Just letting everybody know that the photo sacking story made the newspapers in Australia....

http://www.theage.com.au/...2/1082616264208.html

"They say we must fight to keep our freedom, but lord there's got to be a better way....

Funny. Even during the Clinton adminastration photos of the dead returning home where prohibited. Hum. I guess the fact she was also told not to take the photos and went ahead and did it had nothing to do with her firing. Cry me a river.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

OK, so Bush does actually visit the families, but as you pointed out it's not carried in any of the newspapers, so how was I supposed to know?

It's a well known fact that the sight of body bags returning from Vietnam was instrumental in turning public opinion against the war. Also, based on the information most people have (without an inside line to the military) it appears(ed) that he doesn't want the photos published because he is afraid of the political cost he'd have to pay. That, by definition, makes them political.

However, I asked your opinion because you're insightful and also ex-military, so you have a perspective I don't. Now that I have the information you do it puts a different slant on things and I can appreciate that they no longer have the political impact they had before. As usual, two sides of a story are better than one.

Thanks.

Any assertion that Iraq and OBL are not only linked, but linked at a very high level, is so grossly ill-informed it only makes the claimant look conspicuously ignorant.

Come on people, name one Arabic proverb.........

The very first one that comes to mind: "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend."

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

IMO photos of the returning coffins, as I've seen, are an appropriate depiction of the cost of war.

It is a sobering and enormously unpleasant reality. But it is a reality. To deny it by not showing the photos seems somehow manipulative.

It hurts to see them. There are men and women under those flags, and that is the saddest use of a great flag. They are daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, girlfriends and boyfriends, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, friends and relatives.

It's a terribly painful reality. But it is the reality we own.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I'm amazed at how easily political orthodoxy is turned on its head. Conservatives, who could not have cared less about the civil rights of blacks, women, and minorities, are now concerned about the welfare of Iraqis? Please, let's give the disingenuous arguments their last resting place-in Rumsfeld's Garden of World Domination.

The War in Iraq is a quagmire, exactly like Vietnam and Afghanistan for the Russians. The only meaningful comparison that is necessary between Iraq and Vietnam is that Americans are dying for absolutely nothing worthwhile. I served in the Marines during 'Nam, and am no pacifist, but when our soldiers are committed to kill or be killed the purpose should be clear and necessary. Iraq doesn't qualify.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

"The Pentagon has cited a policy, used during the first Persian Gulf war, as its reason for preventing news organizations from showing images of coffins arriving in the United States. That policy was not consistently followed, however, and President Bill Clinton took part in numerous ceremonies honoring dead servicemen. In March 2003, the Pentagon issued a directive it said was established in November 2000, saying, "There will no be arrival ceremonies of, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from" air bases." (NYTimes 4/23/04)

From an article in today's NYTimes, in which it is revealed that the Pentagon itself has been routinely photographing the coffins. A FOI request got them to release 361 photographs which have been posted to a Web site run by the requestor. Neither the NYTimes nor other major media outlets knew of the existence of these photographs, it seems.

The reason to withhold these photographs from the public is to provide political cover; anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves. Doesn't matter if it's Republican or Democrat.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

A telling bit:

"Among the national television news organizations, only the Fox News Channel had no plans to use any of the photos or explore the issue of why they had been barred from use in the news media, a channel spokesman said."

What a surprise.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I am not saying that people shouldn't see the coffins or the pictures it's just I have had it with both sides playing football with the dead. This war has no middle. You've got the left being blindly stupid saying thhis is another Vietnam where there is no match using the dead becuase they hate Bush. You got the right unable to get off there falg waving patroitic high horse long enough to explain anything to any body saying the most over glorfied stupid things about the guys in the military.

There is no honest debate about this conflict. No listens to the other side. I know because for the longest time I would not listen. This whole thread and others like it are just driven by hate of the other political side.

I am just so goddamn tired of the the dead being disrespected by the left and right. Fuck'em both.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

The very first one that comes to mind: "The enemy of my enemy, is my friend."



Funny how everyone forgets that OBL worked with us during the 80's. Yeah no way in hell he would work with Saddam.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

[reply]I'm amazed at how easily political orthodoxy is turned on its head. Conservatives, who could not have cared less about the civil rights of blacks, women, and minorities, are now concerned about the welfare of Iraqis? Please, lets give the disingenuous arguments their last resting place-in Rumsfeld's Garden of World Domination.

