Oops, wrong heroes, but feel free to honor them anyway. It's all in the interest of honest debate. Honestly.Columbia Crew Mistakenly Identified As Iraqi War Casualties
Many news organizations across the country are mistakenly identifying the flag-draped caskets of the Space Shuttle Columbia's crew as those of war casualties from Iraq.
Editors are being asked to confirm that the images used in news reports are in fact those of American casualties and not those of the NASA astronauts who were killed Feb.1, 2003, in the Columbia tragedy.
An initial review of the images featured on the Internet site www.thememoryhole.org shows that more than 18 rows of images from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware are actually photographs of honors rendered to Columbia's seven astronauts.
News organizations across the world have been publishing and distributing images featured on the web site.
Dead Reckoning
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
In related news, during the leftist media's bloodlust to expose American war casualties, someone seems to have overlooked a little thing called fact-checking. From NASA:
Here's my take on all this. Pictures used to honor and memoralise the dead are perfectly acceptable.
Joe Rosenthal, WW2 photographer, would never show the face of a dead soldier/marine in any of his pictures. This was to respect the person and the fallen soldiers family. Where I draw the line is when the photographs are used for political agendas. The far left anti-war crowd is notorious for doing this as are they for demeaning soldiers for fighting for their country ( as in," Be the first one on your block...to have your son come home in a box".)
In this case it was the leftinista's who first published the pics on one of their web sites with the intent to show a graphic image of body counts to show the cost of Bush's illegitimate war. Unfortunately for the lefty's what came out of the images was the care and tenderness the fallen were shown by the escort. So in this case the "caring" anti-war types were upstaged by those they vilify as tools of capitalistic aggressors.
Joe Rosenthal, WW2 photographer, would never show the face of a dead soldier/marine in any of his pictures. This was to respect the person and the fallen soldiers family. Where I draw the line is when the photographs are used for political agendas. The far left anti-war crowd is notorious for doing this as are they for demeaning soldiers for fighting for their country ( as in," Be the first one on your block...to have your son come home in a box".)
In this case it was the leftinista's who first published the pics on one of their web sites with the intent to show a graphic image of body counts to show the cost of Bush's illegitimate war. Unfortunately for the lefty's what came out of the images was the care and tenderness the fallen were shown by the escort. So in this case the "caring" anti-war types were upstaged by those they vilify as tools of capitalistic aggressors.
Most likely. But even at 250,000, it pales to the massive force we had during Desert Storm. Remember in Desert Storm how the Iraqis basically surrendered, running toward us and dropping their weapons rather than engaging us? I don't know about you, but a force a half-million strong has that effect on people. It's just a shame that the world isn't more united. As Kerry said, the world really has a stake in what happens in Iraq and it's about time the international community stopped ignoring the issue. What, precisely, do Spain, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic intend to gain from backing out?bash wrote:Sol, total troops under coalition control in Iraq stands at more than 250,000. You may be overlooking Iraqi troops.
bash wrote:the Left's crusade
bash wrote:on leftist sites that I've seen brainstorming for ways to show more US dead
bash wrote:leftist media's bloodlust to expose American war casualties
woodchip wrote:far left anti-war crowd is notorious
woodchip wrote:it was the leftinista's
woodchip wrote:Unfortunately for the lefty's
woodchip wrote:the "caring" anti-war types
Sigh.bash wrote:As I said, I don't want this to turn into a left vs right thread.
He should surf his cynical fingers over to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss and read the message board. After showering, he may discover he's been divested of his delusions as to what it means to be a liberal these days.
Why I only lasted for one post:
"We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."
Notice how the DU has determined "Democratic" means only one point of view. So much for open dialog so as to understand the issues better.
"We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."
Notice how the DU has determined "Democratic" means only one point of view. So much for open dialog so as to understand the issues better.
Unlike most "liberals" I guess, I've never even heard of the site. For that matter, I've never been to any of the so-called liberal web sites you claim are so common. Google vindicates me. A quick search for "liberal" or "democrat" turns up nothing like this site. I just find it amusing that the only "official" site you can point to in both cases is the Democratic Underground. One site, hidden away on Google, characterizes all liberals? Fascinating. I mean, really, I'd believe that a web site that supposedly "accurately represent mainstream liberal thought" would be far higher on the Google page rank, wouldn't you?
