Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies, Despite Ban


As the nation headed for war last year, President Bush "clamped down" on
the media, extending and expanding a controversial policy that banned
reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in
combat 1. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the
feelings of military families." 2 Yet, in the very first television
advertisement of his 2004 campaign, the president has blanketed the
nation's airwaves with an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped
body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero 3.

The hypocrisy of preventing Americans from receiving a "reminder of the
toll of war" at the very same time the president exploits an image of a
dead body for his own political gain has caused an outrage among
victims' families 4. Chris Burke, whose brother Tom died in the attacks,
said, "Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political
expediency is dead wrong. It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to
the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11." 5

The president's actions have also raised new credibility questions
because he previously promised not to exploit the 9/11 attacks. Speaking
of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that
he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." 6

Sources:

1. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003.
2. "Pentagon avoids the 'Dover test'", The News Journal, 11/26/2003.
3. "Relatives of those slain on 9-11 fault Bush ads", Star-Telegram,
03/05/2004.
4. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003.
5. "Ads' use of 9/11 upsets families", Miami Herald, 03/05/2004.
6. "Sept. 11 and Nov. 2", The New York Times, 03/05/2004.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:29:43 -0500, Jim wrote:

Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies, Despite Ban


As the nation headed for war last year, President Bush "clamped down" on
the media, extending and expanding a controversial policy that banned
reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in
combat 1. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the
feelings of military families." 2 Yet, in the very first television
advertisement of his 2004 campaign, the president has blanketed the
nation's airwaves with an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped
body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero 3.

The hypocrisy of preventing Americans from receiving a "reminder of the
toll of war" at the very same time the president exploits an image of a
dead body for his own political gain has caused an outrage among
victims' families 4. Chris Burke, whose brother Tom died in the attacks,
said, "Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political
expediency is dead wrong. It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to
the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11." 5

The president's actions have also raised new credibility questions
because he previously promised not to exploit the 9/11 attacks. Speaking
of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that
he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." 6

Sources:

1. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003.
2. "Pentagon avoids the 'Dover test'", The News Journal, 11/26/2003.
3. "Relatives of those slain on 9-11 fault Bush ads", Star-Telegram,
03/05/2004.
4. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003.
5. "Ads' use of 9/11 upsets families", Miami Herald, 03/05/2004.
6. "Sept. 11 and Nov. 2", The New York Times, 03/05/2004.

The policy was Clinton's.

Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced
the most bodies?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:29:43 -0500, Jim wrote:


Bush Exploits Photo of Dead Bodies, Despite Ban


As the nation headed for war last year, President Bush "clamped down" on
the media, extending and expanding a controversial policy that banned
reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in
combat 1. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the
feelings of military families." 2 Yet, in the very first television
advertisement of his 2004 campaign, the president has blanketed the
nation's airwaves with an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped
body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero 3.

The hypocrisy of preventing Americans from receiving a "reminder of the
toll of war" at the very same time the president exploits an image of a
dead body for his own political gain has caused an outrage among
victims' families 4. Chris Burke, whose brother Tom died in the attacks,
said, "Using my dead friends and my dead brother for political
expediency is dead wrong. It's wrong, it's bad taste and an insult to
the 3,000 people who died on Sept. 11." 5

The president's actions have also raised new credibility questions
because he previously promised not to exploit the 9/11 attacks. Speaking
of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated Press that
he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." 6

Sources:

1. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003.
2. "Pentagon avoids the 'Dover test'", The News Journal, 11/26/2003.
3. "Relatives of those slain on 9-11 fault Bush ads", Star-Telegram,
03/05/2004.
4. "Return of U.S. war dead kept solemn, secret", USA Today, 12/30/2003.
5. "Ads' use of 9/11 upsets families", Miami Herald, 03/05/2004.
6. "Sept. 11 and Nov. 2", The New York Times, 03/05/2004.


The policy was Clinton's.

Cite a reference please. And if Bush doesn't agree, why did he not
change it?

But apparently he DID for his political benefit

Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated
Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue."



Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced
the most bodies?

And how does this relate to what Bush says vs what he does?


Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told the Associated
Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue."

Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced
the most bodies?

John H

There is a BIG difference...using pictures of yourself fighting and
using pictures of an event that happened when you were supposed to be
in charge of our contries security.

Oh, that's right, there are NO pictures of Bush in combat...that
never happened. So he's using pictures of others dying in hope of
getting some sympathy for himself....pretty sad.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 21:21:07 -0500, John H wrote:

The policy was Clinton's.

More than a little disingenuous, wouldn't you say. Yes, the policy was
continued under the Clinton administration, but it was instituted by Bush
I, and was limited to Dover. Under the present administration, just
before the Iraq War, the ban on filming caskets was extended to all bases.

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/houseofthedead/85.html

President Bush told the Associated Press that
he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue."

John H wrote:
What horse****!

President Bush told the Associated Press that
he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue."

John H wrote:
What horse****!

President Bush told the Associated Press that
he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue."

John H wrote:
What horse****!

President Bush told the Associated Press that
he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue."

John H wrote:
What horse****!

For once we agree

"Jim" wrote in message

......policy that banned
reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in
combat .


..... an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped
body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero .

A photo of an attack 2-1/2 years ago, and a photo of the coffin of a soldier
killed last week are two very different things. I can see the difference,
and I'm sure you can, too -- should you care to admit it.

The avoidance of news images of dead US soldiers is not at all new, much as
you'd love to blame it on the President. In WW-II, I believe it was some
time in late 1943 before any image at all of a killed GI was shown in a US
newspaper.

"jchaplain" wrote in message
...
There is a BIG difference...using pictures of yourself fighting and
using pictures of an event that happened when you were supposed to be
in charge of our contries security.


You can't truly be this stupid - Bush had been in office for a very short
time when 9/11 happened, and nobody predicted it would happen. We (the
country as a whole) should have been more proactive in preventing the spread
of terrorism but we did not. Hindsight is 20/20. I know the fact that Bush
cannot be blamed for not foreseeing 9/11 doesn't fit your agenda, but it's
the truth.



Oh, that's right, there are NO pictures of Bush in combat...that
never happened. So he's using pictures of others dying in hope of
getting some sympathy for himself....pretty sad.

No, he's using the fact that he stepped up to fight terrorism as a pillar of
his campaign. He is leading the country, making the tough decisions, I
doubt your buy Gore would have been able to handle it.

Can't wait till November, it's gonna be a blast!

"Jim" wrote in message
...


John H wrote:
Does Kerry exploit the Vietnam War? Which of the two events produced
the most bodies?

And how does this relate to what Bush says vs what he does?

Blinded by stupidity. Both Bush and Kerry are using an issue where americans
died to advance ascended to the presidency or remain president. However,
Kerry has a leadership problem. The last time he led anyone was in Vietnam,
since then he has been a consensus builder and not a leader. Bush has been a
governor and the president.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Jim" wrote in message

......policy that banned
reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in
combat .


..... an image of "firefighters carrying a flag-draped
body" from the 9/11 wreckage at Ground Zero .

A photo of an attack 2-1/2 years ago, and a photo of the coffin of a soldier
killed last week are two very different things. I can see the difference,
and I'm sure you can, too -- should you care to admit it.

And I can see the similarities, and I'm sure you can too, should you
care to admit it.