Shameful, Disgraceful, & Cowardly

Posted by on . 32 comments.

John Cusack Movie Inspired by Ban on Press Photos of Flag-Draped Coffins (E&P):

John Cusack‘s motivation for his latest film grew out of something he did not see — flag-draped caskets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pentagon policy bans media coverage of America’s war dead as their remains are returned. The administration of U.S. President George Bush has strongly enforced the ban, something Cusack describes as “one of the most shameful, disgraceful, cowardly political acts that I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

Previously: Our Weakened Republic

Comments

  1. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:21 am

    What a big pile of stupid. To claim that Bush blocks media coverage of flag frapped coffins returning for political reasons is a bit ironic since the only reason the anti-war crowd wants those pictures is to politicize them….if anything the policy protects these war dead from being political fodder….

    John Cusak, another good actor I wish would stick to what he knows…

  2. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:39 am

    To claim that Bush blocks media coverage of flag frapped coffins returning for political reasons is a bit ironic since the only reason the anti-war crowd wants those pictures is to politicize them

    it is ironic, but that’s beside the point. whatever the “anti-war crowd” (now pushing what, 70%) wants, how is this country to understand its losses absent those photos? the president doesn’t want to pay the political cost because he is a straight up coward, and his stated reason (privacy) doesn’t even pass the laugh test as no identifying marks can be seen. we deserve to see those photos no matter the consequences.

  3. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 10:51 am

    it is ironic, but that’s beside the point. whatever the “anti-war crowd” (now pushing what, 70%) wants, how is this country to understand its losses absent those photos? the president doesn’t want to pay the political cost because he is a straight up coward, and his stated reason (privacy) doesn’t even pass the laugh test as no identifying marks can be seen. we deserve to see those photos no matter the consequences.

    I believe the loss is very adequately splashed across the nightly news every evening, with realtime casualty figures and nightly boby count updates, adding a photo of flag drapped coffins to the public domain is not only not necessary but most likely not the desire of most of the families whose son or daughter is in those coffins….

  4. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 10:59 am

    I believe the loss is very adequately splashed across the nightly news every evening

    numbers on a ticker ≠ photos of flag draped caskets. that’s just a fact.

    most likely not the desire of most of the families whose son or daughter is in those coffins….

    going to require some proof on that assertion. something on paper showing a majority will do. otherwise stop talking out of your ass.

  5. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 11:09 am

    going to require some proof on that assertion. something on paper showing a majority will do. otherwise stop talking out of your ass.

    I’m using common sense, how many families want to use their dead son or daughter for political ammo, how many do you think? By the way, I said “most likely” meaning my opinion, unlike saying “it is a fact”….

  6. sac says:
    June 12, 2006 at 11:14 am

    It was stupid for the Bush administration to clamp down on photos such as these. They should have allowed them, they would have run in newspapers across the country initially, then been relegated to the blogosphere except on occasions like “the 3rd anniversary of the Invasion of Iraqâ„¢” or a particularly bloody month. I don’t think any minds would have been changed on either side of the debate. It’s just another example of the Bush administration’s misguided and felonious policy of deceit.

  7. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 11:17 am

    I’m using common sense

    hahahahhahahahaha

  8. Nick in Beantown says:
    June 12, 2006 at 11:46 am

    I’m using common sense, how many families want to use their dead son or daughter for political ammo, how many do you think? By the way, I said “most likely” meaning my opinion, unlike saying “it is a fact”….

    They’d never really know if it was their son or daughter, would they? All the coffins look the same.

  9. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    hahahahhahahahaha

    Isn’t Beverly Hills 90210 on some channel you could be watching???

    They’d never really know if it was their son or daughter, would they? All the coffins look the same.

    I’m sure they would know that they son or daughter is on a particular plane and possibly just the fact that their son or daughter coffin could be used to politically woould be in my opinion suficient to not wanting the photos released.

    Perhaps a better way, give each family a copy of the photos and give them the right to make them public on their own….

  10. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    It’s just another example of the Bush administration’s misguided and felonious policy of deceit.

    It may be fun or convenient to say that Bush is trying to deceive Americans by hiding these photos but I believe it is out of respect for the soldiers and their families. Military honors and rituals are very serious amongst of military families. If the photos could be released without them being used in a political way, then fine but we *all* know that it was soley for politics that these photos were being sought…

  11. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    Isn’t Beverly Hills 90210 on some channel you could be watching???

    not til 5.

    I’m sure

    again, proof?

