Ed Henry to Obama: Will you allow Americans to ‘see the full human cost of war?’
Ed Henry to Obama: Will you allow Americans to ‘see the full human cost of war?’
Since 1991, the media have been banned from covering the arrival of remains of military dead at Delaware’s Dover Air Force Base. Yesterday, noting that Vice President Biden has previously criticized this policy, CNN’s Ed Henry asked President Obama a hard-hitting question on whether the administration will rescind this policy in the spirit of transparency:
HENRY: And back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be, quote, snuck back into the country under the cover of night. You’ve promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy so the American people can see the full human cost of war?
Obama answered that “we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense.” Watch it:
The question comes as four American soldiers and an interpreter were killed Monday in a suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
He failed to express his own feelings on the matter, as he often does.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:45 amSo far I’m disappointed.
Obama answered that “we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense.”
– - In other words Ed, don’t hold your breath.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:48 amWe’re grownups, President Obama.
Flag-draped coffins are a reality of war — more tragically, illegal wars — let those who support this war see the consequences.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:48 amThis should be an immediate policy change. Better yet, why doesn’t he to his promises of the past and pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Then disband the military, and we won’t have any more dead bodies – especially of poor civilians of oppressed countries.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
February 10th, 2009 at 10:50 amThe question comes as four American soldiers and an interpreter were killed Monday in a suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.
and, the day before that…
Local National Guard soldiers killed in Afghanistan
By Paul Wood
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 8:59 AM CDT
CHAMPAIGN – A Champaign soldier, Staff Sgt. Jason Burkholder, 27, and an Oakland native, 1st Lt. Jared Southworth, 26, were the two National Guard soldiers killed Sunday by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan.
Both were assigned to Headquarters Co., 2nd Battalion, 130th Infantry, part of the 33rd brigade training Afghan police, according to Staff Sgt. Stephanie McCurry in Springfield. That unit is headquartered in Urbana.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:51 am[...]
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2009/02/10/local_national_guard_soldiers_killed_in_afghanistan
So far I’m disappointed.
Not me, I had a 7″, double-taper, one-wiper BEFORE my morning coffee.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:52 amI think he is smart to look at the issue before he makes a decision. I think he will allow photographs, but first he needs to talk to the people involved. Cut him a break! At least he thinks things through and just doesn’t “go with his gut.”
February 10th, 2009 at 10:57 amIt’s a shame that the mediocre media hasn’t taken the initiative and published videos and photos that show lives being ripped apart in these wars. War is not pretty, but its reporting by the american media is only a very sanitized version.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:57 amApparently they’ve been told by the government to not display bloody or mangled bodies so as to not destroy the vision of the heroic, liberating troops.
I hope this issue gets forgotten. Respect families of the fallen to grieve in private. If they later want to put their fallen kids in the public eye, they are free to do so at their choice. Lets respect a family’s privacy and not exploit them for political grandstanding without consent. There are plenty of other ways to get the message of the cost of war out there.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:05 amnellre Says:
He failed to express his own feelings on the matter, as he often does.
So far I’m disappointed.
As he often does? Did you listen to his answer? Among the list of problem he has inherited – as tragic as the deaths of our soldiers is – this issue is closer to the bottom of the pile than the top.
Reviewing the policies makes sense. Who are we to say that he should promote something definitely and across the board when most of us have not had a close family member die in the war?
What if a certain soldier’s family would not want their son/daughter’s casket shown on its arrival home? It is too touchy a subject to simply say, BOOM! It’s reversed!! And this isn’t at all saying that what Bush did was right AT ALL, but I think the issue is a little more nuanced than some posters here seem to believe.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:07 amUndecided Says:
I hope this issue gets forgotten. Respect families of the fallen to grieve in private. If they later want to put their fallen kids in the public eye, they are free to do so at their choice. Lets respect a family’s privacy and not exploit them for political grandstanding without consent. There are plenty of other ways to get the message of the cost of war out there.
