Old News that Bears Repeating
...especially in light of Reid and Pelosi's latest attempt to lose the war for America.
From the DesMoine Register, May 23, 2007:
The media doesn't want you to win, Sir. That would mean they'd have to recognize Bush as something more than a tongue-tied idiot.
What complete and utter losers both Reid and Pelosi, AND the media are.
From the DesMoine Register, May 23, 2007:
A tired and disgusted Iowa soldier fired off an e-mail a few days ago, telling family and friends how things are going in Iraq.
A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October.
He described his Boone-based unit's successes after 5,000 hours of flying out of LSA Anaconda, a huge American base north of Baghdad. He talked about the tragedies he and his fellow Iowans have witnessed and his worries of becoming complacent as he goes on mission after mission.
Morale?"We're treading water. We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.
Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq.
"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.
"We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also).
"Let's give you an example. A couple of days ago we conducted an air assault. We lifted troops into an area for an operation. The operation went well and our ground troops killed (insurgents) and took several prisoners, freed a few hostages and uncovered a weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in improvised bombs.
"The next morning I woke up and turned on AFN (Armed Forces Network) and watched the nightly news (NBC). Nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bomb report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town from some other time.
"So we really set the enemy back that night but all the enemy had to do was turn on the news and be reassured that the enemy's agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public.
"We, the soldiers, keep breaking the back of the enemy. You, the media, keep rejuvenating the enemy.
"How hard would it be to contact the PAO (public affairs officer) of the 1st CAV, 36th CAB, 25th ID or the Marines and ask what did you guys accomplish today - good and bad? How about some insurgent blooper videos? Now that would be something to show on the evening news.
"Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers.
"I am just tired of busting my butt over here and coming home every night and turning on the TV (Armed Forces Network) and hearing how we are failing miserably..."
The media doesn't want you to win, Sir. That would mean they'd have to recognize Bush as something more than a tongue-tied idiot.
What complete and utter losers both Reid and Pelosi, AND the media are.
from the mind of... Eric | 8:30 AM
41 Comments:
I'm glad you found a soldier to support your viewpoint. Now do you think CWO Jim Funk's views are the majority of the 145,000 soldiers we have in Iraq? The Military Times poll at the beginning of the year showed that 42% disapprove of how the administration is handling the war in Iraq.
Thast solider needs to remember whhat his job is: To protect and defende the Constitution, which protects freedom -- to bitch, to change our mind, to doubt, and to challenge the government. The enemy benefits in the field because of our freedom. Them's the breaks. We'd win faster if we stopped to the enemy's level. Oh, wait, we have, more than a few times, and we're still not out of there. Sorry, we disagree. But it steams me to hear soldiers who seem to wish our society was more like the enemy's.
BenT no longer get's to use "the Fact-Based" at the end of his name anymore because his "Facts" aren't any more valid than anyone else's.
I like BenT, but he comments here like a drive-by shooter sprays bullets at everything in sight... just hoping to hit a nerve. I characterize his comments as such because it is extremely rare that he agrees with anything posted here. Not even Dan is THAT disagreeable.
Why no more 'fact-based'? (By anyone!) Because he doesn't properly temper his 'facts'; misapplying or misreading altogether their relative importance to the post. Now everyone does this, myself included, but BenT seems to wield it like a favored club.
Case in point:
Military Times Poll...
1. 42% of who?
2. Disapproval of the administrations handling of the war in Iraq does not answer the charge that the Media is culpable in the deaths of Americans on the battlefield by supporting and championing the feats of daring-do by the terrorists, while blatantly ignoring the daily success of the military; it progress and feats of daring-do.
Simply put, his 'fact' doesn't answer the charge of CWO Jim Funk.
His oath was/is as follows:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Certain Democrats and the Media as a whole have set themselves against the United States of America, actively pursuing our defeat in Iraq. That makes them enemies of Liberty.
Everytime Reid opens his pie-hole to denigrate the Military (Calling Gen. Pace 'Incompetent' [What would Reid know about the military or war strategy?]), or publically state to the nation and the world that the war is already lost, he gives aid and comfort to the enemy... making him another kind of enemy to this nation. Don't make me use the "T" word!
Re, "Certain Democrats and the Media as a whole have set themselves against the United States of America, actively pursuing our defeat in Iraq. That makes them enemies of Liberty."
BULLSHIT. That's the only word for that -- except. Well. It's actually treasonous. Sorry. But it is. You got a little fascist in there somewhere, dude. Freedom means freddom to UTTERLY disagree, and still be a patriot, or it doesn't mean crap. Unless one is taking up arms against this country, one is not an enemy of this country, but only a foes of its supposed leadership,
BULLSHIT. You;ve written verbal acts of civil war.
