Photographs of War Dead

Anna Gregoline | April 26, 2004
Here's a question I've been hearing a lot lately, but haven't heard any personal debate on it - Should war dead photos be banned?

Melissa Erin | April 26, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 26, 2004
I think it's ok, and shows a measure of respect to take the time to acknowledge those soldiers deep sacrifice.

Jackie Mason | April 26, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | April 27, 2004
Showing coffins decorated with flags and being attended by soldiers in their dress uniforms indicates proper respect for those who gave their lives, just as trying to hide that kind of image from the public does not show proper respect. I don't buy the administration's argument that it's necessary to protect the families' privacy, since none of the coffins are personally identifiable. This seems like just another instance of the Bush administration trying to hide something ugly because it doesn't think the public can handle it.

Mike Eberhart | April 27, 2004
First of all, this has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. This policy was in effect way before Bush took office. I think it was put in place during the Vietnam war, and it hasn't changed since. So, this isn't a Bush thing that they are mad the pictures came out, it just went against policy that's been in place for years. Clinton could have gotten rid of the policy when he was in office for 8 years, but he didn't. So don't blame this one on Bush.

Anna Gregoline | April 27, 2004
I don't remember two massive wars during Clinton's time in office, so maybe it didn't come up.

Mike Eberhart | April 27, 2004
Hmm, Kosovo ring a bell. We were involved in that... We had casualties that were flown back and there were photographs taken, but they weren't released.

I'll even go back farther then, and say that Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, then Bush II could have repealed that policy, but they didn't. So, it's just something that has been in place, and hasn't been changed.

Scott Hardie | April 27, 2004
Good point, Mike. I have read that the policy was initiated in 1991 and not applied very much until recently. The liberal columnist who made that point (Jonathan Alter) tried to make it sound like the Bush administration, specifically Cheney, has abused an old policy to cover up the current war losses. But there simply haven't been many war deaths until recently, so of course the policy hasn't been applied very much until recently; that's a simple matter of numbers.

Anna Gregoline | April 27, 2004
Well, I think we're saying it should be changed! Do you think it should change or stay the same, meaning, should the policy stand?

I remember a LOT more mention/photos of memorial services/flag draped coffins during previous administrations. Maybe because we weren't involved in a major conflict, it wasn't as hidden?

Melissa Erin | April 27, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 27, 2004
And then there's this:

"From Nightline’s 4-27 daily email (tonight’s show is on the Cheney Supreme Court case):

Now I want to tell you about this Friday’s broadcast. We’re going to do something different, something that we think is important. Friday night, we will show you the pictures, and Ted will read the names, of the men and women from the armed forces who have been killed in combat in Iraq. That’s it. That will be the whole broadcast. Nightline has been reporting on the casualties under the heading of “Line of Duty.”

But we realized that we seemed to just be giving numbers. So many killed in this incident, so many more in that attack. Whether you agree with the war or not, these men and women are serving, are putting their lives on the line, in our names. We think it is important to remember that those who have paid the ultimate price all have faces, and names, and loved ones. We thought about doing this on Memorial Day, but that’s a time when most media outlets do stories about the military, and they are generally lost in the holiday crush of picnics and all. We didn’t want this broadcast to get lost. Honestly, I don’t know if people will watch this for thirty seconds, or ten minutes, or at all. That’s not the point. We think this is important. These men and women have earned nothing less.

One point, we are not going to include those killed in non-hostile incidents. There’s no disrespect meant here, we just don’t have enough time in this one broadcast. But they are no less deserving of our thoughts. I hope that you will join us for at least part of “The Fallen” on Friday.

Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff Nightline Offices ABCNEWS Washington D.C."

I have a feeling that the controversy regarding press coverage of war casulaties is onyl just beginning.

Jackie Mason | April 27, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 28, 2004
Soldiers who kill themselves are counted as "non-combat deaths," and hence are listed as generic casualties rather than as combat fatalities.