    Perhaps a better way, give each family a copy of the photos and give them the right to make them public on their own….

    currently illegal.

    If the photos could be released without them being used in a political way, then fine but we *all* know that it was soley for politics that these photos were being sought…

    would the same be true for the glorified battle photos/footage from embedded reporters that are used for political purposes? didn’t think so.

  12. sac says:
    June 12, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    I could be wrong, but I don’t think these types of photos were forbidden in past wars. I know that during Vietnam they were circulated regularly. Why the sudden need for secrecy?

  13. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 12:18 pm

    bush sr implemented it during the gulf war. clinton didn’t repeal it, but also didn’t enforce it at all. the sudden need is for no other reason that to hide the true cost of an elective war.

  14. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    bush sr implemented it during the gulf war.

    Doesn’t that implicitly negate your argument?

  15. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    Doesn’t that implicitly negate your argument?

    don’t use big words if you don’t know what they mean. your best friend bubba didn’t feel it necessary to enforce it, and bush enforces it absolutely. what was that about negating again?

  16. Nick in Beantown says:
    June 12, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    what was that about negating again?

    explicitly negatory. what?

  17. sac says:
    June 12, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    More importantly, I fell asleep this weekend trying to watch soccer. I’m thinking the presence of a “goal” and a “goalie” are symoblic, as I’m positive no one ever scores.

  18. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    mmmm futbol bashing.

  19. sac says:
    June 12, 2006 at 1:35 pm

    Futbol? Is that a typo? I’m talking about soccer and how it is the new socialist menace.

  20. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 6:04 pm

    don’t use big words if you don’t know what they mean. your best friend bubba didn’t feel it necessary to enforce it, and bush enforces it absolutely. what was that about negating again?

    Right…..allow me to try to explain to the slow child.

    You claim Bush Jr. enforces it but it was Bush Sr. who implemented it in the Gulf War, now unless you think the Gulf War was also elective and costly, then Bush Sr. was not trying to hide the “cost” of war but rather something else, say being respectful to the dead soldiers and their families, since the “cost” was very minimal during that war. So either you think Bush Sr. was trying to hide something or Bush Jr. is using it for a completely different reason…

    Just curious if you think we shouldn’t have gone to war with Saddam after he invaded Kuwait as well…

  21. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    Just curious if you think we shouldn’t have gone to war with Saddam after he invaded Kuwait as well…

    of course we should have, but this is another conflation worthy only of the jim c.

    Bush Sr was trying to hide the cost as well. That war wouldn’t have been all that popular either if they had decided to go to baghdad. he didn’t know how it would play at the time.

  22. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    Bush Sr was trying to hide the cost as well. That war wouldn’t have been all that popular either if they had decided to go to baghdad. he didn’t know how it would play at the time.

    And neither would WWII if people saw the toll it was taking on our troops…doesn’t make any less necessary…

  23. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    And neither would WWII if people saw the toll it was taking on our troops

    they did see those photos. and they saw other things like their own sacrifice. Do you think that people in the 40s didn’t know what the real cost of the war was?

  24. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    they did see those photos. and they saw other things like their own sacrifice. Do you think that people in the 40s didn’t know what the real cost of the war was?

    Apparently you don’t know your history very well. The Military back then kept a tight leash on the reporting of combat and of the photos released to the public…study up…

  25. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:25 pm

    either way, the ban wasn’t in effect then, and the war affected many times more people through more soldiers and a serious war effort. unlike “go shopping” and stop-loss orders.

  26. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:27 pm

    the ban wasn’t in effect then,

    Yeah, it was totally censored, eveerything went thru military censors, the American people weren’t exposed to real time “reality” as we are today…

  27. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:31 pm

    show me a link for a real source that proves that returning coffins were never seen by the public, shut the fuck up, or leave.

  28. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:37 pm

    show me a link for a real source that proves that returning coffins were never seen by the public, shut the fuck up, or leave.

    Oh, ok, so if there was one photo of a coffin then my whole argument is debunked eh? Show me a link that they were widely shown or even sought after…

  29. matt says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:39 pm

    this is your argument douchebag. you find the links. otherwise, i’ve just about had it with your nonsense.

  30. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:42 pm

    Douchebag….ok, here

  31. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    Oh I’m sorry, it doesn’t actually say you can’t see coffins, I guess I’m wrong…

  32. JimC says:
    June 12, 2006 at 7:55 pm

    Here is another article but it is from the CIA webbsite so we can’t trust it, but of course doesn’t specifically mention coffins…