Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read the article. 60 percent of familiies do agree to the photo-op. But still, no interest from the media now that Bush is gone.
Another reason why the liberal media, and the liberal left that hang on every word they spew, are nothing but a sham.
Again: Do the local reactionary media representatives come out to greet the planes and take pictures?
According to your own article they're all relying on AP.
The conflict was that during the Bush era the caskets were moved in secrecy, at night, no press allowed, so as not to call attention to the unpleasant side of the glorious invasion. Now that it's honest and above-board that conflict is gone. This article's wrong-headed premise insults the people -- I would bet, all "liberals" -- who spoke up and demanded that that Administration be honest and open. But I guess people who are looking to get huffy no matter what will easily fall for any silly trash, even stuff as disingenuous as this article.
Of course they don't. They also don't care about reporting the increased violence, car bombs, suiciders and US deaths like they did practically everyday with Bush.
Notice, the liberals don't care so much anymore either.
Yes, they do report it - every day. You might want to try changing the channel once in a while.
And, despite your blanket statements to the contrary, liberals do care, and we actually do more to support the troops than just make silly statements about how the conservatives don't care much anymore either, if they ever really did.
Of course, I'm sure that in your universe there are no liberals in the military right?
Again: Do the local reactionary media representatives come out to greet the planes and take pictures?
According to your own article they're all relying on AP.
The conflict was that during the Bush era the caskets were moved in secrecy, at night, no press allowed, so as not to call attention to the unpleasant side of the glorious invasion. Now that it's honest and above-board that conflict is gone. This article's wrong-headed premise insults the people -- I would bet, all "liberals" -- who spoke up and demanded that that Administration be honest and open. But I guess people who are looking to get huffy no matter what will easily fall for any silly trash, even stuff as disingenuous as this article.
You are wrong on so many counts that I don't even know where to begin.
1) They rely on the AP because the AP is the ONLY source sending out a photographer with any amount of regularity. If the crying and whining from the left was about letting the AP have access to the war dead, then your assertion would hold water. But that was never the argument, and you know that. If relying on the AP was the modus operandi, then why were there hoardes of reporters before this newfound silence on the issue? Liberals and the media have been called out on the carpet, and you know it.
2) This was not about being dishonest. It was a policy. Dishonesty comes from opinion and factual inaccuracy. Policy is not built on either of those, so to opine that this was all about being "above board" and not about George Bush is where the disingenuous crap comes in.
The liberal media hated George W. Bush and all he stood for, and for you to try to undercut that with this tripe is just plain stupid.
You are wrong on so many counts that I don't even know where to begin.
1) They rely on the AP because the AP is the ONLY source sending out a photographer with any amount of regularity. If the crying and whining from the left was about letting the AP have access to the war dead, then your assertion would hold water. But that was never the argument, and you know that. If relying on the AP was the modus operandi, then why were there hoardes of reporters before this newfound silence on the issue? Liberals and the media have been called out on the carpet, and you know it.
No, it was indeed the argument. Plenty of proof of that, and no proof of your "it was not!" "argument".
Still waiting to hear about the local reactionary reporter out there every day greeting the planes. Your article missed mentioning his or her lonely figure.
Do you even know what's involved in putting together a newspaper story? As I said before if there's a story or an approved feature someone will go out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
2) This was not about being dishonest. It was a policy. Dishonesty comes from opinion and factual inaccuracy. Policy is not built on either of those, so to opine that this was all about being "above board" and not about George Bush is where the disingenuous crap comes in.
The liberal media hated George W. Bush and all he stood for, and for you to try to undercut that with this tripe is just plain stupid.
It was a policy instituted by Dick Cheney in 1991, reissued in 2003 for the Glorious Invasion and kept in place until a FOIA LAWSUIT forced that regime to lift the ban. And sure enough, once those pictures were shown the president's popularity began to slip. That says more about the numbness, shallowness and stupidity of Bush supporters than it does about the "libruls" who fought to have honesty prevail.
No, it was indeed the argument. Plenty of proof of that, and no proof of your "it was not!" "argument".
Still waiting to hear about the local reactionary reporter out there every day greeting the planes. Your article missed mentioning his or her lonely figure.
Do you even know what's involved in putting together a newspaper story? As I said before if there's a story or an approved feature someone will go out.
It was a policy instituted by Dick Cheney in 1991, reissued in 2003 for the Glorious Invasion and kept in place until a FOIA LAWSUIT forced that regime to lift the ban. And sure enough, once those pictures were shown the president's popularity began to slip. That says more about the numbness, shallowness and stupidity of Bush supporters than it does about the "libruls" who fought to have honesty prevail.
So, you're saying that all along the argument was not that hoardes of journalists wanted access to the war-dead, just the AP? Give me a break. Did you not read the article? Do you not recall how many were whining and crying because they were turned away at the gates of Dover? Do you not realize that those that were whining and crying are nowhere near the gates of Dover now that the gates are open? It's just a coincident that George W. Bush is no longer in office and one lone AP reporter is all that shows up these days?
You guys are nuts. You simply can't accept something as blatant as this, and even try to induce a coverup via far-fetched reasoning. Embarrassing.
And now you try to say that W's ratings fall was because of pictures of the war dead? LOL And you go further by trying to say that there was "dishonesty?" What is there to be dishonest about. War kills. People die. They come back in caskets draped in an American flag. What is dishonest about that? Absolutely nothing. Keeping it from the public purview is not an honest/dishonest thing, its a policy, so i'm not sure why you keep harping on honesty.
I've heard it all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
