Some areas won't see Nightline listing of war dead

From the Indy Star:

NEW YORK -- The "Nightline" roll call tribute to U.S. troops killed in Iraq will not be seen tonight in several cities because station owner Sinclair Broadcast Group called the broadcast "motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

Sinclair, which owns eight ABC stations, including those in St. Louis and Columbus, Ohio, and pursues what some critics have called a conservative agenda in its newscasts, said its stations wouldn't air the program.

"While (Sinclair) honors the memory of the brave members of the military who have sacrificed their lives in the service of our country, we do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content," the Maryland company said in a statement. It owns or operates 62 stations reaching nearly one-fourth of all U.S. TV viewers.

ABC responded in a statement that "we respectfully disagree" with the decision, calling the listing not a political statement but "an expression of respect, which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country."

Political feuding over the broadcast started almost immediately after ABC on Tuesday announced plans to read the names and show the pictures of the more than 500 U.S. service members killed in Iraq hostilities. The program was expanded to 40 minutes so that host Ted Koppel can include more than 200 troops who died in noncombat situations.

Veterans on Thursday expressed mixed views.

"It's a shame that this is America, and we can't watch what we want to on American airways," said Ray Stallings, a Vietnam War veteran in Tallahassee, Fla., after it was reported, erroneously, that the ABC station there would not telecast "Nightline."

But Miles Epling, another Vietnam veteran and state adjutant for the American Legion in Charleston, W.Va., said: "I don't think it says anything against the country to do a show like that, but I don't really understand the purpose of why they're doing it. . . . I feel sorry for their families. They already went through the process of a funeral. They don't need to see this again."

'The Fallen' on Nightline

Via Atrios, here is an announcement regarding a special edition of Nightline airing this Friday night.
From Nightline’s 4-27 daily email (tonight’s show is on the Cheney Supreme Court case):

Now I want to tell you about this Friday’s broadcast. We’re going to do something different, something that we think is important. Friday night, we will show you the pictures, and Ted will read the names, of the men and women from the armed forces who have been killed in combat in Iraq. That’s it. That will be the whole broadcast. Nightline has been reporting on the casualties under the heading of “Line of Duty.”

But we realized that we seemed to just be giving numbers. So many killed in this incident, so many more in that attack. Whether you agree with the war or not, these men and women are serving, are putting their lives on the line, in our names. We think it is important to remember that those who have paid the ultimate price all have faces, and names, and loved ones. We thought about doing this on Memorial Day, but that’s a time when most media outlets do stories about the military, and they are generally lost in the holiday crush of picnics and all. We didn’t want this broadcast to get lost. Honestly, I don’t know if people will watch this for thirty seconds, or ten minutes, or at all. That’s not the point. We think this is important. These men and women have earned nothing less.

One point, we are not going to include those killed in non-hostile incidents. There’s no disrespect meant here, we just don’t have enough time in this one broadcast. But they are no less deserving of our thoughts. I hope that you will join us for at least part of “The Fallen” on Friday.

Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff Nightline Offices ABCNEWS Washington D.C.

Earlier today, Sean posted the following comment to my post about Pat Tillman. Since the same questions would apply to my feelings about all of those killed in battle, I thought I'd go ahead and answer them here.

That was a kind tribute to Pat Tilman, and I admire your gesture.

Here are some sincere questions/thoughts for you, and I truly would like your responses.

How do you consider Tillman honorable when he gave his life for a cause that you seem to abhor and DIS-honor? How do you think Tilman would respond to your tribute, in the context of your larger message and the majority of your posts about the subject? How would most soldiers feel if they read your comments about the cause for which they put their very lives on the line, every day?

First, regarding Tillman specifically, he had signed up after 9/11 and went to Afghanistan, which is where he died. I have never opposed our action in Afghanistan. There is no question that the Taliban was aiding Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and the fact that they sheltered him, along with any other kind of aid they provided him, facilitated the attacks on our country. Our action there was well-justified.

I do think that we've completely dropped the ball in the aftermath of overthrowing the Taliban, and I'm angry that the situation has been so poorly handled that the Taliban is making in-roads to regaining at least some measure of power. Diverting resources - both monetary and military - to overthrow Saddam Hussein has severely weakened our ability to finish the job in Afghanistan and undertake an effective rebuilding of that nation. But the war in Afghanistan was well-justified, and I have never spoken out against it.

Iraq is a whole different matter. I have always opposed our action there. But while I despise what our leaders have chosen to do with our military, I have no quarrel with the men and women who have chosen to serve our country in this way. For the most part, they had no choice about where they were stations.

