"Silicio and her husband were unceremoniously fired from their jobs at Maytag Aircraft." If she worked for a company that supplies aircraft to the government under contract, perhaps she violated some code of conduct or an agreement she signed with the company. If her work was used to make the government and our military action look bad -- whatever her intentions were -- you can see how her company might have been upset by this. Also, she may have been on a company-funded trip or on company time when she took the photo. I don't know why she was fired. I just don't want to assume anything.

"What the hell are these Bush Administration jokers trying to hide? What the hell are they afraid of?" They could be very worried about security breaches. You know, as Chief of the Military, you have to make sure the photos don't contain anything sensitive. Also, if she works for a government supplier, she has to have a security clearance of some sort. And she's giving info to the paper without her higher-ups knowlege? However "innocent" the incident seems, it's unethical and a breach of security. That's what I'd be worried about. I'd be pretty darn afraid of it, to.

"It quite reverently showed the care and concern that was taken on behalf of the slain service people. Who was hurt by it?" Finally, releasing a photo of our dead servicemen and women without their families' consent is a good way to get in trouble. Families often do not wnat their loved one's funerals paraded about as political propaganda -- for either side. Even if it was a postive portrayal, maybe Bush doens't want to be accused of using the photos to his advantage in some sick way. Or being accused of insensitivity.

Just think of all the possibilities. I don't trust that the media has gossamered intentions.

"Silicio and her husband were unceremoniously fired from their jobs at Maytag Aircraft." If she worked for a company that supplies aircraft to the government under contract, perhaps she violated some code of conduct or an agreement she signed with the company. If her work was used to make the government and our military action look bad -- whatever her intentions were -- you can see how her company might have been upset by this. Also, she may have been on a company-funded trip or on company time when she took the photo. I don't know why she was fired. I just don't want to assume anything.

According to news sources, she was fired because Maytag had an explicit policy that it supported the Pentagon's no photograph rule. She was in violation of Maytag's company policy.

I actually agree with you to some extent, Shulamite. The media often does have a hidden agenda, based on their readership, ownership and the editorial staff's own biases.

I also appreciate your very sensible response (better than most I've seen!) which actually made me *think* about what you said rather than reacting to the words. Sheesh -- who would have known I'd learn something today?

The points you make are all valid ones, and there may be some basis for the things that occurred in need for security, sensitivity and even-handedness. I must admit, I don't immediately think of good intentions when I consider the actions of the Bush administration. I don't think I'm wrong because of it -- personally, I think it's a mistake to blithely accept everything we're told. We've been lied to before and we'll be lied to again. The Bush administration so far has not given me any reason to trust it. Does that make me cynical?

One thing I will say though. After looking at the published photograph, and gauging its security risk, level of sensitivity etc (there was no indication of *who* was in the caskets, so I can't imagine that any particular family member of a military person killed in action could be offended by the image, except in a generic fashion), I would imagine that both the Pentagon and Maytag should have realised that immediately firing the person who took the photo would appear as a coverup and that there would be political mileage gained from it.

What is troubling is that there would have to be more and more of this going on. How many civilians and service men and women over there carry digital cameras and upload photos to family and friends? How many classified images are being sent around the globe? I would imagine that one simple, careful and non-incriminating photo should have been let be.

Joel

I would imagine that both the Pentagon and Maytag should have realised that immediately firing the person who took the photo would appear as a coverup and that there would be political mileage gained from it.

Except that she knew about the policy...which explicitly stated that no photos were to be taken and distributed of the soldiers in the mortuary or en route to Dover. I agree that the rule seems a little harsh, but she knowningly broke the rule. The rule is specifically about showing the mortuary and the coffins en route, it does not apply, to the best of my knowledge, to the other aspects of the war; however, I am sure that there are some rules that govern that as well.

I'm far from being a White House supporter, but I don't think this rings of a conspiracy theory. The Pentagon had a rule since the first Gulf War. Maytag, as a contractor, knew the rule and imparted the knowledge to its employees. If my employeer lays down his rules and I choose to break them, I should not be surprised if I am fired. However, if I feel the rule violates my rights, I have appropriate routes to address that before breaking the rule.

That said, I don't fault her for breaking the rule if she truly felt the photo needed to be seen, but I fully expect her to except the consequences of her actions. It's not easy to do what you think is right, but sometimes the trouble is worth following your convictions.

Regarding Shulamite's reply to Joel Hynoski:
Shulamite writes "They could be very worried about security breaches." I find it extremely saddening that the Bush Administration is only concerned about security breaches when they find it convenient. One of the most disheartening stories reported on in 2003 and which the Justice Department is presently investigating at the request of the CIA is the Administration's dangerous security breach of leaking the information that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame is a CIA operative. Ms. Plame is a mother and a wife who sadly became a political pawn for the administration to endanger via this leak. Not only did the Administration put Ms. Plame at risk, but they also put our national security at risk, yours and mine.

