Monroe Chat

Do you think that the President's visit to Dover AF Base was a 'photo op' (Per Rush Limbaugh) or a genuine attempt to open the eyes of the public to the fallen military members??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have often wondered why the decision was made to not show the return of fallen military. I have heard the reasons but I guess I disagree with them. There is a protocol surrounding the handling and care upon return which is so incredibly honorable, I believe for that fact, seeing it would instill a greater sense of loss and respect for those who have served their country.
But for me, the vast numbers should be acknowledged, we hear the news reports and I (speaking for myself) have become totally desensitized to it..... If I hear it, I stop for a moment and give thoughts to those lost and their families then go back to my daily grind, but it doesn't really register.

In the UK the return and process is televised, it strikes a chord to everyone, and I'm sure plays a huge roll in why many people vehemently oppose the war, BUT it is the truth ! Why shroud the bodies in a media blackout? Let people see the honor and loss at it's worst...

~ I know this reads rather morbid, I have no desire to witness grieving Families or caskets rolling across the tar mac, but I also don't think it should be avoided.

Just my 0.2 ~

Second question (to anyone who knows) I was recently reading a blog (most definitely anti - Obama) where a photo was shown of the President saluting as a casket passed in front of him. A 'blogger' was infuriated and commented " Why is he saluting?, He has never served his Country, it's an insult!!"

I pondered this because as I understand it, isn't the President 'Commander in Chief" ? (obviously I haven't researched this so apologies if I'm being ignorant) As CIC isn't that over the Military???? and secondly, as a 'regular' citizen, what would you do? Bow your head? Hand on heart??

I don't believe it was a photo op. I'm not a big fan of Obama but it was also one of the largest months for deaths among soldiers since the start of the war. Some people just need to stop with all the hate. If the President wants to go to Dover he should be allowed without being questioned.

I don't know if it was a photo op or not. It doesn't really matter. I'm not a big fan of Obama either, but as CINC (pronounced as you would pronounce sink) he certainly has the right to be there. I wouldn't put it past the administration to use it as a photo op, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (in this instance).
As far as the media coverage, I think the current policy is appropriate. It affords protection to the families. Certain groups will use the fallen military member's image in anti-war propaganda, when the fallen member most likely believed in the cause.
Should our media show traffic accident victims, while lying there dead at the scene? It's news, and can be an eye opener to the dangers of driving. But it's not done in the USA, as we're thinking that the family is suffering enough without having a loved-one's picture splattered on the front page. Is it that much different for our fallen military members and their families?
There's a good chance the Blogger doesn't understand the CINC thing and that the President is a member of the military. That's why he is slauted by all military members in uniform when he boards/unboards a vehicle or enters/exits a building.

I have yet to find "anything" this President does that is not a photo opp. It will be complete when a live cam is installed in his bathroom!

Back to subject, it was reported last weekend that Bush did this on a regular basis, in the middle of the night and agonized over these fallen heros and no one ever knew or it wasn't worthy of the press.

This President does nothing without cold, hard political calculations and usually public opinion/Democratic party opinion polls. Hence don't ever expect him to do the "right thing" if it is not the popular party "thing".

My opinion, no, they should not be made a political pawn by giving the press photo opts on caskets returning.

President's salute not a good idea [Progressives find something else wrong, Reagan did it]
Capital Times ^ | 3-27-07 | Dave Zweifel

Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:43:39 PM by SJackson

It raised eyebrows back in 1981 when new President Ronald Reagan began returning the military salutes of the servicemen standing guard when he'd disembark from Air Force One or from Marine 1, the helicopter that would deliver him to the White House lawn.

No presidents before had returned those salutes, not even Dwight D. Eisenhower, who just seven years before he took office had been a five-star Army general. Reagan, who had held the rank of captain in the Army Air Corps during World War II, changed all that and every president since, including our present one, renders the salute.

Although it was far from the biggest issue of the day, many commentators did question the practice at the time, pointing out that while, yes, the president was commander in chief of the military, he wasn't a military person himself and by saluting was insinuating that he was.

I hadn't heard much about that issue since, but noted author Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University, brought it up again in an op-ed column he wrote for the New York Times earlier this year.

"We hear constantly now about 'our commander in chief.' The word has become a synonym for 'president.' It is said we 'elected a commander in chief.' It is asked whether this or that candidate is 'worthy to be our commander in chief.'

"But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army," Wills wrote.

Wills recalled how he cringed back in 1973 when Richard Nixon's chief of staff, Al Haig, tried to justify Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" firings because the attorney general and deputy attorney general had refused an order from their "commander in chief."

"President Nixon was not (Elliot Richardson's or William Ruckelshaus') commander in chief," he commented. "The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even the commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized."

It all may seem like small potatoes, but Wills and others see that attitude and the extension of the salutes as the increasing militarization of U.S. politics.

"The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline," Wills wrote. "The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hides its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets."

The bottom line, Wills said, is that "the representative is accountable to citizens. Soldiers are accountable to their officer. The dynamics are different, and to blend them is to undermine the basic principles of our Constitution."

Very interesting to read everyone's perception...... I had cause to think about my response and consider that a 'bigger picture' is always worthwhile

I spoke with DH on this issue and he offered an entirely different perspective. As an army 'vet' I was intrigued and yet most interested at his response....