More disturbingly, it seems that soldiers who die of their wounds after being evacuated for medical aid are not beign counted as combat deaths, either. They, too, are listed seperately from soldiers killed immediately in battle.

Erik Bates | April 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | April 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | April 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | April 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Melissa Erin | April 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 28, 2004
Well there were the famous "Good Friday accords" signed int he 90s, which hhave dramatically reduced the level of armed conflict in thso eparts. Parts of Belfast are still basically war zones, of course, but bombings and strikes on civilians are down quite a bit.

Anna Gregoline | April 28, 2004
Why are the Iraqi's psycho to you, Jackie?

Steve Dunn | April 29, 2004
I think the Catholic/Protestant thing is more about loyalty to England. I'm no expert, but I believe the Catholics are more in favor of Irish independence while the Protestants (Anglicans?) are loyal to the British royal family.

I agree it's weak. People all over the world seem to have an amazing capacity for finding reasons to kill each other.

Jackie Mason | April 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 29, 2004
Life is definitely worse at the moment for most Iraqi's than it was in the past. Yes, they are pleased Saddam is gone, but no one likes their country occupied, especially if you think your religious life is at stake as well. I think if we were occupied in the same manner, people would be fighting just as hard (yes, including suicide bombers).

Steve Dunn | April 29, 2004
Here are some interesting poll numbers.

Remember, violence gets on TV - school and hospital renovations do not. There is a lot more of the latter than the former in Iraq. The "insurgents" are a small minority of Iraqis, almost entirely concentrated in a few towns. There are indications the fighters in Fallujah are loyal to Saddam Hussein.

Anthony Lewis | April 29, 2004
Eh...it may be a long-standing policy, but I don't remember any administration being as anal about it as the current administration.

Jackie Mason | April 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | April 30, 2004
I wish they would make note of the thousands of Iraqis that have died too, although reading their names would probably be impossible because of how to collect the data.

Kris Weberg | April 30, 2004
The group that is refusing to air the Koppel special is Sinclair Boradcasting, who have issues a statement that the NIghtline special edition "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

In 2003, Sinclair also refused to let WMSN, their Fox affiliate in Madison, Wisconsin, air a DNC advertisement that featured a clip of President Bush making the since-debunked claim "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Every other network's local affiliate had no problem with the ad, and aired it as they would nay otehr poltiical advertisement.

They also fired most of the commentary people from their local news statsion and replaced them with one man, their corporate communications chief Mark Hyman. Hyman regularly refers to the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," the so-called liberal media as the "hate-America crowd," and progressives as "the lonely left." On one recent commentary, Hyman called members of Congress who voted against a recent resolution affirming the righteousness of the Iraq war "unpatriotic politicians who hate our military." All of which are fine as one person's opinions, but Sinclair has effectively made it corporate policy to eschew local affiliate commentary in favor of a single, strongly conservative pblic relations director's editorials. (You can check out his transcripts here.)

They also fired even more journalists and began airing misleading "news" segments actually produced by George W. Bush's administration. The spots are aired during the nightly news, and are not disclaimed as productions by governmental agencies or campaigns. In fact, they're presented as

Jackie Mason | April 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Melissa Erin | April 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | April 30, 2004
More on Sinclair Broadcast Group:


Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)

August 17, 1996, Saturday, SOONER EDITION

David D. Smith, president and chief executive officer of Sinclair Broadcast Group, was arrested this week in his hometown of Baltimore and charged with a misdemeanor sex offense. Sinclair owns WPGH, the Fox affiliate in Pittsburgh, and programs most of WPTT.

The Baltimore Sun reported that Smith, 45, was arrested Tuesday night in an undercover sting at a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes.

On Thursday night, Sinclair issued a statement that Smith's arrest was unrelated to company business and ''The company will continue to operate under the direction of its current management.''