I totally agree. Unlike Bush’s blanket banning – which was motivated, I believe, NOT out of respect for the families but as a way to hold onto fleeting public support for the war by making it very abstract – Obama is right to say that this needs to be reviewed and probably should be handled on a case by case basis.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:10 amMost people only like war when it resembles a John Wayne movie…….Death with no gore. If people saw the real results of war they could not deal with it.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:12 amWhere were Ed Henry’s skepticism and willingness to question authority during the entire Bush administration?
February 10th, 2009 at 11:18 amOT: And now for a statement that will make many republicans heads explode!
Ron Paul: Where were we in the past eight years, when we could have done something? It is the last eight years that has set this situation up. So we can’t blame the Democrats for the conditions we have.
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-slams-born-again-budget-conservatives/
Of course also in the article Ron Paul claims that the stimulus package will turn the recession into a depression when in reality our country is already headed for a depression and the stimulus package will either work and slowly turn things around or lead the country into a deeper depression which is what all of those patriots on the right are hoping for.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:21 am“Undecided”… STILL? REALLY???
February 10th, 2009 at 11:22 amWTF?
I am a vet, USAF, 64-68.
IIRC, when the Commander-In-Chief makes a “request,” it seems to me, that is a polite way of saying “Hey. Mr. Gates. That’s an order. Get off your dead ass and FIX it!”
If that’s NOT what Prez.O means, then WTF is he doing in the position of CiC??? Why in god’s wooly name is he NEGOTIATING with the farouking Pentagon? He alone gets to say to them “Do IT!”
February 10th, 2009 at 11:26 am1st Republic 14th Star Says:
Where were Ed Henry’s skepticism and willingness to question authority during the entire Bush administration?
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
A better question would be “Where was all of the media’s skepticism and willingness to question authority during the entire Bush administration?”
It appears the entire ‘Liberal’ media is making up lost time as they seemed to have been asleep at the wheel at performing their jobs for the last eight years. One can only assume that the media is either bias or they were threatened by the Bush administration through out his two terms.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:27 amTweedster Says:
What if a certain soldier’s family would not want their son/daughter’s casket shown on its arrival home?
With all due respect, what happens when they’re downloading 5 coffins from a military plane, and families #1 and #4 DONT want the people to see the casket, while the rest of the families do? Do they blur two of the caskets, or what?
As long as they don’t identify the deceased soldiers, they could and should be shown on national TV to show the American people the reality and consequences of war, not merely random clips of videogame-like explosions from afar.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:33 amJust watch the HBO Kevin Bacon thing about escorting a soldier’s body home.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:37 amLuis M Says:
With all due respect, what happens when they’re downloading 5 coffins from a military plane, and families #1 and #4 DONT want the people to see the casket, while the rest of the families do? Do they blur two of the caskets, or what?
As long as they don’t identify the deceased soldiers, they could and should be shown on national TV to show the American people the reality and consequences of war, not merely random clips of videogame-like explosions from afar.
Fair enough point – although I guess it is kind of an oversimplification to think that the only available “photo-op” moment would be while the coffins are offloaded.
I’m just not qualified to have much of an opinion on the matter since I haven’t lost anyone in my immediate family due to the war.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:38 amIt’s been, what, less than a month? He’s president, not king. A significant change in policy requires some thought. It sounds like they’re doing that. The issue isn’t that we need to see these coffins RIGHT NOW ASAP , the issue is to overturn Bush’s cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion by withholding information, and do it in a proper way. These coffins should NOT be hidden from view. But neither should they become a circus parade.
I think a somewhat higher priority for the media would be for them to do some Real Reporting for a change. Seeing the images helps tell the Story – but the Story is there and available for anyone who cares to report it which they rarely do properly. If coffin photos become just another way to sell TV time or newspapers, I can pass.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:45 amI look forward to the day when a team of journalists is assembled at Dover to await the arrival of fallen heroes, and the plane is empty.
In other words, I await…
PEACE
February 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am00mpp00 Says:
This should be an immediate policy change. Better yet, why doesn’t he to his promises of the past and pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Actually, he promised to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Then disband the military, and we won’t have any more dead bodies – especially of poor civilians of oppressed countries.
