Tonight's 'Nightline' -- tribute or politics?

nt

.

I've stayed out of most of the debate about coffin pictures. My main reason was that there has to be something between the accusations of hiding the extent of the dead and the deliberate overexposure to pressure the public against the war.

I didn't see the show, I'm on night shift again for one thing, but don't know if I would have anyway. Given there is a pretty vocal criticism of the Iraq war, total lack of politics is impossible. That doesn't mean a real effort couldn't be made to do such a reading of names as a tribute and rememberance.

As other's have pointed out, the separation of Afganistan and Iraq causualities raises questions. The naming of the 9/11 dead is different, perhaps relevant, but different.

I don't have a problem with the rollcall. There is a quandry about how recent a death do you include. The families of the most recent may react differently. Some may still feel the need for private coping before public acknowledgement, but some if not included may feel slighted.

You question of "was this war about that" does politicize this debate. It appears as an attempt to shift the question of is the war a good move in the fight against terrorists to a question of if the war is just about American dead. That marginalizes any reason for the conflict and renders the conflict merely a cost in American life, which I suspect was the goal of the statement.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Say, Josh, just a couple of days ago didn't you say, "Mark, if you'd like to start a separate discussion about Vietnam, fine, but we're talking about Iraq now."? Robin, does that also apply to Batman?

I am not participating in this thread and only saw your post after doing a search on my name. If someone posted a comment about Vietnam that you think is irrlevant to this thread, then I suggest you say so.

I didn't, Josh, you were the one that had a problem with that and said it to Mark elsewhere, as I mentioned. My question was why did you not also object when Dave did the same thing.
Same old tactic again, "X" says "Y" in a post, and later say that it was the statement of "C".

I assure you that it's nothing as sinister as you're trying to imply. I didn't object because I hadn't read DK's post or anything else in this thread except the initial post, to which I replied briefly. Simple as that.

In America we are allowed an opposing point of view. I hope it is always so. But in this particular instance, I did not find any political motivation in the presentation.

.

... without considering the entire context. This is a problem many "hard news" journalists face in that they must be careful not to give interviews and the like and divulge their personal beliefs. Rather got himself in a bit of hot water a while back by attending a fundraiser for a Democratic candidate, for instance. The presentation itself may have come off as non-political, but I don't think it can be divorced entirely from his motivations. To go on a liberal radio network and criticize Bush and the war in Iraq really taints this, IMO, with questions of motive. I mean if Katrina Van de Heuval (sp?) (of the very liberal Nation magazine) had done the same show and it came off as apolitical, would you be able to separate that out from her politics? How about Rush? Koppel has blurred that line with this action.

Evie

Well Evie, no matter what I say, you will try to make an argument. So to change the subject, I'm just about ready to leave anyway. We're taking my eldest son(he has MS) to the ballgame in Cleveland and it is not an easy task. We had to get a handicap bus. But we're really looking forward to it. You have a nice day too

... I don't see where it is I who is trying to make an argument.

Anyway, have a wonderful day with your son. Wish I could be going to a ballgame today too.

Evie

... I see they showed a pic of several flag draped coffins instead of the usual seal of the branch of service or other individual graphic. Pathetic

Evie

Evie, I wonder if ABC called the families of those people before the broadcast and told them that they were going to that. I can't help but think about the possibility of a family member or friend watching that program, waiting for a name, and when that name came up seeing such an image.

... is that they didn't ask any of the families for permission. Granted a daunting task, but given the controversial nature you would think they would take the time to ask

Evie

Evie, I would have thought that, especially considering the previous campaign rhetoric about the image of a coffin in a political ad.