shot? Given the nature of the opposing views, shouldn't ALL mention of our military dead and wounded be banned? Then we could pretend that since we wear the white hats, that none of our boys and girls ever suffer the slightest scratch. After all, god is on our side.
Occasional photos or videos of flag draped coffins will have no more of a demoralizing effect than the attention paid as noted above. All of you in your predisposition to oppose Obama's very existence, have latched on to this non-issue to wail away at him.
Shit, there are idiots out and about who have attacked Michelle Obama because she appears in her "official" White House photo in a sleeveless outfit. Oh, the horror!
Anyway.
As it was originally announced, it will be up to each family as to whether or not they will allow the casket of their relative to be photographed. While it's understood that these people will be under duress, it is hardly a given to assume that they would be unable to make a rational and informed decision in this regard.
Perhaps at some point, a reporter or photographer might in some way step over the line, but those instances will be few and far between. I think we can all rest assured that no one is going to tear open coffins to show us some dead soldier's body after it had been put through a meat shredder.
The responses of many of you above are presumptuous and absurd. They are no less outlandish than the idiotic speculation that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to people marrying their gerbils or their pot bellied pigs.
B
70 - ed dickson
I have mixed feelings on this one being a patriot and veteran of the Marine Corps. War is an ugly animal and I've often thought that Iraq and Afghanistan were actually treated as if they were a rumor of war rather than a real one (the same title is a great read about Vietnam).
Saying that I also have strong feelings about some of the left wing types, who have made it difficult for our troops to do their jobs in a war where the enemy often doesn't wear uniforms. In fact, some of them have probably put them in greater danger by forcing them to fight at a different standard than their foes. If they exploit this issue, they deserve to be damned.
Perhaps, the trouble is, that since Bush Sr. not one of our presidents have served in time of war. And none of them have served in the 20th century phenomenon, where the tendency is to treat war as a rumor as we go about our everyday lives.
71 - roger nowosielski
Fair sentiments, Ed,
But don't you think there's something odd about a war where, as you say, "the enemy often doesn't wear uniforms"?
72 - zingzing
dave: "Re. #41. Zing, your link is about claims Bush made FOUR YEARS after the start of the Iraq War which have nothing to do with the arguments he made in starting the war, which as was pointed out earlier, were not based on al Qaeda being active in Iraq."
true, dave, but this is what obnoxious said: ""I NEVER HEARD BUSH MAKE THE CASE THAT 9/11 WAS LINKED TO IRAQ. EVER. I don't know where you get this crap from, but you can't rewrite what happened.""
so i just went and got the first thing i could find. it wasn't the only time he connected the two, and it wasn't the first time either. and if you're trying to say that bush, etc didn't use 9/11 as an excuse to go get iraq, you're a damn fool. they may not have been totally explicit about it at first, but once their wmd excuse evaporated, they had to go that route, now didn't they?
73 - Cindy
"In his 2003 State of the Union Address, just a few short weeks before giving the order that began this war, the President said: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
74 - roger nowosielski
I don't see how anyone can argue in the face of incontrovertible facts, zing, but stranger things have happened, especially on BC.
75 - Cindy
"In a speech in Cincinnati, a little over a year after al Qaeda attacked America on September 11th, President Bush said: 'We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. ... We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.'"