YEAH! Than lets pull the United States out of North America!
I figured one piece of satire deserved another…
February 10th, 2009 at 11:53 amObama spoke with 9/11 families regarding their concern about closing Gitmo. I would think he’d want to talk to some families who have lost one of theirs before he spoke out. In the end he told the 9/11 families that Gitmo would be closed despite their concerns and I’m pretty sure he’ll do the right thing on this issue.
February 10th, 2009 at 11:53 amThere’s a war still going on? Wow, from the all of the non-coverage those of us with a vested interest in the cost of these wars couldnt effin tell.
I would like to know where the hell have all of you so-called journalist been, and why didnt you speak out when this policy was adopted. And to the individual (undecided) that said show some respect, I agree respect for the fallen is due, and WE give them respect when we show the sacrifice that was made in the name of ALL of US, by showing them come home. There are not gonna be news organizations on the tarmac with sound trucks, anchors, and sattellites, just cameras, no words, just a picture, to show you what has been going on while you were told to go shopping by the past administartion, to show you the cost of calling those who opposed the war (Iraq) traitors, unpatriotic, to show what the sons, daughters, husbands, wifes, brothers, sisters, mom’s, dad’s, sacrificed for those who had no interest in the cost of war as long as THEY or THEIR loved ones didnt have to go. To show you what REAL AMERICANS do when called upon, instead of talking tough from their basements, living rooms, kitchens, or political rallies.
My Soldier, as well as all of the Soldiers, Airman, Marines, and Navy deserved to come home and have someone see them arrive a whole lot different than the way they left.
Respect that.
Mr. President, you should have just said YES WE WILL!!!
RIP
February 10th, 2009 at 1:16 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
I don’t get it. The press can’t cover the delivery of the remains. Yet, the remains are accompanied by neo-patriotic groups such as motorcycle convoys to make it a parade route.
Doesn’t see coherrent.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:49 pmMapleStreet Says:
I don’t get it. The press can’t cover the delivery of the remains. Yet, the remains are accompanied by neo-patriotic groups such as motorcycle convoys to make it a parade route.
Doesn’t see coherrent.
The families of the fallen soldiers would raise hell if they were delivered like an UPS package; they expect that the fallen ones be treated as patriotic soldiers, and honored. Hence the parade. Those local families don’t need to be reminded of the price they paid for war, they already know it.
HOW-ever, the press doesn’t want the _rest_ of the people to see the consequences of war. Therefore, no press coverage. As long as they’re kept off-screen, all the fallen soldiers will be mere numbers in the mind of the rest of the sheeple, if they even think of them at all.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:56 pmUncle Fester Lurks Says:
1st Republic 14th Star Says:
Where were Ed Henry’s skepticism and willingness to question authority during the entire Bush administration?
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
A better question would be “Where was all of the media’s skepticism and willingness to question authority during the entire Bush administration?”
It appears the entire ‘Liberal’ media is making up lost time as they seemed to have been asleep at the wheel at performing their jobs for the last eight years. One can only assume that the media is either bias or they were threatened by the Bush administration through out his two terms.
It seems that the liberal media coddles and regurgitates everything a GOP administration has to say, but suddenly finds the light and learns their lesson whenever a Democratic administration comes to play…just watch, the next GOP administration, they’ll go right back to being its propaganda arm.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:01 pmRepublicans learned from Vietnam.
Never draft college kids and control the media completely.
911=Inside Job
Anthrax attacks=Inside Job
Illegal wiretapping occured prior to 911
More than just water-boarding occurred.
Senator Leahy is calling for a truth commision. He was sent a Cheney Anthrax letter.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:29 pmRegarding Bush’s policies, CIA rendition, transparency, prosecution of war crimes, etc, I have the same ‘ugly’ feeling when Pelosi (The enabler) to ‘Impeachment off the table’…
February 10th, 2009 at 3:00 pmSome how, I’m still hoping, but that hope is diminishing fast as I can see same of the same in Washington’s political business.
