General Wesley K. Clark Calls on President Bush to Start Honoring Soldiers

[fluxquantum]

Text

 

[Frdm51472]

Whoa, gutsy General who is a soon-to-be Colonel.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Hiding the reality of this war from the American people is the only way the government can keep this "war" going. If the public could see the shredded and dismembered bodies they would begin asking why we are really there and assessing the human cost, not only to the U.S. military, but also to the Iraqi people.

My statement does not necessarily reflect how I really feel about this escapade.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Hiding the reality of this war from the American people is the only way the government can keep this "war" going. If the public could see the shredded and dismembered bodies they would begin asking why we are really there and assessing the human cost, not only to the U.S. military, but also to the Iraqi people.

My statement does not necessarily reflect how I really feel about this escapade.

It's already being shown.

Here's one: Picture of one of the dead GIs.

Or were you hoping for something more graphic?

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Hiding the reality of this war from the American people is the only way the government can keep this "war" going. If the public could see the shredded and dismembered bodies they would begin asking why we are really there and assessing the human cost, not only to the U.S. military, but also to the Iraqi people.

My statement does not necessarily reflect how I really feel about this escapade.

It's already being shown.

Here's one: Picture of one of the dead GIs.

Or were you hoping for something more graphic?

I've been there and seen it up close and personal, thank you. I don't need to see photos of shredded bodies.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Hmmm. More like a triple post.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Double post. My bad.

 

[Zebo]

Honoring? how about a total media blackout so no american can honor them or grieve for them? Of course as happy says it's designed as sorta an "out of sight outta mind" policy which allows the Commander in Chief to pusue wars with little public opposition. IMO this policy goes against open governemnt and democratic principles.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Whoa, gutsy General who is a soon-to-be Colonel

ouch! the truth hurts..

 

[DealMonkey]

Clark's making a lot of sense...

Last Spring, immediately prior to the war in Iraq, the Pentagon issued a directive stating: "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein Airbase or Dover base." President Bush has strictly enforced this directive throughout the war.

Well of course he is. We all know how Bush feels about the filter, er, I mean the media.

"This is absolutely unacceptable. The brave men and women who've lost their lives in Iraq deserve proper public ceremonies to honor their service. And the American people should know the consequences of the Bush Administration's reckless war," General Wes Clark said. "Many of the men I served with in Vietnam came home in coffins. The government started bringing them back in the middle of the night to hide the casualties from the American people. I never thought anything like that would happen again. Apparently, I was wrong."

I agree, this is totally unacceptable. The gov't shouldn't control the "collateral damage" of the war in Iraq by hiding the bodies.

President Bush has also refused to attend a single military funeral of any soldier killed in Iraq. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush (Sr.), and Clinton all attended funerals for soldiers who were killed in conflicts under their command.

Brush it under the rug. How insensitive to those KIA.

"Part of being a leader is facing the consequences of your actions, no matter how hard or painful that is," said Clark. "President Bush owes more to the families of our soldiers. They should not be mourning alone."

Hmmm, so much for the compassionate bit...

 

[CaptnKirk]

Bush Meets With Families of War Dead

He's come out to meet with some families in this and one other occasion.
Met with families.
Met.
Didn't go to a funeral.
Doesn't want to allow KIA's returning to be noticed.

He's hoping this will pass as his 'Compassionate' half of his bipolar 'Conservative'.
I'll recognize his effort on this on two conditions . . .
First - It's not turned into a Photo Op for 'Show & Tell' in the next election.
Second - Used in Campaign Shorts, showing him meeting them - and bragging about it.

Simple - It's a tribue to those we've lost, not a platform for personal gain.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Bush Meets With Families of War Dead

He's come out to meet with some families in this and one other occasion.
Met with families.
Met.
Didn't go to a funeral.
Doesn't want to allow KIA's returning to be noticed.

He's hoping this will pass as his 'Compassionate' half of his bipolar 'Conservative'.
I'll recognize his effort on this on two conditions . . .
First - It's not turned into a Photo Op for 'Show & Tell' in the next election.
Second - Used in Campaign Shorts, showing him meeting them - and bragging about it.