The War in Iraq is a quagmire, exactly like Vietnam and Afghanistan for the Russians. The only meaningful comparison that is necessary between Iraq and Vietnamas that Americans are dying for absolutely nothing worthwhile. I served in the Marines during 'Nam, and am no pacifist, but when our soldiers are committed to kill or be killed the purpose should be clear and necessary. Iraq doesn't qualify.

-Robert[/reply]



Robert,

Is it any wonder why we are such an attractive target for terrorists and the hatred of members of radical Islamic fundamentalism. They understand all too well that our soft and comfortable lifestyle has drugged us into forgetting what the cost of freedom is.

The forefathers of our Nation understood what that cost was. Freedom was something they cherished dearly and fought for every day. Each and every one of them put their lives and the lives of their families on the line. That's how much it meant to them.

What did our forefathers believe?

Now to what higher object, to what greater character, can any mortal aspire than to be possessed of all this knowledge, well digested and ready at command, to assist the feeble and friendless, to discountenance the haughty and lawless, to procure redress of wrongs, the advancement of right, to assert and maintain liberty and virtue, to discourage and abolish tyranny and vice? John Adams 1735-1826. Letter to Johathan Sewell , October 1759.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience, I know no way of judging of the future but by the past.

We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power. . .The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.

If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained --- we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us.

It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. The gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace! but there is no peace. The war has actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethern are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry 1736-1799.

It is only so easy to see from reading your comments and the comments of the many others that feel as you do that our enemies our correct in their judgements of us, their enemy. They have seen the evidence and the "proof" that we can be turned upon ourselves and walked over by them.

Does history repeat itself? Who are the Neville Chamberlands of today? Who are the Winston Churchills of today?

Were a man to come forth today and utter the same words as John Adams and Patrick Henry, what would he be called and how would he be branded?

Oh, how lightly we regard the gift that was given us by our fathers. How quickly we have forgotten at what price it was purchased. It has become but yet another entitlement. Oh how foolish are we and how smart are our enemies!

---

Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.

You are right on the honest debate part -- but shouldn't that have come before the war, not after it's already started? I was fully behind what we did in Afghanistan, and I wish we'd finish the job there. I wasn't fully behind the war in Iraq because I didn't believe there was a threat there....despite Bush & Co's claim to the otherwise. Now, we know there are no wmd, no links to OBL, etc.

Bush made a classic mistake. He had already made his mind up about what to do with Iraq, and then went looking for evidence to support his actions. Unfortunately, when you do it this way, any little bit of evidence will prove your point, even if it's wrong. It's like when you're in high school with a crush on some hot chick, you see her smile at you, you think she likes you, even though she may have been smiling at someone behind you. YOU WANT to think something is true, so everything SEEMS to point in that direction. A better course of action would be to put all the evidence on the table FIRST and then analyze it, and come to a conclusion based on the evidence, not WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW.

BTW, loved the analogy about the dog wrapping the chain around the tree.

"but shouldn't that have come before the war, not after it's already started?"

We did. Where you asleep? Thos who where for the war still are those who where not still aren't. This comes down to a pure hatered for or a blind loving of George Bush. One gives a shit about debate or changing minds. This all about "liberals suck", "conseratives suck" and "see I told you America is blood thirsty."

Both sides are fucking dug in no one opens there eyes.

Oh yeah one more thing. Next time liberal is thrown down on someone like they are a diffrent species or a Fox News jab is made I'm jumping off a bridge.

Debate, my ass

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

You MUST be kidding. If you called that sham with all the one-sided "evidence" a debate....oh, never mind.

"Now, we know there are no wmd, no links to OBL, etc. "

I'd suspect that was also known beforehand. Either that or there are some serious problems with intelligence gathering. More likely the former than the latter.

The thousands of people protesting in the street, the books writen agianst the war, the uproar from Europe. Oh with out a doubt Bush was the only one heard.

The debate was had and the anti-war side lost. Of course it doesn't matter because boots are on the ground and all the idealogs can throw thier bombs.

"Liberal ABC news watcher!"

"BLood thirsty Republican Fox News watcher!"

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

[reply]"Now, we know there are no wmd, no links to OBL, etc. "

I'd suspect that was also known beforehand. Either that or there are some serious problems with intelligence gathering. More likely the former than the latter.[/reply]



cerveloguy,

I love it. How we are a nation of blame shifters. Its not my fault that I am fat and have eaten at McDonald's. Its McDonald's fault.