Scott Hardie | May 1, 2004
Let's not forget what Sinclair said in their original announcement: "Before you judge our decision, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, we believe you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday." But Ted Koppel DID read the names of those killed on 9/11, on the first anniversary of that event.

Steve Dunn | May 3, 2004
Reading the names was a crass, sweeps-driven, politically motivated stunt. (Koppel has alternately denied he was trying to make a political statement and then likened the event to Life's magazine's publishing a week's worth of Vietnam dead, an issue that had a "big effect" on the public discourse surrounding Vietnam).

Censoring the show was idiotic, for all the reasons stated by John McCain.

A pox on both their houses, I say.

Jackie - your description of "conservative thinking" is equally applicable to the less-than-inspiring aspects of "liberal thinking." Neither side of the political aisle has a monopoly on dunderheads and jackasses.

Anna Gregoline | May 3, 2004
This is definitely true. But I do agree with Jackie that I'm tired of the "dissenting opinions means you are un-American" line. It's untrue and unfair.

Scott Hardie | May 3, 2004
Like any ad hominem attack, it distracts from real discourse. If every person who criticizes Bush is ignored on general principle, then how is it possible to discuss any actual failing of the man? If the Bush faithful wrote themselves a pass to criticize him when necessary, because they know in their hearts they're not un-American like all the damn lefties, then what about moderates, who side with Bush some of the time? Even most liberals agree with Bush on occasion, so are they occasionally worth hearing? There are no absolutes, and so we cannot ignore an entire category of arguments, but only hear and consider and reject them individually. (And I don't mean to single out conservatives for playing the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil role, since as Steve pointed out, there are people all across the political spectrum who are capable of deluding themselves and attempting to delude others, or just plain illogical.)

Scott Hardie | May 3, 2004
Also: If you needed further evidence that our political world is in the process of reversing itself once again, we now have conservatives seeking to stop liberals from honoring American soldiers killed honorably. In politics, nothing is sacred.

Steve Dunn | May 3, 2004
I think the phenomenon of liberals' having their patriotism questioned is wildly overblown. Specifically, I see lefties complain about it approximately 100 times more than I see it actually happening. I also think the same thing happens in reverse - for example, many of the impassioned criticisms of the Patriot Act were based upon its provisions being un-American in some way or another. I think John Ashcroft's patriotism has been questioned as much or more as he's questioned anyone else's.

There have, admittedly, been some dumb-ass statements made by dumb-ass conservatives along the lines that anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration might as well be aligned with Saddam Husseina and Osama Bin Laden. I agree they're dumb and annoying, but I can't get too worked up about it since I've been hearing for 20 years that Republicans are aligned with abortion clinic bombers and the KKK.

I guess at the end of the day I find it difficult to believe that anyone seriously thinks the anti-war perspective has been silenced or quashed (not that anyone here has said that). I haven't noticed much holding back regarding negative opinions of anything and everything the Bush administration has done.

Anna Gregoline | May 3, 2004
Honestly? Almost every single conservative opinion I've run across in regards for the war expresses some part of the "stop dissenting because it's damaging to our troops/the more you shout, the less american you are to me" mentality. TC has been pretty good in this regard, but I'm only speaking from personal experience here. And I'm tired of it.

Kris Weberg | May 3, 2004
I'm with Anna. I can't think of a conservative columnist or media personality who hasn't played the patriotism card to try and silence or minimize anti-war arguments.

Steve Dunn | May 3, 2004
Hmmm... maybe we have different definitions of what it means to play the patriotism card. Can you give me some examples of what you mean? I know of a few extreme examples, but I'm not sure what you mean every conservative columnist or media personality has been saying.

Is there anything that approaches the level of offensiveness, for example, as comparing George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler?

Jackie Mason | May 3, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | May 4, 2004
Steve, the Bush/Hitler comparison was an amateur ad entered in a website contest. It didn't win the contest, MoveOn.org didn't create the ad themselves, and it was posted on-site because the contest invlved letting people view the ads and then vote on them. One entrant comapred Bush to Hitler. Not an anchorperson, not an editorialist in a newspaper, just soem guy entering a public, open website contest.

