|
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
Not repeating your statement, merely offering sarcasm at your flawed stretch of an argument as well. |
How was my argument flawed? Again, I am stating that I believe it is necessary to see the downsides of war, albeit in a respectful manner, as much as it is to see all the wonderful positives this war is supposedly going to bring us.
Please explain how this is a flawed argument.
| quote: | Was illegal according to the job. If I take photos of certain things or in certain places at my job I will get fired as well because there is a lot of sensitive info. Its one of the laws of the job.
Freedom of Information doesn't apply in this case because there was a set rule in the job by the government that prohibits the taking of photos in areas deemed sensitive. You can read the part of the FOIA below. |
Then let's be clear - the photos have been censured by a White House initiative. They were then illegally released BY THE GOVERNMENT to the internet news site under the FOI Act. Whether or not FOI lawfully applies is therefore not the issue, rather the act of the military illegally allowing those pictures to be given to the press is now the issue.
So if FOI doesn't legally apply, fine. I'm good with that, so long as you're good with the fact that the government illegally handed over the pictures in the first place (i.e. didn't read carefully where the FOI doesn't strictly apply). Therefore, the responsibility for this whole mess lies squarely onto the military.
But truthfully, this is really a minor quibble to my central argument - why the hell did the President feel it's necessary to hide pictures of the caskets of fallen soldiers? Even though, as Shakka suggested, picture taking of soldiers' caskets has been discouraged in previous wars, there was never an order to restrict the press from doing so. This is precisely my point, and my conclusion follows: Bush knows and understands that his decision for this war has split the country decisively. What's more, the popularity for war has decreased dramatically. Therefore, he believes it would only do more harm than good for his increasingly unpopular war to shed our eyes from the dire consequences of this WAR OF CHOICE. Of course Dubya may simply just be listening to his mother, when she spoke on March 18, two days before the U.S. invasion, with ABC-TV's Diane Sawyer:
"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
But I sincerely doubt it. I believe that, similar to every other negativity that has been brought out on this war, this Administration is simply trying to keep this issue away from public viewing.
And I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "protecting their own" line from Q5echo either. Of course I can understand the DOD protecting their men and women, but what on earth are they protecting them from? The public? My God, what on earth is the public going to do that would be a detriment to flag-draped caskets of slain men, other than honor them and/or be angry with this Administration for putting these individual's lives at steak over a war of choice?
The public is not the enemy here. I fail to see how the public could harm or do a disservice to these honorable men and women who fight and die for their country. It seems that once again the Conservatives are almost trying to turn and equate a Progressive dissenting voice with this Administration's decision with the men and women whom are called to fight as a result of that decision. That is clearly wrong.
Is the media the enemy, as Shakka might be eluding to, at least in the sense of sensationalism? Perhaps. No doubt there was a great deal of sensationalism for that week in April when the pictures of the caskets were released. But this begs the question - would there have been so much sensationalism had there been an censure order by this Administration in the first place? I suspect not. In fact, one may argue that the public may have accepted these flag-draped casket pictures with a little more ease had their not been a gag-order.
Finally, it is well known that this Administration has a propensity for secrecy. Of course one my argue that much of that secrecy is a direct result of fighting terrorism, which I would agree to a certain extent. However, this Administration has overstepped those boundaries time and again, and the public is correctly becoming increasingly suspicious of their activities. This picture incident only aroused the public (and Press') suspicions, which again may be attributed, in part, to the Administration's notions of secrecy.
So overall, I do of course put partial blame the Press for their predictable sensationalism, but the bulk of the blame I put squarely on the shoulders of this Administration.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
What happened did you get the conservative fortune cookies you were writing from mixed up? 
Maybe you should go fight in a war before extolling its virtues. 