On the issue of ‘change’ coming to Washington, this id from today’s issue DemocracyNow:
Dismissing Torture Case, Obama Continues Bush Assertion of “State Secrets”
The Obama administration has decided to continue a Bush administration policy of invoking “state secrets” to dismiss a lawsuit accusing a Boeing subsidiary of helping the CIA secretly transport prisoners to torture chambers overseas. On Monday, a San Francisco appeals court heard arguments on the American Civil Liberties Union’s attempt to reinstate the case against Jeppesen International Trip Planning on behalf of five former prisoners. The lawsuit accused Jeppesen of arranging at least seventy flights since 2001 as part of the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. The Bush administration successfully won the case’s dismissal on the grounds it would risk exposing “state secrets.” On Monday, Obama administration lawyers told judges the government’s stance is unchanged. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said, “The] Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same.”
ObamaNoChange
February 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pmAnd here are some more of the SAME “CHANGE”! It is from the same source, DemocracyNow:
Obama Responds to Leahy Proposal on Probing Bush Admin Crimes
Back at the White House, President Obama took several other questions on domestic and foreign policy at his inaugural news conference. Obama was asked about Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposal for a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate Bush administration crimes.
President Obama: “My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that, generally speaking, I’m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards. I want to pull everybody together, including, by the way, the—all the members of the intelligence community who have done things the right way and have been working hard to protect America and I think sometimes are painted with a broad brush without adequate information. So I will take a look at Senator Leahy’s proposal, but my general orientation is to say let’s get it right moving forward.”
Sounds like Pelosi to me!
February 10th, 2009 at 3:19 pmFor “full human cost of war” would include Iraq.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:40 pmThis policy goes back to WWII, in all administrations
February 10th, 2009 at 3:59 pmDifficult question: it involves questions of privacy and a free press. Perhaps consent forms should be adopted, as opposed to a universal “yes” or “no.”
February 10th, 2009 at 3:59 pmOn Obama…
This is from my favorite and real jornalist, the Australian John Pilger.
February 6, 2009
Obama and the Politics of Bollocks
by John Pilger
Growing up in an Antipodean society proud of its rich variety of expletives, I never heard the word bollocks. It was only on arrival in England that I understood its magisterial power. All classes used it. Judges grunted it; an editor of the Daily Mirror used it as noun, adjective and verb. Certainly, the resonance of a double vowel saw off its closest American contender. It had authority.
A high official with the Gilbertian title of Lord West of Spithead used it to great effect on 27 January. The former admiral, who is security adviser to Gordon Brown, was referring to Tony Blair’s famous assertion that invading countries and killing innocent people did not increase the threat of terrorism at home.
“That was clearly bollocks,” said his lordship, who warned of the perceived “linkage between the US, Israel and the UK” in the horrors inflicted on Gaza and the effect on the recruitment of terrorists in Britain. In other words, he was stating the obvious: that state terrorism begets individual or group terrorism at source. Just as Blair was the prime mover of the London bombings of 7 July 2005, so Brown, having pursued the same cynical crusades in Muslim countries and having armed and disported himself before the criminal regime in Tel Aviv, will share responsibility for related atrocities at home.
There is a lot of bollocks about at the moment.
The BBC’s explanation for banning an appeal on behalf of the stricken people of Gaza is a vivid example. Mark Thompson, the director general, cited the BBC’s legal requirement to be “impartial … because Gaza is a major ongoing news story in which humanitarian issues … are both at the heart of the story and contentious.”
In a letter to Thomson, David Bracewell, illuminated the deceit behind this. He pointed to previous BBC appeals for the Disasters Emergency Committee that were not only made in the midst of “an ongoing news story” in which humanitarian issues were “contentious,” but demonstrated how the BBC took sides. In 1999, at the height of the illegal NATO bombing of Serbia and Kosovo, the TV presenter Jill Dando made an appeal on behalf of Kosovar refugees. The BBC web page for that appeal was linked to numerous articles meant to support the gravity of the humanitarian issue. These included quotations from Blair himself, such as “This will be a daily pounding until [Slobodan Milosevic] comes into line with the terms that NATO has laid down.” There was no significant balance of view from the Yugoslav side, and not a single mention that the flight of Kosovar refugees began only after NATO had started bombing. Similarly, in an appeal for the victims of the civil war in the Congo, the BBC favored the regime of Joseph Kabila without referring to the Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and other reports accusing his forces of atrocities. In contrast, the rebel leader Nkunda was “accused of committing atrocities” and was ordained the BBC’s bad guy. Kabila, who represented western interests, was clearly the good guy – just like NATO in the Balkans and Israel in the Middle East.