Simple - It's a tribue to those we've lost, not a platform for personal gain.

So you'd also agree that it shouldn't be used by the opposition, correct? Seems to me that Clark is trying to make this political(along with some others here) and if you don't think Bush shouldn't be allowed to make this political than the others shouldn't either.

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

My comment means 'Don't Dance on Graves'

I think other Vets think likewise.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So you'd also agree that it shouldn't be used by the opposition, correct? Seems to me that Clark is trying to make this political(along with some others here) and if you don't think Bush shouldn't be allowed to make this political than the others shouldn't either.

CkG

Oh please, Cad. I think the way the administration is controlling this aspect of the war is deplorable. I think Bush's part in this is equally deplorable. Of course pointing that out = political. Right?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY So you'd also agree that it shouldn't be used by the opposition, correct? Seems to me that Clark is trying to make this political(along with some others here) and if you don't think Bush shouldn't be allowed to make this political than the others shouldn't either. CkG

Oh please, Cad. I think the way the administration is controlling this aspect of the war is deplorable. I think Bush's part in this is equally deplorable. Of course pointing that out = political. Right?

What's deplorable is the hypocritical POS here and elsewhere who are screaming that the goverment should allow cameras to film the arrival of caskets and have media at funerals so you can scream, "See look at the dead bodies!!". You could a give a sh!t about honoring anyone, if you did you would have been screaming about it long before now. BTW, Clinton did NOT attend any military funerals when he was President , it's not clear how many Bush Sr. attended if any, Reagan attended two, Carter one . . . Last week they buried a Sgt (E5) from the 101st here in Memphis. There was a three star from the Pentagon there and Rep. Harold Ford. More than appropriate. Not a big media circus, no Presidential security fscking everything up. It was full honors military funeral and all the right people were there. It is no surprise that there is casualties in this war. To expect the President to run around the country attending every funeral is utter bullshit and nothing more than pure partisan politics. The lack of this outrage over the Afghanistan casualties is more than ample evidence of that.

Kirk hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So you'd also agree that it shouldn't be used by the opposition, correct? Seems to me that Clark is trying to make this political(along with some others here) and if you don't think Bush shouldn't be allowed to make this political than the others shouldn't either.

CkG

Oh please, Cad. I think the way the administration is controlling this aspect of the war is deplorable. I think Bush's part in this is equally deplorable. Of course pointing that out = political. Right?

That's fine - you can hold that opinion and I won't say you can't have it. But is using it as a campaign tool to somehow malign Bush not "politicizing" it? I thought the other day that the RNC pointing out the fact that "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." was "politicizing" things. Or was that just "pointing that out"? The thing is, that you can't have it both ways. If you clamor for Bush to not uses 9/11 then you can't. If you clamor for Bush to not use the deaths - then you can't. If one is "politicizing" then both are.

CnK - I understand that, but it isn't a one way street either.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's fine - you can hold that opinion and I won't say you can't have it. But is using it as a campaign tool to somehow malign Bush not "politicizing" it?

I suppose everything out of Clark's mouth is now political? Could he never have a genuine care for the troops? Out of all the candidates, I would suspect Clark would have the most concern in this area.

I thought the other day that the RNC pointing out the fact that "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." was "politicizing" things. Or was that just "pointing that out"? The thing is, that you can't have it both ways. If you clamor for Bush to not uses 9/11 then you can't. If you clamor for Bush to not use the deaths - then you can't. If one is "politicizing" then both are.

The problem with Bush is he's claiming the dems are "attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." This is an outright lie. Unless you STILL believe Iraq had anything to do with terrorists. Bush STILL makes that claim as recently as his trip to England. I suppose you still do too?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's fine - you can hold that opinion and I won't say you can't have it. But is using it as a campaign tool to somehow malign Bush not "politicizing" it?

I suppose everything out of Clark's mouth is now political? Could he never have a genuine care for the troops? Out of all the candidates, I would suspect Clark would have the most concern in this area.

I thought the other day that the RNC pointing out the fact that "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." was "politicizing" things. Or was that just "pointing that out"? The thing is, that you can't have it both ways. If you clamor for Bush to not uses 9/11 then you can't. If you clamor for Bush to not use the deaths - then you can't. If one is "politicizing" then both are.

