If you re-read my comment, you will find that I said the decision should be up to the family, not some pinko journalist with a cross to bear.

There is a BIG difference between reporting a suicide bombing, and showing rows of coffins for the emotional effect that it produces.

Thank God you're not in charge of it. I would have to come back from the grave to wring your scrawny neck.

So the families of every single family of a fallen serviceman wants the photos of the coffins censored. And of course you can document this. I am standing by for you to provide the documentation.

So showing a photo of a coffin coming home is exploitation, no ifs ands or buts?

Lets extend your "logic". A family is blow up by terroritst in Iraq. The US media repots it. The White House mentions it at a press briefing. Are the media and the WH "exploiting" the incident? Should they have to contact the families of the victims in Iraq to obtain permission and waivers before proceeding?

You might want to be careful about using expression like moron dude, there is an old saying about the pot calling the kettle black.

In no stretch of the imagination can EXPLOITING the deaths of our fallen heroes be construed as 'free speech'.

THE ONLY citizens in a position to make that call are the family memebers. Unless of course your mom is Cindy Sheehan. Then you better have a damn good Will.

Sorry pal, but deciding what "disrespects" brave young men who have fallen in Iraq is not up to you.

I know that as a Bushsite, you are the self-appointed judge of who is patriotic in America, (why don't you just call yourself "Tail Gunner"?), but millions of us feel that censoring the photos of coffins coming home in a politically-based attempt to minimize the sacrifce of these young men and the carnage in Iraq is really where the disrespect lies.

As for assholes who disrupt funerals, please don't try and associate anyone who disagrees with your politics with them. It is pretty weak.

LJD you must know about the manpower crisis that Bush's war has caused in the military. I would think that as a vet and the last American patriot, you would have voulenteered for combat duty in Iraq to support the mission you so stongly believe in. Guess it is easy to talk tough on blogs when it is some other guys ass on the line.

Sorry pal, it is not up to you to decide what respects or disrespects fallen combat soldiers coming home from Iraq. You can thump your chest and shriek about your patriotisim all you like, but like the rest of the Bushites, you have no corner on that market, except in your own mind.

In the minds of millions of Americans it is a disrespect to censor the photos of returning coffins in an effort to try and minimize the ultimate sacrafice made by these brave young men.

You know LDJ, Bush has left our military with severe manpower issues. I would think that as a vet and as one of the only patriots in America, you would have voulenteered for combat in this war you believe so deeply in. Guess its easier to talk tough when it is some other guys ass on the line.

Idiot.

If you can't see the difference, you are blind to reality.

Flag draped coffins are not 'censored' as you so ignorantly put it. The soldier and their family is honored by preserving the sanctity of their sacrifice from whackos like Code Pink.

Get a grip.

Censorship is just bad. Lets put more focus on the state of freedom in our own country. Pointing fingers at others is a way of fooling ourselves that it is not in decline here.

For the US, our leaders never learn, (Dems and Reps>) and the people will end up paying for the failed policies that cater to the so called moderate Muslims. If there are Moderate Muslims, where the hell are they, I haven't seen any indications of a muslim movement against the muslim extremist movement. For me, I just don't have any trust in what any Muslim says or does and the sooner we, here in the US, realize that the better off and safer we all will be.

It will take another 9/11 for anyone to wake up and take back our country from those who subsctibe to appeasement.

The last diplomat to head that office (then USIA) was Henry Catto.

In the course of a long and distinguished diplomatic and government career, Henry Catto has been director of the United States Information Agency (1991-93), U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1989-91), Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs and Pentagon Spokesman (1981-83), U.S. Representative to the United Nations Offices in Geneva (1976-77), Chief of Protocol, White House and Department of State (1974-76), U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador (1971-73), and Deputy Representative to the Organization of American States (1969-71).

Clearly qualified (he and his wife owned a bunch of radio stations in Texas, too).

But while he didn't do any harm to USIA, he didn't particularly do a lot of good, either. There were no terrific, new initiatives (though there was rapid expansion of existing programs into the former Soviet Union).

His tenure was between that of two of the biggest disasters the agency had, Bruce Gelb and Joseph Duffey. In my opinion, the first simply slept through the job while the second worked to actively dismantle USIA. He succeeded when USIA was "reorganized" into State.