Dover Air Force Base - Mortuary Procedures

The Final Leg of The Long Sad Journey Home

Published on April 19, 2004 By mikimouse In Politics

Of course by now we all know how Bush and Co. will not allow any photos and press coverage of what he considers to be the useless and the shameful; mere pawns who can no longer help his cause. But this site will allow those of us who care about the dead GI's to see their final destination, the destination Bush and Co. wish to deny you.

Comments (Page 2)

dharmagrl

on Apr 30, 2004

Not too much in the news about families complaining about an invasion of privacy. I haven't seen anything like that on the many sites I frequent.

D'ya think that could be because they're not frequently published? And I imagine that there HAVE been complaints. I'll check on the news sites I frequent.

By the way do you guys conspire with each other because this thread was dead forever and all of a sudden there's a bunch of new posts by the heavy hitters here

You're not including me as a 'heavy hitter', are you?

mikimouse

on Apr 30, 2004

in the top 10 = heavy hitter to me!

It seemed odd how I got all these responses all of a sudden, on a forgotten thread.

Draginol

on Apr 30, 2004

Uh, Mikimouse, the thread was dead until you responded to it 3 times in a row after a week of non-activity. You brought it back to life.

mikimouse

on Apr 30, 2004

ok but I'm talking about the recent influx from the heavy hitters.

KarmaGirl

on Apr 30, 2004

So, two people in the top ten responded so you say "the heavy hitters" were here?....uh, how do you think they got in the top 10, anyway? Do you think that maybe people are responding because they just now saw it and started in on the discussion?
And, more importantly, why do you claim that it results in "losing a ton of points"? People commenting *adds* points.

dharmagrl

on Apr 30, 2004

I have never considered myself a 'heavy hitter'.

I saw this on the forums, read it, and decided to respond. I don't know who, how or why it was resurrected, and I don't know how you could be losing points because people are responding to it.....

vincible

on May 02, 2004

just a matter of basic decency but apparently anti-war people are willing to shed decency and instead use their bodies for crass political gain

Interesting that you think this when you support Bush using images of the 9/11 dead in his advertising. Why aren't those pictures a violation of basic decency too?

I can see your position being justified if the relevant family members granted permission, but I've never seen any hint that that happened, and I've looked.

Das Kaffinator

on May 02, 2004

Interesting that you think this when you support Bush using images of the 9/11 dead in his advertising. Why aren't those pictures a violation of basic decency too?

Interesting since Draginol never expressed support for this. You are making assumptions.

vincible

on May 02, 2004

I'm basing my comment on what he wrote in his previous blog, "Bush Campaign ads should show 9/11 images," which he wrote during that controversy a couple months ago about Bush's 9/11 ads, one of which showed firefighters carrying a flag-draped body. In that blog, he was supportive of this ad campaign. Certainly we didn't hear about how it was a violation of basic decency.

http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=9632

To be fair, in that blog, he did not explicitly mention the pictures of the dead, and said that Bush needed to be "careful" with the ads. So my post wasn't phrased as well as it ought to have been. It would have been better to ask why he did not criticize Bush for use of the images.

Draginol

on May 03, 2004

Interesting that you think this when you support Bush using images of the 9/11 dead in his advertising. Why aren't those pictures a violation of basic decency too?

I don't s upport showing the dead from 9/11 in his advertising -- at least not showing specific, identifiable individuals.

My position on this is consistent.

JeremyG

on May 03, 2004

BTW, if a given family decides they want to have their loved one's body or coffin shown on TV then that's their right. It should be up to the family to decide what coverage their fallen receive, not the media.

Yes, what the media can, and cannot show should be tightly monitored.

Draginol

on May 03, 2004

When it comes to invading the privacy of non-public figures, yes the media should be tightly monitored. Last time I checked, the media wasn't elected.

mikimouse

on May 03, 2004

media...dragman stand in line at your local supermarket and read the trash news tabloids. Why are they so acceptable?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!