John Cusack appeared on the June 15 edition of "The Early Show" to discuss his new movie "1408." At the very end, host Russ Mitchell brought up his upcoming film "Grace is Gone." Cusack claimed the film is about Iraq and "some of the issues the families have when the coffins come home because...the Bush administration banned photos of the dead," which Cusack believes is a "very egregious political act."
RUSS MITCHELL: You’ve got a movie coming out later this year, "Grace is Gone," that you're very proud about, very proud of.
JOHN CUSACK: I produced a film called "Grace is Gone" coming out about -- it's about the Iraq conflict and some of the issues that the families have when the coffins come home because, you know, the Bush administration banned photos of the dead. So I thought that was a very egregious political act –
MITCHELL: John, we gotta go. More politics later. Thanks a lot for joining us. We do appreciate it.
If only Cusack would get his facts straight. The ban against photographing coffins was set by the first Bush administration in 1991 and upheld by the succeeding Clinton administration. The ban was prompted by a press conference former President Bush in December of 1989. ABC, CBS, and CNN ran a split screen of Bush and the arrival of coffins from Operation Just Cause in Panama. The late Peter Jennings made the following statement.
"We apologize for interrupting. He is saying we do not know how many Panamanians have been killed. The first of the American military casualties are returning to Dover, Delaware, the first four bodies of U.S. service men killed in Panama arriving in Delaware. And, as we listen to the president, we keep them in mind."
A few weeks later, in January of 1990, President Bush issued the following statement.
"Let me do something in conclusion that may be a little risky, and it's a housekeeping detail. And it relates mainly to television.
"I got a lot of mail after the last press conference. I had some calls. Because when I was speaking here in this room, juxtaposed against my frivolous comments at the time were some - a split-screen technique that showed American lives - the bodies of dead soldiers in the caskets - of dead soldiers coming home.
"And all I would respectfully request that if the urgency of the moment is such that that technique is going to be used, if I could be told about it and we'll stop the proceedings. Or it, it's something less traumatic.
"But that one - I could understand why the viewers were, were concerned about this. They thought their President, at a solemn moment like that, didn't give a damn.
"And I do. I do. I feel it so strongly. So please help me with that if you would. Thank you all very much."
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Facts, schmacts....what the
June 15, 2007 - 15:55 ET by motherbeltFacts, schmacts....what the hell do they matter? Cusack and the others would have us believe that from time immemorial, the coffins were photographed arriving at Dover, and the Presidents went to all the funerals of those killed. Until that cold-hearted SOB, GW Bush. Even reminding them that Clinton upheld the ban on photographs doesn't deter them. They are going to say what they want to say, and won't tolerate any distractions.
And I really wish Cusack had had time to finish, because I would really like to know how he thinks a photograph of their daughter's coffin being unloaded from the belly of a C141 transport would have assuaged their grief.
Justin,Thanks for putting in
June 15, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Conservative in the ArtsJustin,
Thanks for putting in the history and the story behind the reason for the ban. I for one did not know any of that, since I was still in HS and could care less about the politics of that day.
This learning experience is the reason I read Newsbusters.
Keep up the good work!
Thank you for the kind words.
June 15, 2007 - 16:07 ET by Justin McCarthyThank you for the kind words. Not to make you feel old, but I was only first grade at the time and had no idea what was going on in the world. I did some research and found this in our archives.
Justin. Yes but...
June 15, 2007 - 16:00 ET by Gary HallJustin. Yes but..."If only Cusack would get his facts straight."
Oh, I agree that would be nice and neat, but can we really expect actors to get the facts straight, when it is the press which can't get the facts straight. Justin propably got his limited education on the issue from watching, or reading, the news when this was a hot issue a couple of years back.
Let's turn this around. Cusack said what he said, as ill informed as the next guy. But why is he so ill informed? Perhaps it's because given one opportunity after another to set the record straight, the media never corrects these folks.
There's really a responsibility here for the host, in this case Russ Mitchell, to have done his due diligence. Mitchell, should not be so quick to accept these uneducated statements from any ole actor on the street. Mitchell had the responsibility to correct Cusack on the facts here.
You're right, Mitchell shou
June 15, 2007 - 16:11 ET by motherbeltYou're right, Mitchell should have corrected him. But maybe he agrees with the attempt to tie the ban to Bush, and has no motive to refute it, so he just lets it lie there, like they do so often.
