On Sep 18, 2004, at 10:20 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wasn't trying to deny the military's respect toward its dead; I was
trying to point out that, respectful of its dead or not, the fact is
that we (as a nation) have very carefully not been permitted to see the
results in US casualties of this misbegotten war.
What that means is that it is not beyond the bounds of conceivability
that an extra few hundred coffins could well have been slipped past the
blindfolded media.
How many of those dead would have a brother, sister, mother, father, wife,
husband, children?
Completely agreed -- I don't see how all those families could be kept out of the loop. Contrarily, how easy would it be for their voices to be heard? (Personally, if I were a reporter, I would be adrool at breaking a story this large -- that's how Woodward and Bernstein got their entire futures assured after all -- so I'd find it hard to imagine that the still more or less free press would quash an event of this magnitude.)
No, I do agree that a cover-up of this scale would indeed be very unlikely. But Bush II has a *documented history* the depth of its entire administration of obfuscating, misdirecting and, possibly, simply lying about important data. It's absolutely within the bourne of possibility that they would lie about this too.
All I'm saying is that I can't dismiss reports out of hand, as long as they've got a modicum of potential credibility; nor should anyone else, even if all that's really in place is circumstantial evidence.
However I absolutely agree that a healthy skepticism is called for here.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" Excerpt at http://www.nightwares.com/books/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