Furthermore, even Kerry's web site classifies the link as "For the Adventurous" as opposed to "For Everyone" or "Friendly Forums for Beginners." That seems, to me, like self-admission that it's a web site on the fringe.
I only mentioned the right in the original post. Since then, I have refrained from knocking your side, yet you seem so intent on taking down the liberals. My point in the half-dozen quotes above is to demonstrate that. It's rather unfortunate you are so hellbent on degrading this thread into a typical left vs. right battle rather than tackling the issues.
Furthermore, even Kerry's web site classifies the link as "For the Adventurous" as opposed to "For Everyone" or "Friendly Forums for Beginners." That seems, to me, like self-admission that it's a web site on the fringe.
bash wrote:As I said, I don't want this to turn into a left vs right thread.
I only mentioned the right in the original post. Since then, I have refrained from knocking your side, yet you seem so intent on taking down the liberals. My point in the half-dozen quotes above is to demonstrate that. It's rather unfortunate you are so hellbent on degrading this thread into a typical left vs. right battle rather than tackling the issues.
- Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
The father of one fallen soldier gave a pretty good response to this question here.
Our Honor, Our Grief
Keep politicians and the media away from our fallen soldiers.
BY RONALD R. GRIFFIN
Saturday, May 1, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
EMERSON, N.J.--The debate, or rather the topic of criticism, had been simmering even before the first of the fallen heroes in their Flag Draped Coffins began to arrive at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Dianne Feinstein, debating the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, both insulted Americans by her flat-out prediction that as the numbers of the fallen heroes rose the resolve of the American would evaporate and then pre-insulted the soon-to-come fallen heroes by referring to them in the crudest of terms as "body bags."
Since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, opponents of President Bush have used the deaths of soldiers as political fodder, excoriating him as an uncaring man for not attending their funerals and for keeping in place the policy of no media coverage during the transport of deceased military personnel. The simmering debate has become an inferno, for there are now pictures.
The words of criticism are the same now as they were last year. Last week Mark Shields criticized President Bush for not attending a single funeral and for his refusal to lift the ban on media coverage at Dover. That same day, the New York Times reiterated its editorial opinion to have the ban lifted, saying that though the "theory" seems to be that the pictures are intrusive to bereaved families, "it seems far more likely" that the Pentagon is eager to check "the impact that photos of large numbers of flag-draped coffins may have on the American public's attitude toward the war."
I have lived through the numbing sadness of going to Dover to pick up my son, and have experienced the body-shaking pain of having to lay to his final rest a member of the U.S. military.
The idea of criticizing President Bush on his choice not to attend the funerals is ludicrous. The simple fact is that President Bush either attends all or attends none for to attend some could be interpreted as an insult to those fallen heroes whose funerals he is seen to have "spurned." Besides, the logistics are impossible. On the day that my son was being buried in New Jersey his two buddies he was killed with were being buried at the same time at opposite ends of Pennsylvania. What was the president to do when the helicopter crashed and killed 17 soldiers? How to attend 17 funerals without forcing the families to wait for the president?
I would not have wanted the president to attend my son's funeral, for it would have changed the entire dynamic of the day. The church service was a "Celebration of the Life of Kyle Andrew Griffin" and had President Bush honored us with his presence that would have all changed. It would have become a media circus. I knew full well how much President Bush honors my son, and I am comforted by that.
The arguments put forth to have the ban on media coverage lifted vary from allowing the American people to bear witness to the sacrifice of the soldiers and thus honor them, to the need to deny President Bush the opportunity to hide the real costs in human terms of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Steve Capus, executive producer of "NBC Nightly News," arrogantly and presumptuously spoke for me when he stated, "It would seem that the only reason somebody would come out against the use of these pictures is that they are worried about the political fallout." Well I am that "somebody," and as I looked at those pictures the tears were not running because of my worry about political fallout. In all the criticism there has never once been put forth a single argument of how having the media coverage lifted would be of benefit to the loved ones of these heroes. We are never taken into account. We are the collateral damage in this all so obvious ideological struggle.