The problem with Bush is he's claiming the dems are "attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." This is an outright lie. Unless you STILL believe Iraq had anything to do with terrorists. Bush STILL makes that claim as recently as his trip to England. I suppose you still do too?

That's fine IF Clark actually was doing it out of concern but that doesn't allow him to use it as a political tool.
The problem is that there ARE people who are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists. You might make assumptions that it only talks about Democrats, or just about Iraq - but that isn't ONLY the case. But I guess it must have hit some Democrats since they are whining about it. But yes - Iraq did have ties to Terrorists. Did Saddam not pay the families of suicide bombers?..oh yeah - I forgot...Al Queda is the only terrorists we can talk about.

Oh, and the ad was an RNC ad - so it isn't Bush claiming anything...Ed Gillespie might be though

But back to the point, if you whine about "politicizing" an issue - you best not use it yourself.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush keeps killing out troops every day.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's fine IF Clark actually was doing it out of concern but that doesn't allow him to use it as a political tool.

Well, you're assuming it's one and not the other. And I think you're lumping two seperate issues together. Concern for the dignity of the fallen troops is important, but there's also the issue of the administration whitewashing the war. There's a systematic effort on the administration's part to sweep the negative under the rug. I think Americans should see all sides of issues like this war. There are consequences of going to war (obviously), and IMO it's deplorable to try to hide that.

The problem is that there ARE people who are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists. You might make assumptions that it only talks about Democrats, or just about Iraq - but that isn't ONLY the case. But I guess it must have hit some Democrats since they are whining about it. But yes - Iraq did have ties to Terrorists. Did Saddam not pay the families of suicide bombers?..oh yeah - I forgot...Al Queda is the only terrorists we can talk about.

Oh, and the ad was an RNC ad - so it isn't Bush claiming anything...Ed Gillespie might be though

I have no problem with the U.S. attacking terrorists. I don't believe that there are anything other than the most feeble links between Iraq and terrorists. Lots of other Arab countries support the Palestinians, I don't see us attacking them. Frankly, I don't buy it and I don't think a lot of other people buy it. Well, I suppose it's too late now, since the RNC has already politicized this thing. The cat's out of the bag now...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's fine IF Clark actually was doing it out of concern but that doesn't allow him to use it as a political tool.

Well, you're assuming it's one and not the other. And I think you're lumping two seperate issues together. Concern for the dignity of the fallen troops is important, but there's also the issue of the administration whitewashing the war. There's a systematic effort on the administration's part to sweep the negative under the rug. I think Americans should see all sides of issues like this war. There are consequences of going to war (obviously), and IMO it's deplorable to try to hide that.

The problem is that there ARE people who are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists. You might make assumptions that it only talks about Democrats, or just about Iraq - but that isn't ONLY the case. But I guess it must have hit some Democrats since they are whining about it. But yes - Iraq did have ties to Terrorists. Did Saddam not pay the families of suicide bombers?..oh yeah - I forgot...Al Queda is the only terrorists we can talk about.

Oh, and the ad was an RNC ad - so it isn't Bush claiming anything...Ed Gillespie might be though

I have no problem with the U.S. attacking terrorists. I don't believe that there are anything other than the most feeble links between Iraq and terrorists. Lots of other Arab countries support the Palestinians, I don't see us attacking them. Frankly, I don't buy it and I don't think a lot of other people buy it. Well, I suppose it's too late now, since the RNC has already politicized this thing. The cat's out of the bag now...

Like I said - you are allowed to have your opinion on this. I think you are mistaken on my position. I agree with the concern for the dignity of the fallen troops, I would not support an effort to politicize their funerals and etc by ANYONE.
But the problem comes in when some are trying to make a political issue out of it as Clark is close to that line(if not past it). Making a public call like: "President Bush has also refused to attend a single military funeral of any soldier killed in Iraq. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush (Sr.), and Clinton all attended funerals for soldiers who were killed in conflicts under their command. " IMO is politicizing it, especially since it's a campaign press release.