And don't simply accept the fact that they were "out of time"....Mitchell may have wanted the interview to end with that " very egregious political act –" left hanging in the air.
I know, I know, I'm SO cynical.........
m-belt
June 15, 2007 - 16:19 ET by Gary HallI don't see any cynicism in your view of what is probably going on here. Is not it abundantly in the air? (;~> gh
And, Gary, what's even more o
June 15, 2007 - 16:26 ET by drillanwrAnd, Gary, what's even more outrageous is the fact that Mitchell KNEW he was going to bring up Cusack's project and the contriversial subject matter and either
1) failed to do his homework, as you stated
OR
2) KNEW the facts and willfully held them back to allow Cusack's misinformation to be taken as Gospel by the viewing audience as they sipped their Starbucks.
The dems want to bring back The Fairness Doctrin because they think [both] sides aren't sharing equal time in the media. Bullship, at that. It IS lopsided, but in the direction of the left and/or fictional. What needs to be discussed is the evident fact that the "news media" is NOT doing their job in a responsible or professional or unbiased manner, and in doing so is misrepresenting the product they are selling to the public in this country, and around the world for that matter.
Many companies have been taken to court for doing the same thing with their faulty products ... It's time the MSM was held accountable.
How could there be any other
June 15, 2007 - 16:30 ET by Gary HallHow could there be any other possibilities, one might ask. (;~> gh
John might want to update t
June 15, 2007 - 16:05 ET by FairlightJohn might want to update the title for the DVD release:
"Career is Gone"
You know, this is just like t
June 15, 2007 - 16:16 ET by drillanwrYou know, this is just like the whole "Gorelick Wall" / 9-11 thing all over again.
I am soooo sick of these people getting away with disseminating crap like this and figuring the American public will absorb it and take it as fact, simply because a Hollywood celebrity said it.
A couple years ago I argued with someone about our troops still being in Kosovo (the Balkins), and that Clinton had put them there (This was due to our heated discussion of his statement, 'America's not the world's police'). The other person insisted, "Well, why doesn't Bush just bring them home?!" When countered with the fact that Clinton said he would have them home 'by next Christmas' it didn't it make no-never-minds because automatically it's "Bush's fault" they're still there.
I realize each President inherits the full responsibility of the office, but they cannot be held to direct blame, or credit, when a previous president implemented something, especially years before him.
As for photographing returning military coffins ... I find people who demand this have only their own selfish agenda or interests in mind, and very little - if any - of the families' ... or those of the fallen military who voluntarily signed up and train, knowing they could be called into battle ... and that they might return home embraced in the Flag.
The only people who can't or won't accept this are people the likes of Cusack, who can never even begin to understand such loyalty, dedication, duty, and selflessness ... but sure as hell seem to be living so high and self-righteously mighty as a result of it ... and get free ideological, and antiwar / antiBush soundbites thanks to the dolts in the MSM.
I am a little confused?
June 15, 2007 - 16:27 ET by jbone128Cusack (who I am not a fan of) said the "Bush" administration was responsible for not allowing the photos of dead military. This was not an incorrect statement. Some of you may be assuming he meant this Bush administration, but according to this article that is not what he said. He said the "Bush" administration...AKA George H. W. Bush correct?
* What am I missing here?
Perhaps the fact that Cusack
June 15, 2007 - 16:29 ET by drillanwrPerhaps the fact that Cusack wasn't, if you're correct, responsible enough, or honest enough, to define exactly that ... if that's what he meant ... but obviously didn't.
Jbone128,At face value, it is
June 15, 2007 - 16:55 ET by Darth DutchJbone128,
At face value, it isn't clear if he's referring to the current Iraq War or the one from 15 years ago under Bush 1. It's clear when reading a review of the movie that the movie is about the current Iraq war. A link to one review of the movie is found here:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=8668
Dutch
Darth Dutch - Bush2 extended
June 15, 2007 - 18:09 ET by ding7777Darth Dutch - Bush2 extended the Dover Ban of coffin photos to include Ramstein airbase and also prohibited public ceremonies at both Andrews Air Force Base and Ramstein Air Base which were not part of the original Dover Ban
Ding:Why do you wish to see c
June 15, 2007 - 18:19 ET by BDDing:
Why do you wish to see coffins on aircraft at Dover? Does it suit your political purposes?
I thought the hallmark of liberalism was supposed to be individuality, therefore a single coffin should be better than groups of them and the single coffin photo is available at graveside of some families.