Its not Saddam Hussein's fault that he was finally held accountable for failing to live up to the terms of surrender for the Gulf war which he was a signatory to and pledged to live up to.

Its the fault of our "failed" intelligence, the fault of "failed" European intelligence and the fault of "failed" UN inspections. There was never evidence that Saddam had WMD's was there? The gas attacks on the Kurds and the "improved" scuds were just elaborate schemes by war mongers to confuse and deceive peace loving nations and people into believing that WMD's existed and were a threat. In reality, they never existed in the first place right?

The fact that Saddam successfully frustrated the efforts of those who attempted to verify he no longer possessed WMD's is the fault of "failed" intelligence? Would that fact have demonstrated to Saddam's neighbors that he was weak? The fact that he mastered the art of deception over years of practice, intimidation and frustration of the United Nations verification process is "proof" of our failed intelligence? Everyone knew he was an honest and upstanding man of his word, right? If he said he would not invade Kuwait, he wouldn't. Didn't he prove that? He said he wouldn't invade Kuwait as his army massed near that border in 1989/1990 and then he didn't invade Kuwait proving he was a man of his word. Right?

And so what if the United Nations gave Saddam the benefit of 17 resolutions (opportunities) to comply with inspections or face serious consequences to which he laughed at and refused to comply with. Wasn't he taught that there would be no consequence of refusing to comply?

And so what if to Saddam, complying to Western demands that he disarm might be seen by his Arab brothers as weakness. Might that embolden the Iranians to try once again to attack him? Didn't he explain this to everyone confidentially. Wasn't his ultimate aspiration to be the leader of the whole Arab world? Why should Saddam publicly humiliate his country and himself before the world by giving in to Western demands?. Where is the respect in that? Where is the respect that he deserved? Wasn't that what he told Dan Rather in his interview just before Bush attacked Iraq?

So the fact that a coalition of nations did finally hold Saddam Hussein accountable is a failure?

In reality we really do have a lot in common. I just think we disagree on what the failure really was and where the responsibility really lies. Thats all.

---

Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.

" I just think we disagree on what the failure really was and where the responsibility really lies. Thats all. "

Perhaps, but I personally think that GWB likely knew full well before invading Iraq that there were no WMD's or links to 9/11. Not that I'm a middle east expert, but it seems reasonable that GWB's reasons for going into Iraq were a combo of personal vendetta, oil and to eventually establish a secure American presense in the area. 9/11 gave him the excuse to do so. I don't believe for one second this had anything to do with rescuing the Iraqui people from an opressive dictator. Let's not forget that it was US support that propped up the Shah of Iran, who was at least as brutal as Saddam as well as US dollars that put Saddam in power in the first place.

This may very well turn out to be a much bigger mess than anticipated and unfortunately will likely become Kerry's problem after the next election.

As mentioned, I'm not a middle east expert, but this is how I see it.

Just curious about this one, perhaps you can help me out. Given that all current evidence point to the fact that all WMDs in Iraq had long since been destroyed, how could Iraq have proved to you, or to the Bush administration, that this in fact was the case? Were the exact quantities of everything previously known? Would there have to have been a paper trail for everything? How would Iraq have proven that subsequent to the first Gulf War they hadn't done (and, it turns out, they didn't)anything wrt nucluear weapons?

The Bush administration had no intention of allowing inspections to show the falsehood behind the WMD claims.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Cerveloguy:

I'd prefer to believe that Bush is stupid and not venal.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Ken,

If you really want to dig into what was or wasn't there, and what we did or didn't know, two things to look up. Do a yahoo search on "Scott Ritter" and read some of his interviews. He is a former Marine and head UN inspector from '91-'98 and probably knows more about the Iraqi WMD programs than any other human except Saddam. He gave a copious amount of interviews before the war, most are interesting reading.

Also of interest is the testiomony and story of Hussein Kamal, who was one of the top Iraqis (Saddam Hussein's son-in-law). Below is a link to a debriefing by UNSCOM/IAEA which was done after he left Iraq in 1995. I believe he returned to Iraq and was assasinated by Saddam's thugs. He gives a lot of information about weapons programs and insights, just remember that it's from 1995..

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...iaea_kamal-brief.htm

Bush's excuse to invade a sovereign country like Iraq:

1. Weapons of mass destruction.

2. Links to Al-Qaeda

After over a year, we know this is not true.