Yes, I'm sure there are some who have deliberately chosen to join the armed forces specifically to serve in Iraq, and I would disagree with their choice - but I have no way of knowing which individuals they are, and I'm not going to allow the possibility of a few whom I might consider to be misguided cause me to view all of our volunteer soldiers that way.

To deter a response that I can almost feel coming: I question the cliched stance that "I don't share his beliefs, but I admire his conviction." This just seems like a cop-out. I prefer the other cliche, "I don't share your beliefs, but I would die fighting for your right to hold them."

As I said, I don't agree with how are leaders have chosen to use our military. My disagreement is with them, not with the soldiers themselves. I don't have an issue with someone who wants to serve the country and is willing to put their life on the line to do so. That our leaders choose to dishonour their courage by sending them to fought an ill-begotten war is not the fault of the soldiers themselves, and I will not blame them for it.

You see, that is precisely what Tilman did. At least to some degree, you and I can express our beliefs because people like Tilman have fought for them. Regardless of what you and I believe, the enemy would gladly kill both you and me if it furthered their cause.

Yes, I know. And in Afghanistan, we were fighting against those who were aiding our enemies in their attempts to do just that.

There are countless examples of people who have died for terrible causes for which they had strong convictions, and their lives (and deaths) were anything but honorable. Is it honorable when Palistinians blow up their bodies in Jewish markets?

No, it isn't. They are deliberately choosing to target civilians, which is a whole different matter. I have no respect for anyone who deliberately and intentionally chooses to go after civilian targets. (And yes, I do know that civilians are killed all the time during war - even if the attacks are aimed at military targets - but, while tragic, it is different than purposefully trying to kill ONLY civilians.)

Were there plans to grab Iraq's southern oil fields even before 9/11?

Josh Marshall has been writing about plans that were apparently under discussion, at least, for the US to seize Iraq's southern oil fields well before the 9/11 attacks. See here and here for more entries on the subject.

I remembered reading last year that Judicial Watch had been successful in getting at least a few documents from Cheney's Energy Task force, and that those documents concerned Iraq's oil fields. I did a bit of searching and found Judicial Watch's press release on the subject, as well as an index to the documents they were able to get.

Now, I don't know enough about the whole mess to know if there is any kind of connection between the documents Judicial Watch obtained and any possible plans to seize the southern oil fields, but the documents they got do include detailed plans to Iraq's oil fields as well as lists of possible "foreign suitors" for Iraqi oil contracts. The documents date from March of 2001.

As I said, there may not be any connection at all, but if you want to check it out, there it is. I've also dropped Josh Marshall a note about this, just to see if he wants to look into it, so you may want to check there also to see if there is any additional information.

Good point

The New York Times has an interesting letter to the editor today pointing out and apparent double standard in the Bush policy regarding pictures of flag-draped coffins & bodies.

The Bush administration claims to oppose publishing photographs of the coffins of American soldiers killed in Iraq out of respect (news article, April 23), yet it had no trouble using images of the destruction of 9/11 in the president's campaign ads.

This curious double standard seems explainable more by the administration's political interests than by the public interest: it shows us tragedy when it hopes to profit but shields us from it when it expects to lose.

GERARD J. FITZPATRICK
Collegeville, Pa., April 23, 2004

I hadn't actually thought about that before, but to a great extent, Mr. Fitzpatrick is right: If it's ok to show the photos of the flag-draped bodies being removed from the rubble of the World Trade Center, how is it any more disrespectful to the dead or their families to show the flag-draped coffins? If the coffins were individually identifiable, so that a family would know that the coffin contained their son, daughter, wife, husband, father or mother, I would agree that it would be insensitive - unless the family themselves chose to distribute the photo. But as long as the photos are of anonymous coffins, I don't see where it should be any more of a problem than all the times we saw the images of flag-draped stretchers being carried out of the WTC wreckage.

One place where I do draw the line, though, would be the use of any of these photos in a campaign commercial. I firmly believe that it was wrong and exploitative for Bush to have used the images of bodies being removed from the 9/11 rubble in his ads earlier this year, and I would be just as upset if John Kerry were to put images of flag-draped coffins in his campaign ads.

Those pictures help us remember what true cost of any war really is, and it's something we can't afford to forget.

A horn raised in tribute

Tonight I raise a horn to Pat Tillman. When I first heard of his death, I was a bit upset at the idea that just because he'd been a pro football player it seemed like his death was being treated as somehow more "special" than anyone else's. Then I learned about his having passed over a multi-million dollar contract so that he could join the Army Rangers following 9/11. While I still don't think his death is somehow more "special" - I do think that HE was someone special - someone who was willing to not only risk his life for the country because it was something he believed in, but he was also willing to give up significant material acquisition - too often one of the main measures of "success" we have in this society - to do so. THAT in and of itself deserves to be honoured.