While Mark Thompson and his satraps richly deserve the Lord West of Spithead Bollocks Blue Ribbon, that honor goes to the cheer squad of President Barack Obama, whose cult-like obeisance goes on and on.
On 23 January, the Guardian’s front page declared, “Obama shuts network of CIA ‘ghost prisons.’ ” The “wholesale deconstruction [sic] of George Bush’s war on terror,” said the report, had been ordered by the new president who would be “shutting down the CIA’s secret prison network, banning torture and rendition ….”
The bollocks quotient on this was so high that it read like the press release it was, citing “officials briefing reporters at the White House yesterday.” Obama’s orders, according to a group of 16 retired generals and admirals who attended a presidential signing ceremony, “would restore America’s moral standing in the world.” What moral standing? It never ceases to astonish that experienced reporters can transmit PR stunts like this, bearing in mind the moving belt of lies from the same source under only nominally different management.
Far from “deconstructing [sic] the war on terror,” Obama is clearly pursuing it with the same vigor, ideological backing and deception as the previous administration. George W. Bush’s first war, in Afghanistan, and last war, in Pakistan, are now Obama’s wars – with thousands more US troops to be deployed, more bombing and more slaughter of civilians. On 22 January, the day he described Afghanistan and Pakistan as “the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism,” 22 Afghan civilians died beneath Obama’s bombs in a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds and which, by all accounts, had not laid eyes on the Taliban. Women and children were among the dead, which is normal.
Far from “shutting down the CIA’s secret prison network,” Obama’s executive orders actually give the CIA authority to carry out renditions, abductions and transfers of prisoners in secret without the threat of legal obstruction. As the Los Angeles Times disclosed, “current and former intelligence officials said the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role.” A semantic sleight of hand is that “long term prisons” are changed to “short term prisons”; and while Americans are now banned from directly torturing people, foreigners working for the US are not. This means that America’s numerous “covert actions” will operate as they did under previous presidents, with proxy regimes, such as Augusto Pinochet’s in Chile, doing the dirtiest work.
Bush’s open support for torture, and Donald Rumsfeld’s extraordinary personal overseeing of certain torture techniques, upset many in America’s “secret army” of subversive military and intelligence operators as it exposed how the system worked. Obama’s nominee for director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, has said the Army Field Manual may include new forms of “harsh interrogation,” which will be kept secret.
Obama has chosen not to stop any of this. Neither do his ballyhooed executive orders put an end to Bush’s assault on constitutional and international law. He has retained Bush’s “right” to imprison anyone, without trial or charges. No “ghost prisoners” are being released or are due to be tried before a civilian court. His nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, has endorsed an extension of Bush’s totalitarian USA PATRIOT Act, which allows federal agents to demand Americans’ library and bookshop records. The man of “change,” is changing little. That ought to be front page news from Washington.
The Lord West of Spithead Bollocks Prize (Runner-up) is shared. On 28 January, a national Greenpeace advertisement opposing a third runway at London’s Heathrow airport summed up the almost willful naivety that has obstructed informed analysis of the Obama administration. “Fortunately,” declared Greenpeace beneath a God-like picture of Obama, “the White House has a new occupant, and he has asked us all to roll back the specter of a warming planet.” This was followed by Obama’s rhetorical flourish about “putting off unpleasant decisions.” In fact, Obama has made no commitment to curtail America’s infamous responsibility for the causes of global warming. As with Bush and most modern era presidents, it is oil, not stemming carbon emissions, that informs the new administration. Obama’s national security adviser, General Jim Jones, a former NATO supreme commander, made his name planning US military control over the exploitation of oil and gas reserves from the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Guinea in Africa.