Hardly the kind of major-media commentary I was talking about. I can't think of single liberal columnist or TV "talking head" who compared Bush to Hitler. I can think of numerous conservative columnists and TV/radio personalities who accused liberals of being unpatriotic for opposing the war -- everyone from Ann Coulter to Sean Hannity has done it. Andrew Sullivan accused anti-war protestors of weakening morale and effectively supporting terrorism. Glenn Reynolds did the same thing nearly every day in the run-up to the war.

The worst of them all was Bill O'Reilly, who actually told the son of 9/11 victims, a guest on his show, that he was shaming his parents by opposing the war. (And please, anybody out there, don't try telling me O'Reilly isn't conservative. The self-professed "registered Independent" was in fact a registered Republican for decades, and the vast bulk of his stated positions are comfortably on the conservative end of things.)

Steve Dunn | May 4, 2004
Kris - I didn't mean to confuse the issue by bringing up the Bush/Hitler comparison. I just picked out an outrageous charge for illustrative purposes. But really, it goes far beyond the MoveOn.org ad.

I suppose what I am trying to suggest is that the "liberals are unpatriotic" accusation is roughly as pervasive and persuasive as the "Bush is Hitler" accusation. In both cases, I think they're essentially limited to the fringe. With the exceptions of Sullivan and Reynolds, I consider the people you mentioned elements of the conservative fringe, far more interested in drawing attention to themselves than in advancing thoughtful public discourse. They are the right wing equivalents of Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Paul Begala.

But then, I might just be misunderstanding what it means to accuse someone of "being unpatriotic" and why this should considered out of bounds. As I mentioned above, it was (and is) fahionable in certain circles to accuse conservatives of being racists. At the end of the day, on SOME level the charge is accurate - perhaps it is fair to note that Antonin Scalia and the Grand Dragon of the KKK have the same opinion regarding the constitutionality of race-based affirmative action - this can be parlayed into a plausibly accurate charge that "Scalia agrees with the KKK."

Similarly, it might be said with equal accuracy that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were "on the same side as Saddam Hussein" in regard to the question whether the coalition should invade.

Unfair? Sure. But I sense (here and in many other places) a strong feeling that questioning people's patriotism is below-the-belt. I'm not convinced. I'm not sure being called "unpatriotic" is worse than being accused of "not caring about the poor" or being "owned by corporate interests" or wanting to "strip away our civil liberties" or being an "imperialist" or for that matter, being "stupid."

To me it just seems like a convenient point of attack for those disposed to lowbrow politics - of which there are plenty to go around, on all sides of every issue.

I don't endorse it myself - I know that most folks who care about politics do so because they CARE about America, what it stands for, how we relate to each other and the world. I trust you understand I agree there are genuine patriots on both sides of the American political fence.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around why questioning someone's patriotism is more offensive than other lame political insults. My hunch is that most folks who want Bush to lose in November think that "patriotism" (whatever that means - perhaps in this context supporting a strong, potent, proactive, pre-emptive America) is a winning issue for him, and they want to take that issue away by claiming patriotism for themselves.

As I type this, I am suddenly very hopeful and optimistic. After all, if patriotism is the one thing neither side will concede to the other, we must not be so divided after all. At least we're arguing about why our competing visions genuinely exemplify the true spirit of our nation, rather than advocating its violent overthrow.

Anna Gregoline | May 4, 2004
Nail on the head with your last comment. It's because people who argue these things care - that's why we get so upset when we're told we're unpatriotic, meaning we look to undermine this country.

Anna Gregoline | May 4, 2004
Having some bearing on this discussion is this: Karen Hughes equating pro-choice marchers with Al Queda terrorists.

Jackie Mason | May 4, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | June 1, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | June 3, 2004
[hidden by request]