We often make heroes out of sports stars, yet there's really nothing heroic about being able to run fast, pass well, shoot baskets, or hit balls. Tillman, though, is something who I think should be considered heroic - as should all of the other men and women who made difficult choices and sacrifices in order to follow their conviction that this country is something worth fighting for. May their names - and Tillman's - be added to the roles of the Einherjar and remembered for their honour and courage.

Maybe we can find some Scotch tape somewhere....

The $700 million

Atrios makes a great point about the diverted $700 million and why we should all be outraged by it.

After 9/11, we went to war in Afghanistan to punish those responsible as well as to remove support for the al Qaeda network more generally. We didn't put enough troops on the ground either finish the job of rounding up the terrorists or to rebuild and install a stable governmenment. The consequence of this is that Bin Laden and many other al Qaeda members were allowed to escape, and much of Afghanistan has reverted to their Taliban-era existence. We know now that part of the reason was that the Bush administration was diverting resources allocated to that purpose in order to attack a country which posed no threat to us or its neighbors. They stole money allocated to make us safer, and used it to make us less safe.

This is yet another situation where if it had been a Democrat in office accused of diverting $700 million from the Afghanistan war to preparations for the Iraq war we'd ALREADY have hearings and investigations underway. That needs to be done, and done now.

Keep in mind that a number of people in the Bush administration had previously worked during the Reagan and Bush the First administrations. Some of them may well have been involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, which involved other forms of illegal diversions. And we shouldn't forget that when the Pentagon wanted extra money for a project they didn't want Congress to know about, they leaned on various military bases to "pad" their budget requests so that the bases could then send that money to the Pentagon for their projects.

In other words, the idea of diverting resources for purposes other than what's intended is not an alien concept to this group. It is quite likely that this is a violation of the letter of the law as laid out in the Constritution, and it is certainly a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Isn't the President supposed to uphold it, not undermine it?

Just far too funny for words

This is from an article about the religious fanaticism that some of our leaders hold to. It's an interesting article, but that's not why I'm posting it. I had never heard of the Amendment referenced below, but given it's purpose, I couldn't have thought of a better name for it if I'd tried. Perhaps these two representatives should avoid co-authoring legislation in the future - it certainly doesn't help their case...

Mr DeLay (who is also the co-author of the marvellously-named DeLay-Doolittle Amendment, postponing campaign finance reforms)....

Well, at least he's being honest for a change...

Not that this is anything new, but Bush has now started joking about his dislike for questions. I'm not sure I see the humour.

The whole issue of questions from the audience at the Associated Press annual luncheon was a running joke for the president during his talk. He opened his speech by saying, "I kind of like ducking questions," and said he would be "glad to duck any questions like my mother once told me to do" following his remarks.

In the end he only took three questions, from those submitted in advance by AP members, and read by Burl Osborne, the AP chairman. After replying to one question he apologized for "the long answer, but at least I answered it."

Photographer & husband lose contractor jobs over photo publication

A couple days ago, I posted a copy of the photograph Tami Silicio had taken of a number of coffins in a military transport on the way back to the US. Today I hear that both she and her husband have been fired from their jobs with one of the contractors in Kuwait.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. contractor and her husband have been fired after her photograph of 20 flag-draped coffins of U.S. soldiers going home from Iraq was published in violation of military rules.

"I lost my job and they let my husband go as well," Tami Silicio, who loaded U.S. military cargo at Kuwait International Airport for a U.S. company, told Reuters in an e-mail response to questions.

The Pentagon tightly restricts publication of photographs of coffins with the remains of U.S. soldiers and has forbidden journalists from taking pictures at Dover Air Force Base, the first stop for the bodies of U.S. soldiers being sent home.

The military says the policy is in place to protect the privacy of families of those killed, but critics have said the rules are aimed at sanitizing the war for the public.

The Seattle Times printed Silicio's photograph last weekend and again on Thursday. The picture shows soldiers tending to 20 coffins completely covered with American flags on April 7 inside a military cargo plane at the Kuwait airport.

Silicio, who was raised in the Seattle area, was not paid by the newspaper for the picture, which a friend in the United States, Amy Katz, passed on to the newspaper. Katz said she had since found an agent to sell the photograph.

Now, it's true enough that she violated both military and corporate policy by having the picture published, and she was aware of the potential consequences when she did so. I may not agree with the policy and I may not like the result of it, but it is what it is, and she was aware of it. What I don't understand is what her husband did that justified his firing also. Guilt-by-association?