If Bush (or any other president, rep or dem) feels it is imperative to invade a country because their leader is a tyrant, WHY IS BUSH NOT INVADING CUBA, VENEZUELA, ZIMBABWE, NIGERIA, NORTH KOREA OR ISRAEL.

If weapons of mass destruction are an excuse to invade a sovereign nation with a tyrant leader, WHY IS BUSH NOT INVADING NORTH KOREA? They already admitted to weapons of mass destruction, but Bush does not have the b*lls to take them on because that would open a very smelly, fermented can of worms with vast consequences.

For every Israeli dead, 3 Palestinians are killed, without arrest, trial process or legal representation. Why doesn't the US do anything about this? We label Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists, however, we fail to realize that there only weapon is in fact that, suicide bombings because the Israelis have troops, tanks, helicopters and planes.

Requested budget for Iraq in October 2003 was $80 billion. Required additional spending will be a minimum of $70 billion. That's $150 billion, enough to purchase several US states, enough to do a lot of good in the US and then some.

Yes, Fasttwitch, when we've spent a trillion dollars and lost thousands of American boys and Iraq is still in shambles and Israel is still no safer-but presumably being run by a non-crook-how will America be better?

I personally support Israel with my political views and my dollars, but I fail to understand how this war is going to help Israel in the long run. Oh, sure, no suicide bomber's family is getting $25,000 this month, but when we finally leave Iraq, if the problems in the Middle East haven't been solved, will the Palestinian suicide bomber's families be getting $50,000 from Iraq? I wonder....

Have we evolved at all in the last 1000 years? Have we learned nothing since Ghenghis Khan, Attila the Hun, or even Hitler? To suggest that people who oppose this war are like Neville Chamberlain is sheer madness. Saddam Hussein didn't have .01 percent of the military armament that Hitler had when he was running through Eastern Europe and Hussein hadn't invaded any country in over ten years.

Bring our troops home now.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

 Just curious about this one, perhaps you can help me out. Given that all current evidence point to the fact that all WMDs in Iraq had long since been destroyed, how could Iraq have proved to you, or to the Bush administration, that this in fact was the case? Were the exact quantities of everything previously known? Would there have to have been a paper trail for everything? How would Iraq have proven that subsequent to the first Gulf War they hadn't done (and, it turns out, they didn't)anything wrt nucluear weapons?

The Bush administration had no intention of allowing inspections to show the falsehood behind the WMD claims.




Ken,

I'll give it a try.

Did Saddam and his government cooperate to do this? I never had that impression. Why did the United Nations need 17 resolutions over 12 years in an unsuccessfully attempt to gain Saddam's and the Iraq government's cooperation and willingness to permit the inspections to be conducted. I never believed that the inspectors ever had free and unincumberred access to anything. They were required to give notice ahead of time where and what they wanted to inspect to obtain approval of access. Access would then sometimes be granted in the coming days. This was a mockery of any real inspection.

It would seem, that after 17 resolutions and 12 years that Saddam really never had any intention of cooperating with the inspection and verification process.

I have a hard time believing that the successful conclusion of the inspection and verification process was just one more UN resolution away. Or just one more year away.

If we were parents and Saddam/Iraq was our child and our child had committed unacceptable aggression and possessed unacceptable "toys", would we have accepted such intransigence as evidence that our child was no longer going to commit unacceptable aggression and no longer possessed unacceptable toys?

Maybe in your household, I'm sorry, but not in mine. It appeared that even the United Nations had a problem with the intransigence.

In the end, I guess, we just respectfully agree to disagree.

---

Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.

For every Israeli dead, 3 Palestinians are killed, without arrest, trial process or legal representation. Why doesn't the US do anything about this? We label Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists, however, we fail to realize that there only weapon is in fact that, suicide bombings because the Israelis have troops, tanks, helicopters and planes.



Fasttwitch,

Perhaps the Palestinians could be persuaded through negotiation to stop killing Israelis. Then fewer Palestinians would be killed by the Israelis?

Oh, I'm sorry, If the Palestinians took away the reason for Israeli violence against them, who could they blame? I guess that's why Israel must be destroyed. Maybe that's why the United States must also be destroyed.

Thank you for that awakening. Now I think I get it.

---

Ben Cline


Better to aspire to Greatness and fail, than to not challenge one's self at all, and succeed.