I guess the question I have for the writer of this is: "so what"? They held a ceremony to represent the return of his remains officially to the US. WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make if the remains didn't does it actually make if the remains (which are pretty much just bone fragments) actually first went to the lab to be identified. Or maybe they should hold a ceremony right away with a disclaimer: "we welcome to the United States remains that are either those of our honored soldier- lost and now found, or else are a bunch of animal bones and dust" ? And if he is really so concerned about an accurate representation - why not complain about wasting a coffin?Would the author of this "expose" say that it is more appropriate that they hand a zip lock baggie to the family since that is often all that is really being returned and let it go?
Ceremony is always mostly symbolism to begin with, but the fact that it is symbolic doesn't make it any less important to the individuals involved and the country. This was a story by some jerk reporter bent on exposing the "truth" whether or not the "truth" is all that important. It's a ceremony showing our respect for the soldier who died in our name, and the travel itinerary of the remains is hardly an issue. What a BS issue to create a story about. NBC News gets two
on this story.