Again - you can have your opinion on how much of a link to terrorism it takes for one to be aiding Terrorists but for people to claim that Saddam didn't have ties to Terrorist is False. Was it the only reason we did what we did? No, and I never said it was.

DM - I think we basically agree on the politicizing issue - it's a few semantics we won't agree on.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Like I said - you are allowed to have your opinion on this. I think you are mistaken on my position. I agree with the concern for the dignity of the fallen troops, I would not support an effort to politicize their funerals and etc by ANYONE.
But the problem comes in when some are trying to make a political issue out of it as Clark is close to that line(if not past it). Making a public call like: "President Bush has also refused to attend a single military funeral of any soldier killed in Iraq. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush (Sr.), and Clinton all attended funerals for soldiers who were killed in conflicts under their command. " IMO is politicizing it, especially since it's a campaign press release.

Again - you can have your opinion on how much of a link to terrorism it takes for one to be aiding Terrorists but for people to claim that Saddam didn't have ties to Terrorist is False. Was it the only reason we did what we did? No, and I never said it was.

DM - I think we basically agree on the politicizing issue - it's a few semantics we won't agree on.

CkG

I don't want Clark (or anyone for that matter) politicizing the KIAs, but I don't want the casualties covered up either. Perhaps there's a fine line in the middle there. So is the RNC politicizing the war on Bush's behalf? I'd like to know what you think.

As for Saddam's links to terror, about all that can be proven is that he paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I think much of the Arab world can be blamed for both the moral and financial support of the Palestinian's efforts. I guess the U.S. could be easily blamed for both moral and financial support of Israel. Right?

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush keeps killing out troops every day.

No you mean Saddam and his thugs kill our troops, the President has simply order them to complete a mission.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I don't want Clark (or anyone for that matter) politicizing the KIAs, but I don't want the casualties covered up either. Perhaps there's a fine line in the middle there. So is the RNC politicizing the war on Bush's behalf? I'd like to know what you think.

As for Saddam's links to terror, about all that can be proven is that he paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I think much of the Arab world can be blamed for both the moral and financial support of the Palestinian's efforts. I guess the U.S. could be easily blamed for both moral and financial support of Israel. Right?

There probably is a fine line, but I don't think the RNC ad is politicizing "the war" any more than any of the 9 candidates have done so far.

I try to stay out of the PLO vs Israel argument because I think they both have their issues to deal with and emotions run pretty strong around here. IMO neither is totally wrong or totally right. Now if we paid(promoted) the families of bombers then I'd have a huge issue with it

CkG

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's fine IF Clark actually was doing it out of concern but that doesn't allow him to use it as a political tool.

Well, you're assuming it's one and not the other. And I think you're lumping two seperate issues together. Concern for the dignity of the fallen troops is important, but there's also the issue of the administration whitewashing the war. There's a systematic effort on the administration's part to sweep the negative under the rug. I think Americans should see all sides of issues like this war. There are consequences of going to war (obviously), and IMO it's deplorable to try to hide that.

The problem is that there ARE people who are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists. You might make assumptions that it only talks about Democrats, or just about Iraq - but that isn't ONLY the case. But I guess it must have hit some Democrats since they are whining about it. But yes - Iraq did have ties to Terrorists. Did Saddam not pay the families of suicide bombers?..oh yeah - I forgot...Al Queda is the only terrorists we can talk about.

Oh, and the ad was an RNC ad - so it isn't Bush claiming anything...Ed Gillespie might be though

I have no problem with the U.S. attacking terrorists. I don't believe that there are anything other than the most feeble links between Iraq and terrorists. Lots of other Arab countries support the Palestinians, I don't see us attacking them. Frankly, I don't buy it and I don't think a lot of other people buy it. Well, I suppose it's too late now, since the RNC has already politicized this thing. The cat's out of the bag now...

the reason Bush is "covering up" KIA's is to preserve their dignity! The media would be all over that lilke white on rice and then we would have daily news reports of those that are KIA in Iraq and then the next segment would be live footage of the caskets being offloaded at Dover. Besides, I thought it was Clinton who started this "cover up" policy.