Crusade

Well, the Bush-Cheney campaign has sent out a letter describing Bush's leadership of the "crusade against terrorism." They seem to have forgotten that the last time Bush referred to the war on terror as a "crusade" is pissed a lot of Muslims off - understandably - since to them it is a reminder of the Christian persecution and slaughter of the original Crusades.

Worse, to try and justify the use of the term, Marc Racicot, the BC04 chairman, says

"...the fund-raising letter's purpose was to underscore Bush successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"That letter was focused upon the single-minded efforts of the president, in coalition with other members of the international community, to undertake a mission to liberate people and protect the cause of freedom -- not just for a moment, not for a day, not for 10 years but for 100 years," the former Montana governor said in a conference call with reporters.

"And quite frankly, I think that's the tone of the letter and that's what it was meant to reflect."

Of course, he seems to be ignoring the fact that all of those same points could be made without using such a historically and politically charged term.

This follows comments by Bush in which he described freedom as a "gift of the Almighty" and talked about praying to be a good "messenger of God" in regards to the war in Iraq. While he says he's not going to justify the war based on God, it sure sounds like that's exactly what he's doing. He has said that it doesn't matter if there were WMD or not, since America has an obligation to bring God's gift of freedom to all the men and women of the world (though if they don't live in an oil producing country, they apparently are placed considerably lower on the priority list), and he has said he views himself as "God's messenger" in this endeavour. Then, for good measure, his fund-raising literature calls it a "crusade against terrorism."

Can someone please explain to me why - if Bush is so determined to fight against terrorism - he keeps doing and saying things that can only serve as recruiting tools for al Qaeda?

More than a thousand words

From the Seattle Times. Taken by Tami Silicio

I suppose that's one way to look at it....

I always though that Clinton spent far too much time worrying about his "legacy," but Bush doesn't worry about his enough.

Asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

The worst laid plans of mice and men...

We will pay the price, but we will not count the cost...

And in other news....

George 'Stonewall' Bush

How do I thwart thee, let me count the ways....

That seems to be the Bush administration's mantra on the 9/11 Commission. After having to be dragged into even allowing a commission to be formed, Bush, his aides and advisers seem to be doing everything they can to slow the Commission down, if not grind it to a halt - or, at the very least - prevent it from being able to come to any kind of meaningful conclusion about what failures happened where and when, and how to prevent them in the future.

This from a President who is running for re-election on the notion that he's somehow committed to battling terrorism and has made the nation "safer." Of course, if either of these contentions were true, he'd want to cooperate fully with ANY investigation that might grant insight into what went wrong and what is needed to really make the country safer, but it's been obvious for quite some time now that Bush has no interest in cooperating.

The most recent stall is actually rather interesting. It seems the commissioners wanted to be able to look at papers from the Clinton era, to see what was known and/or done prior to Bush taking office. There was no objection from the former Clinton administration officials and the papers were forwarded to the White House to present to the commission. The Bush White House, however, decided that most of the papers weren't needed and withheld them from the panel.

The disclosure by the White House on Thursday that it had withheld thousands of classified national-security documents gathered by the National Archives from the files of the Clinton White House drew protests from members of the commission, Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as Congressional Democrats.

Researchers from the National Archives were allowed to use their discretion in culling information from Clinton White House files in response to a series of document requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law-enforcement failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, made over the last year.

But the final decision on whether the documents could be handed over was left to the Bush White House, which decided to block transfer of three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of material, said former Clinton aides who say they were concerned that so many documents had been withheld.

"This is very disturbing," said Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor who is a Democratic member of the commission.

The White House said on Thursday that it decided to withhold the Clinton documents because they duplicated other documents, were not relevant to the commission's requests or involved national security and were "highly sensitive."

Mr. Ben-Veniste and other commission members said they were surprised to learn that any Clinton documents had been withheld.

"Since all of the commissioners and most of the staff have security clearances at the very highest level," Mr. Ben-Veniste said, "it puzzles me as to what would be withheld on the basis of national security concerns."

Why on earth would the Bush administration not want the commission to see papers from the Clinton administration? I can't imagine that they'd be wanting to protect Clinton in any way, so are they concerned that whatever is in those papers would somehow reflect badly on Bush? Obviously, we can't know that until or unless someone releases what information is in those documents, but it is kind of strange - especially since the White House has tried to implicate the Clinton administration as being partly to blame for the 9/11 tragedy (which they very well may be - and if they are, we need to know that and how to avoid the mistakes they made, just as we need to know what the Bush people did wrong and how to avoid those mistakes again as well.)