As a former conservative who viewed the election of the present administration with optimism I have been nothing but let down by their policies. As a Christian I find it so saddening to see children, the poor, and the widows "left behind" at the expense of nation building (which I was promised as something that Mr. Bush wouldn't do if elected president). The policies of the present administration are dangerously secretive, self-serving, and sadly unChristian. As a fellow Christian, I urge you to consider your heart and to seek the Lord in prayer regarding your position supporting the present administration. I have and I cannot support a president who appointed an attorney general who "according to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, in 1984 Ashcroft called the St. Louis desegregation plan an "outrage against human decency." Christ came to free the enslaved, not keep them separate from the "free."

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Matthew 25:40

Once again I find myself saying "Listen to shadesof grey."

If you knowingly break a rule of employment, you must be prepared to take the consequences.

Agreed, shadesofgrey. It's the old Romans rule (sorry to get all biblical!) about the whole thing of obeying the authority of your government etc. But of course civil disobedience has some precident too.

I agree that Silicio contravened, knowingly or unknowingly, the terms of her employment. As such, and if it has precident, then she was fired in just cause. However, I still assert that it's very bad PR for both her employer and the government.

But of course civil disobedience has some precident too.

I agree, but even when engaging in civil disobedience you have to be prepared to face the consequences.

"The Bush administration so far has not given me any reason to trust it. Does that make me cynical?" Well, yes, but not in the permanent sense. I think perhaps you might investigate your reasons for feeling this way. I have bias for the administration and if I blindly accept all policy as if it were chisled into tablets by God himself, I'd be doing my country a disservice. I have to search my heart out for biases as well. That said, I don't think I distrust this administration more than my general distrust of government -- a distrust I think that's healthy. I do trust it more than previous administrations. Joel, your kind, intellegent response draws me to read more of your work. I'm eager to do just that. I'm glad you're a thinker.

"What is troubling is that there would have to be more and more of this going on. How many civilians and service men and women over there carry digital cameras and upload photos to family and friends? How many classified images are being sent around the globe? I would imagine that one simple, careful and non-incriminating photo should have been let be." I thoroughly agree. All you need is one errant file with a tab visible in one photo... a slip of paper out of one pocket. I know it may seem trivial but one cannot afford to be with security. I think our whole system is a result, however, of neither conservative or liberal policies alone. It's lax because we allow it to be. It needs to stop.

ditto shades of grey. For a lib, you sure make agreeing with you easy. : ) I like that about you.

Regarding "That would be me" (who is obviously not me ... ) "...the Administration's dangerous security breach of leaking the information that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame is a CIA operative." I agree. This is truly amazing. However, I wonder how the admin got this info in the first place. If she's CIA, typically this info stays within the CIA unless its cleared or only goes to the pres. The pres almost never needs real identities. See what I mean? This is a real odd situation. I tend to think it had to be a CIA leak specifically. We won't know until we hear more. I'll reserve judgement, respectfully, until we know more. I do realize the gravity of the situation and know we can't afford more of this. Perhaps there's more to the story and leaking was a way of bringing her home for good... I just know politics are very complicated and inside info speaks volumes. "The policies of the present administration are dangerously secretive, self-serving, and sadly unChristian. As a fellow Christian, I urge you to consider your heart and to seek the Lord in prayer regarding your position supporting the present administration." I've seen our president fight for marriage amendments, faith initiatives, and pro-life laws. I'm not seeing the anti-christian behavior. I will agree he does give ground to the liberals on numerous occasions. I think modern political climates in the US call for more give and take on the sides, though I'm amazed this actually happens more on the rep. side. (One rarely sees conservative litigation come from national liberal politicians. I'm sure if I'm wrong, Shades of Grey will point this out. Thanks!)

in 1984 Ashcroft called the St. Louis desegregation plan an "outrage against human decency." My parents lived through desegregation and they said it was not fun for anyone involved. Those being bussed resented being taken from their environment into a "hostile" white one. It certainly flamed racial tensions. In what context did Ashcroft make these remarks? I would also think he is a jerk if he just meant the simplicity of giving equal opportunity is an outrage to human decency. But do you see how for some reason that just doens't make sense? I mean people who are concerend with human decency don't use it to defend indecency. I think there's more to the story. A text without context is a pretext. I think Ashcroft makes mistakes (good to know he's not a robot and is indeed human) but overall he's a rational human being. This doesn't add up. Notice he called "The St. Louis desegregation plan" outrageous. Do you know anything about that plan? Could it be that it was particularly offensive in its execution? Examine it more closely my friend. Don't accept propaganda at face value. It just doesn't add up for me.

Oh, and I agree with your Biblical statement there. But I can't help but see it as a plea to my sense of Biblical justice. I agree with the statement. But I don't see the link. Often, people say something that will get a crowd to cheer just to get them to cheer. they get in that mode and pretty soon, with mob mentality, they'll cheer almost anything the speaker says because they aren't analyzing anymore. They've deemed the speaker safe. By throwing a verse out there, it tempts one to agree with it and miss the previous analysis because one is relying on the truth at the end. They never ask for it to be linked... I'm always a little wary of that.