Nicht War?
Uhhh
June 15, 2007 - 18:40 ET by SportPoliticsDid ding7777 die, where did he go ?
BD - you missed the part wh
June 15, 2007 - 18:56 ET by ding7777BD - you missed the part where Bush2 expaned the ban to prohibit public ceremonies which honored them
Do you need the actual dead body in the photo Ding?
June 18, 2007 - 14:33 ET by BDReally, then why are most unit memorials at division level and below covered by the Army Times magazine?
The photo they cover each week usually contains at least one memorial of the classic bayonet mounted M-16 rifle stuck into the dirt with the departed Desert Boots, Kevlar, and dogtags positioned in front of a photo of the fallen.
In my military career I have attended far to many of these ceremonies, but realize they are necessary.
Do you need the actual dead body in the photo Ding?
1.) There is no prohibition
June 15, 2007 - 17:57 ET by BD1.) There is no prohibition against showing either coffins or even dead military members. If your son dies, you can have his photo shot and then fully publicize the event using whatever press assets you wish. However, there is a prohibition against filming coffins on military aircraft arriving at Dover AFB.
2.) Each week, the Army Times, a subsidiery of the Military Times Company and a sub to Gannet puts a series of photos on its webpage that its photographers have shot in the past week of military funerals of returning casualties. Most are quite tastefully done and cannot be construed in a political manner. However Political and Anti War message, that is PRECISELY the intent of a photo of returnign coffins lined up in a plane...
Comments?
Yep.
June 15, 2007 - 18:02 ET by drillanwrYep.
Uhh...
June 15, 2007 - 18:39 ET by SportPoliticsDid ding7777 die, where did he go ?
It's got to be to protect the libbies from themselves
June 15, 2007 - 18:44 ET by SportPoliticsIt's got to be to protect the libbies from themselves.
I see them burning flags...and it wouldn't be long before one of them snatched a flag an lit it on fire, and started screaming and chanting. Not sure they'ed even take it off the casket...
Can you just imagine them even watching, as they are grinding their teeth and saying to themselves, I'll never say "under God", I'll never worship that rag, as they flick their lighter and get the maltov ready.
However Political and Anti
June 16, 2007 - 06:17 ET by motherbeltHowever Political and Anti War message, that is PRECISELY the intent of a photo of returnign coffins lined up in a plane...
Of course it is...that's why they want it on the 6 o'clock news every night. They want their daily "body count." And it does play on emotions. When I saw the movie "Black Hawk Down" the end, showing those 19 or 20 flag-draped coffins lined up in the hangar was the most emotional part of the movie for me.
And I repeat my question from my first comment....how would having photographs or film of those coffins being unloaded from the plane at Dover assuage the grief of the families?
A Thousand Words
June 16, 2007 - 06:56 ET by Cool Arrowmother, you are arguing with an element that objects to showing the facts about abortion to a potential client.
You can't win this one.
the artist formerly known as Riled One
When, oh, when, are these act
June 15, 2007 - 16:28 ET by Chris NormanWhen, oh, when, are these actors going to learn that their two cents worth -aren't?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Actors
June 15, 2007 - 16:31 ET by Cool ArrowThese same people have their words written for them onscreen. Wonder if wisdom is imparted by rote osmosis?
I think Barbra Streissand got her smarts from "What's Up Doc"
Riled, I've used this quote f
June 15, 2007 - 17:04 ET by Chris NormanRiled,
I've used this quote from Alfred Hitchcock here before and I'll repeat it, "Actors are stupid. They should be treated as cattle."...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
I think Barbra Streissand g
June 15, 2007 - 22:47 ET by JerryI think Barbra Streissand got her smarts from "What's Up Doc"
No, no, no.... Bugs Bunny is much too smart for Babbles. Elmer Fudd, maybe.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
They only care about the sold
June 15, 2007 - 16:36 ET by mattmThey only care about the soldiers when they can exploit their deaths. This is just more proof.
ATTENTION HOLLYWOOD MORONS:Ge
June 15, 2007 - 16:37 ET by GothampcATTENTION HOLLYWOOD MORONS:
George W. Bush was the first president to allow journalists to be embedded with troops in the war. In fact, the pansies at CNN have begged their troops to keep them safe even though they go on to print the most outrageous lies. Bush has done enough for the media to accurately report on the war.