Sharing the Bollocks Runner-up Prize is the Observer, which on 25 January published a major news report headlined, “How Obama set the tone for a new US revolution.” This was reminiscent of the Observer almost a dozen years ago when liberalism’s other great white hope, Tony Blair, came to power. “Goodbye Xenophobia” was the Observer’s post-election front page in 1997 and “The Foreign Office says Hello World, remember us.” The government, said the breathless text, would push for “new worldwide rules on human rights and the environment” and implement “tough new limits” on arms sales. The opposite happened. Last year, Britain was the biggest arms dealer in the world; currently it is second only to the United States.
In the Blair mold, the Obama White House “sprang into action” with its “radical plans.” The new president’s first phone call was to that Palestinian quisling, the unelected and deeply unpopular Mohammed Abbas. There was a “hot pace” and a “new era,” in which a notorious name from an ancien regime, Richard Holbrooke, was dispatched to Pakistan. In 1978, Holbrooke betrayed a promise to normalize relations with the Vietnamese on the eve of a vicious embargo that ruined the lives of countless Vietnamese children. Under Obama, the “sense of a new era abroad,” declared the Observer, “was reinforced by the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.”
Clinton has threatened to “entirely obliterate Iran” on behalf of Israel.
What the childish fawning over Obama obscures is the dark power assembled under cover of America’s first “post-racial president.” Apart from the US, the world’s most dangerous state is demonstrably Israel, having recently killed and maimed some 4,000 people in Gaza with impunity. On 10 February, a bellicose Israeli electorate is likely to put Binyamin Netanyahu into power. Netanyahu is a fanatic’s fanatic who has made clear his intention of attacking Iran. In the Wall Street Journal on 24 January, he described Iran as the “terrorist mother base” and justified the murder of civilians in Gaza because “Israel cannot accept an Iranian terror base (Gaza) next to its major cities.” On 31 January, unaware he was being filmed, Israel’s ambassador in Australia described the massacres in Gaza as a “pre-introduction” – dress rehearsal – for an attack on Iran.
For Netanyahu, the reassuring news is that Obama’s administration is the most Zionist in living memory – a truth that has struggled to be told from beneath the soggy layers of Obama-love. Not a single member of Obama’s team demurred from Obama’s support for Israel’s barbaric actions in Gaza. Obama himself likened the safety of his two young daughters with that of Israeli children while making not a single reference to the thousands of Palestinian children killed with American weapons – a violation of both international and US law. He did, however, demand that the people of Gaza be denied “smuggled” small arms with which to defend themselves against the world’s fourth largest military power. And he paid tribute to the Arab dictatorships, such as Egypt, which are bribed by the US Treasury to help the US and Israel enforce policies described by the United Nations Rapporteur, Richard Falk, a Jew, as “genocidal.”
It is time the Obama lovers grew up. It is time those paid to keep the record straight gave us the opportunity to debate informatively. In the 21st century, people power remains a huge and exciting and largely untapped force for change, but it is nothing without truth. “In the time of universal deceit,” wrote George Orwell, “telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
February 10th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Hey Ed
February 10th, 2009 at 6:12 pmYou want to see dead bodies and caskets, move into a funeral home. Better yet. get off your lazy ass and join the Marines. Maybe you’ll have an out of body experience.
Dead American fighting men should not be put on display for the sake of piss poor journalism. You should join the ranks of the unemployed for that heartless question.
God Bless all American fighting men and women.
Oh, p**s off with your self-righteous militarism. As a veteran I say this sudden interest in “privacy” is bizarre. A flag-draped coffin isn’t private enough? The troops are G.I.s—government issue—the property of the United States. These are our dead. If they want privacy, they should join a private army.
Later the veterans can complain about being ignored, not having their sacrifices acknowledged, blah, blah, blah.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:08 pmwhy
sikis
April 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pmporno izle
porno videolar
porn videos