Thanks for the fun guys!

For a country that is so focussed on Freedom of speech you seem to be very willing to accept the government restricting that right. While I would agree that breaking a rule should have consequences I would question why people are so willing to accept that rule in the first place. Why has the American media been so willing not to show photos of flag drapped coffins.

As for the arguement that this is in respect to the families concerned, yeah right! This is the same American media that last week showed pictures of a dying princess Diana despite being asked by her family not to. Showing a picture of someone lying there actually dying, against the active wishes of her family, prooves that the US media has no respect for the privacy wishes of individuals.

So what is the real reason for the lack of reporting of the wounded and dead?

Paul.

perhaps the policy (which was in place when clinton appeared at dover to receive the bodies of those killed in the attack on the Cole) is being more stringently enforced now because bush does not want to be seen in proximity to the bodies of those whove died fighting in iraq or afghanistan?

While I would agree that breaking a rule should have consequences I would question why people are so willing to accept that rule in the first place. Why has the American media been so willing not to show photos of flag drapped coffins.

I completely agree--and my point wasn't that she shouldn't have done it, but rather that she knew that she would take heat for it so she needed to be prepared to face the fire. But yes, the policy should be questioned. The official response--as I've heard it--is that its a troop morale issue. You don't want the mortuary on the front page of the paper every day if you want the troops to keep high spirits. Is that a good enough reason?

If we were hiding the number of dead, then I would say, yes, let us see the mortuary--but as far as I can tell, the media is keeping up with the death toll and there is no "pulling the wool over the eyes" of the American public. Of course, would I really know if there was a cover up?

I've seen our president fight for marriage amendments, faith initiatives, and pro-life laws. I'm not seeing the anti-christian behavior. I will agree he does give ground to the liberals on numerous occasions. I think modern political climates in the US call for more give and take on the sides, though I'm amazed this actually happens more on the rep. side. (One rarely sees conservative litigation come from national liberal politicians. I'm sure if I'm wrong, Shades of Grey will point this out. Thanks!)

I don't know if I can come up with examples of liberals introducing conservative agendas, but I am interested in the ground that Bush has given to liberals. I don't think that there has been the shift to appeasing liberalism that you appear to be suggesting (my apologies if I am reading you wrong). When Jim Jeffords changed from Republican Senator to Independent Senator in 2001 he said "“Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement wih my party...I understand that many people are more conservative than I am and they form the Republican Party. Given the changing nature of the national party it has become a struggle for the leaders to deal with me and indeed for me to deal with them.” Jeffords suggests that the Republican Party is more conservative than it had been in the past (in his dealings) and less willing to listen to the lone outside voice.

Why has the American media been so willing not to show photos of flag drapped coffins.

The media has shown the pictures. I have seen them on tv a few times. The main reason the photos are not shown is that the military doesn't allow photographs to be taken there in the first place.

This is the same American media that last week showed pictures of a dying princess Diana despite being asked by her family not to.

Tmk it was one TV show (CBS's 60 minutes) and have not received wide exposure.

So what is the real reason for the lack of reporting of the wounded and dead?

There is no lack of reporting of the wounded and dead. Deaths in Iraq are typically front page news here.

A photograph?
A news story on a CIA operative?
Employee/employer dispute?
Bogus brags of "accomplishment" amid death and ruin?
News censorship (it is FAR MORE COMMON than you think!!)?

Bush described himself quite clearly and accurately.
He said, "I am a war president." So, what does a war president do?

Go to war, whether needed or not.
Build up the nation to fight war, at the expense of the nation.
Fight war, at the expense of people and property.
Punish all opposition, foreign and domestic.
Reward the promoters and suppliers of war.
Suspend liberties in the interest of war.
Threaten war against all nations, subtly or overtly).
Uphold, promote, and extol the virtues of war.
Uphold, promote, and extol the virtues of a war president.
Make war look really good to those who love it. (We are winning!)
Make war look really good to those who hate it. (The people of Iraq are winning!)

Hey, just who is this guy? Have you looked at his eyes lately?

D.

Sounds like someone hasn't been paying attention. It took me 2 seconds of googling to pull up a Rummy mention of
accomplishments in Iraq.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2004/n03192004_200403198.html

"The schools are open, hospitals are open, and there are something like 1,200 clinics functioning," said Rumsfeld. "New textbooks have been issued. There's a new currency. There's a central bank. Oil and electricity are back. Iraqi security forces have gone from basically zero to more than 200,000."

Centcom and the DoD regularly releases very detailed - itemized even - listings of civilian related
accomplishments. Power plants going up, water purification plants coming online, schools and hospitals opening, that sort of thing.

This stuff is easily accessed on the web by anyone with even an ounce of inclination to go find it.

To get a better picture of the goings on in Iraq - read Iraqi blogs. Read lots of them - there are dozens out there.