Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
Well Host, the spitting on vets in Vietnam might be hard to pin down, but this war isn't. How about trying these on for size?
http://www.kirotv.com/news/9765757/detail.html
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004021.htm
Yeah, it's a political site but you post 10 a day so it'll have to do.
Quote:
Lots of readers watched Fox & Friends this morning and e-mailed about the disgusting greeting card a wounded soldier received while hospitalized at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Thanks to reader Shari for taking these cell phone camera shots of the card displayed by co-host Brian Kilmeade:
The card front, decorated with patriotic and holiday stamps, was deceptively innocuous:
|
|
Seaver, please share some examples of links to "political sites" in my posts that are not more than not, representing the opposite POV from my own.
I'm the "MSM news outlets are not of a "liberal bias"", guy. I cite mainly their reporting and many refenences to pages from federal government webpages.
I suspeect that you label as "political sites", links to pages from sites that feature news and commentary that you disagree with. I don't think that talkingpointsmemo.com , for example, is a "political site", any more than Matt Drudge's site would be fairly called a "political sites".
The differennce, IMO, is that the reports emphasized by Drudge have a less reliable record of accuracy than what appears on talkingpointsmemo.com .
Surely you aren't arguing that the quality and reliability of Malkin's "work", rises to the level of Marshall's on talkingpointsmemo.com ?
Here is a link to info about Michael Crook, the first "attacker'" of Malkin's favorite troop, Joshua Sparling. Is Michael supposed to be an example of an anti Iraq war "liberal'. C'mon you can do better than that.....and you'll have to do better than Sparling as a contemporary equivalent of the mythical "spit on" Vietnam vet. I detail Sparling and his father and the severa Sparling "victim stories" at the top of my last post.....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ng&btnG=Search
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
I wonder if you see the issue in black & white. That is, if individual civilians claim not to support the war effort, they also, by default, do not support the troops. Do you agreee that the success of a given mission is in large part based upon public opinion? I think this is especially relevant now, when you have so many prominent media outlets weighing in on the subject pro and con in an effort to shape and manipulate opinion.
I guess that's life in the real world.
What annoys me is how some people talk as if soldiers don't understand what they've gotten themselves into, as if they are mindless pawns on a chessboard. I'm simply saying that I think they deserve more respect than they are getting for trying to do something positive.
It is good to hear from a soldier on the matter.
What branch of service are you in? Have you served in Iraq?
--
willravel, you are apparently invested in seeing the whole thing as simply a hostile invasion with malicious, underlying intentions. I do not see it as such. Agree to disagree...as usual, eh?
|
powerclown, near the bottom of my last post, I displayed a result from a year old Zogby poll of uS troops that indicates that 90 percent of them thought that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks.
I also show in that area of ny post, that Cheney on 9/10/06, was still claiming that Saddam 's iraq had ties to Zaraqawi and his poison camp at 'Krmal", two days after the Senate intel committee issued a long delayed report segment that stated clearly that this wasn't true.
.....and today, there is also, this:
Quote:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/16621288.htm
Posted on Sun, Feb. 04, 2007
Armey reflects on Iraq, DeLay and election
By DAVE MONTGOMERY
Star-Telegram Washington Bureau
.......Q. Your views on the Iraq war?
A. I'm not sure that it was the right thing to do. You might say removing Saddam from power was a right thing to do. Maybe it was, but was that necessarily then our responsibility to do that? And was it our responsibility to do that by invading a country that had no way declared any war on us?
Q. You voted for the resolution to go to war.
A. I did, and I'm not happy about it. The resolution was a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so.
|
How can you say that "the troops knew what they were getting into", when it turns out that Cheney never stopped his deceptiion campaign and the republican house majority leader admits that he didn't look closely enough at the resolution to authorize the POTUS to use force against Iraq, if the POTUS deemed it absolutely necessary to do so?