The best war-reporting jour
June 15, 2007 - 16:44 ET by sarcasmoThe best war-reporting journalism I ever saw, by far, was C-Span's in Iraq War 1. I think Brian Lamb's fully uncensored & unfiltered coverage of other network journalists' stupid news conference questions (and I'm no military expert, so when even _I_ know a question is stupid, it's safe to call it damn-stupid!) led to the classic SNL episode making fun of that gaggle.
JMR
Another jackass elitist fro
June 15, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Richard RomanoAnother jackass elitist from Hollywood -- just because you have a level of prominence, you think you can spout rubbish regardless of facts. Mind you, how in the world did Rosie keep her job so long? (rhetorically speaking of course).
Another jackass elitist from
June 15, 2007 - 17:53 ET by drillanwrAnother jackass elitist from Hollywood -- just because you have a level of prominence
A "prominence" that was hardly earned, but more the fact that "celebrity" was thrust upon them by their easy access to microphones and cameras. The prominence and celebrity both sit atop a feather that can topple in the blink of an eye and become "yesterday's news" or "box office poison".
These people work in an industry that if it went away tomorrow would not crumble the country like losing the manufacturing industry would. Sure they would be out of jobs (and life might be a bit more boring for those of us who enjoy an occasional movie, or music CD), but how many of them would have the sense or intestinal fortitude to pick themselves up and get another job where co-workers would let them know exactly how little they really do know ...
The real problem I see is n
June 15, 2007 - 17:50 ET by awffp1890The real problem I see is not his statement, but the fact that the lemmings who bow at the altar of celebrity will take his statement as fact because, he's famous. That is the real travesty here.
"Not for fame or reward, not for place or rank, not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty." - From the barracks at Ft. Benning
Don't you all think it's on t
June 15, 2007 - 18:07 ET by drillanwrDon't you all think it's on the brink of insane hilarity that some one like Cusack and ilk demand for our fallen military exactly what they detest and shun themselves ... the agenda driven paparazzi??!!
So Cusack got the wrong admin
June 15, 2007 - 18:35 ET by balboaSo Cusack got the wrong administration, misspoke a smidge. You get the gist of what he meant.
But by all means, please, let's riot in the streets.
I agree. The media isn't bein
June 15, 2007 - 20:35 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree. The media isn't being biased, it's a Hollywood-type being un-informed. Not a good example of what this site stands for, but a good example of the dumbass weenies that the media and the sheeple hang on their every words.
And it is Lloyd Dobler we're
June 15, 2007 - 22:10 ET by balboaAnd it is Lloyd Dobler we're talking about. :-)
"Misspoke a smidge...&
June 15, 2007 - 22:59 ET by Jerry"Misspoke a smidge..."
If an "actor" who was starring in a 'movie" about Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War, spoke critically of some policy implemented by President Johnson, I don't think the press would let it slide if the policy was actually attributable to President Andrew Johnson.... but hey, that's just me.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
"So Cusack got the wro
June 15, 2007 - 23:09 ET by ckc1227"So Cusack got the wrong administration, misspoke a smidge. You get the gist of what he meant."
Yes, we know exactly what he meant: Bush bad, Bush evil, we hate Bush. Problem is, I doubt there are very many families who have a problem with this rule. Those who do are bothered simply because an exploitation opportunity has been taken out of their toolbox.
We also know why mistakes like this continue to happen. These folks are so desperate to work an anti-Bush slam into every conversation they have just for the sake of slamming Bush that eventually they get caught with their pants down. It's why John Lurch Kerry keeps screwing up. Instead of sticking to legitimate criticisms of the administration, he tries to make everything bad in the world about the administration. Eventually, the lies and the act catch up to you.
Cusack is actually pretty cool
June 16, 2007 - 01:49 ET by Carl KolchakCusack is actually a very good actor and has a great sense of humor. I cry laughing watching "Better Off Dead" and "Gross Point Blank" was really cool and had outstanding songs in it. So I have to agree with Balboa, we should probably riot in the streets over this.
"I want my two dollars"
So true. Apart from getting
June 16, 2007 - 05:02 ET by Jack BauerSo true. Apart from getting the facts wrong, Cusack was dead right.
Cusack
June 16, 2007 - 05:23 ET by Cool ArrowThe crap we'll overlook when starstruck.
OOOHHH I'd let Woody Allen babysit my kids anytime.
OOOOHHH Alec Baldwin was just kidding when he said he wanted to Kill Henry Hyde and his kids.
OOOHHH John Cusack's dimples are to die for