During those days between June 1 last year, when we were notified of our son's death, and June 6, when we picked him up at Dover, we were constantly (and privately) informed of the process that was taking place. We were aware that he would leave the evacuation hospital, and be transported to Kuwait and eventually to Dover. But as in all things military, exact timeframes were nonexistent. Our Casualty Assistance Officer, Sgt. First Class Tyrone Russell, who was with us every step of this process and who was to become an individual beloved by all who had the honor of meeting him, informed us on June 5 that we could pick up our son the next morning. That would have meant that our son would have arrived along with his buddies sometime on the later half of June 4. There would have been a certain time-requirement to perform the final identification process and conduct the final military-only ceremony to honor the fallen heroes.
Had the media ban not been in effect, we, the families of fallen soldiers, would not have had these moments to ourselves. Without the ban, it is conceivable that I could have viewed a procession of flag-draped coffins as they disembarked from the aircraft. But how would the families of those other fallen heroes, who would be unable to come to Dover because they lived in Iowa or North Dakota or Arizona, feel when they viewed on TV their loved ones arriving? Would they feel the honor that was being bestowed upon them from all those other Americans? Or would they suffer further when the pictures were used in the context of criticism?
If it is truly the intention of those who support the lifting of the ban to honor these gallant individuals while giving the American public the opportunity to grieve with them--and if it is truly the intention to bear witness to sacrifice and view at first hand the cost of this war--then let them visit the families of those who freely chose to join the military family. Let them visit the grave sites, let them journey to Fort Bragg or Fort Campbell or Fort Hood and speak to those who have returned or who might soon be joining the fight.
My son, Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, was a hero as a soldier and as a son. He died loving what he was doing with those he loved and respected. He will be forever remembered by those who knew him. The date of his birth will be seared into the memory of all Americans, for he was born on Sept. 11, 1982. But never should the memory of his death be intoned as ammunition on the political battlefield.
Mr. Griffin is the father of Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, a recipient of the Army Commendation Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal and the Bronze Star, who was killed in a truck accident on a road between Mosul and Tikrit on May 30, 2003.
-
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Israel
We're in a real no-win situation. I'm gonna make like a Canadian and sit on the fence to point in another direction. If the pictures are shown it's anti-war, anti Bush/Blair leftist propaganda. If they're not shown it smacks of censorship. Devide and conqour.
Whatever happens however, our media outlets rake in the cash with grins from ear to ear, it makes me sick, even more than the pictures shown, that we can be allowed to be manipulated in such away. Also i wouldn't have a clue how to fix this problem, which pisses me off even more.
The greatest advocate of the democratic system is being led by it's nose by the media giants, thus rendering it's upcoming elections a farce. The free will that the west (not exclusivly the US) spews upon it's neighbors is a joke, or a myth if you like, because our free will is dictated by which button to press on the remote we have in our hand, the problem is that every button which proffesses to be different is basically the same.
We're all bloody puppets who love the feel of the strings.
Whatever happens however, our media outlets rake in the cash with grins from ear to ear, it makes me sick, even more than the pictures shown, that we can be allowed to be manipulated in such away. Also i wouldn't have a clue how to fix this problem, which pisses me off even more.
The greatest advocate of the democratic system is being led by it's nose by the media giants, thus rendering it's upcoming elections a farce. The free will that the west (not exclusivly the US) spews upon it's neighbors is a joke, or a myth if you like, because our free will is dictated by which button to press on the remote we have in our hand, the problem is that every button which proffesses to be different is basically the same.
We're all bloody puppets who love the feel of the strings.
Flabby, as a citizen of a country in a constant war, do these sort of lame anti-war tactics get tolerated? Are the dead paraded like puppets in macabre theater to satisfy your liberals? Do they lie like ours do and pretend to be *honoring* the dead, all the while smirking at the mischief they make and the defeatism and despair they sow? Don't you just feel like spanking their little whining bottoms sometimes?
-
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Israel
Bash, bodies have been shown in the past in the Israeli media, as have victims of terror, by accident more often than not, because the reporting is usually live a few seconds after an explosion. These images provide armour for the liberals (as you call them) as well as the right wing. For one camp it shows the pointlessness of the occupation, to the other it proves that the question of "transference" is a viable option.
To be honest, in a society where most of the population has been a soldier, or lost somone close to them, as everyone has; we're used to it. To them these images don't hold much sway, or provoke so much emotion as they do in the States or Europe. Very sad for me to say it but there you go.
To be honest, in a society where most of the population has been a soldier, or lost somone close to them, as everyone has; we're used to it. To them these images don't hold much sway, or provoke so much emotion as they do in the States or Europe. Very sad for me to say it but there you go.