You and increasingly frantic Iraq warhawks want to start another civil war, just keep it up. Beware Second Amendment Democrats. And journalists.
Your comment is ignorant. You accuse me of treason, while giving the real traitors a pass?
Unbelievable!
What? Only elected officials and members of media are allowed to exercise free speech?
Well, pardon me for pointing out what you seem to have forgotten in your anger...
Speech in this country may be free, but it is not without consequence. There is always a price to be paid for the things we say, however pleasant or painful the price may be.
Any man or woman who, having given oaths to defend and protect this nation, actively works to undermine the office of the president whose very words undermine the ability of our military to win on the battlefield, that man or woman, Sir, is a traitor.
Harry Reid: Traitor!
Nancy Pelosi: Traitor!!
John MurthaL: Traitor!!!
I said "Certain" Democrats, not "All"!!! Pull your head out of your liberal butt long enough to exercise a little objectiveness.
GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone has a right to his opinion, even idiots like Reid. Then, the rest of us can call him what his words make him out to be. It's one thing to dissent, it's another thing to spout crap. Reid spouts crap. If you want to disagree with the way the war is being fought, like that poll says, do so and please provide workable alternatives. Freedom of speech is not license to speak harmful hyperoble. Reid's comments more closely resemble yelling fire in a crowded theater than it does constructive criticism. Considering how common is the words of the soldier featured, it behooves our people in Washington, as well as anyone within range of a live mic or TV camera, to weigh their sentiments and speak in a manner that helps rather than harms. Unfortunately, too many are speaking for the purpose of Bush-bashing and they apparently are willing to encourage those aiming at our troops in order to do it. This is hardly BULLSHIT, but Reid's actions, and the words and actions of his comrades (I use that word purposely) is what consitutes real BULLSHIT. The fact that they continue such without shame makes THEM bullshit and unworthy of public office.
"...and unworthy of public office."
Hear! Hear!!
Re, "Freedom of speech is not license to speak harmful hyperoble."
Yes, it is.
It is perfectly acceptable -- in fact, it is my patriotic duty! -- to scream FIRE in a theater if the theater is ON FIRE!
This country is on fire! And warmongering imperialists like George W. Bush and his lackeys -- using the concept of liberty as a makeshift human shield, as if she were a slut they can buy and sell, to hide their intent -- set the fire! Liberty?
They wants no liberty. They want an empire because they think THAT lowly of this country. They want it to be equal to the Ottoman, or the Soviet, or the Roman empire, the lowest forms of government -- beneath the worst of their subjects.
But we are CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS. And my First Amendment rights are more important that this stupid Iraq war, this president, or EITHER party. And if ewither of you think othersise, you are, in fact, traitors to the ideals of this nation. You've sold your birthright for a mess of porridge labeled "Bush," who is no conservative, no leader, no statesman, and no commander -- and you know it.
Yes. Well. I see we're back to an impasse.
God bless the Congress of these united states: May it find its balls and take OUT this brainless, godless, soulless, senseless president before he destroys this country.
G'night.
"We've lost the war." is akin to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when it ISN'T on fire, and I'm sure you knew I meant that. As it harms the moral of our troops, emboldens the moral of our enemy, no, that is not the type of speech the first amendment had in mind, and I defy you to prove otherwise. First of all, as we are still engaged in the war, it can therefor, NOT be lost. Thus, the statement is a complete, unabashed lie. Free speech is not about lies, slander, libel, distortions and the type of bullshit that comes from the mouths of lefties suffering from BDS. Dissent is having a premise, supported by facts and evidence constructed into an argument that is the expression of a true intent, rather than a false one masking hatred for the current administration or the coveting of power. If the Dems/lefties truly had the troops welfare in mind, the country's welfare, the welfare of the Iraqi citizens and stability in the Middle East, there "dissent" would be persuasive instead of professional whining. They got nothin'. They need to stop interfering while the adults are busy handling things as best as they can.
YOU, ER, on the other hand, cannot support your statements regarding Bush and his intentions. the gauntlet is thrown.
"There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have."
--Harry S. Truman
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground."
--Frederick Douglas
"Freedom rings whenever opinions clash."
--Adlai Stevenson
"In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude."
--George Washington
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin
"The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech."
--Justice Anthony Kennedy
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
--Thomas Jefferson
"And warmongering imperialists like George W. Bush and his lackeys -- using the concept of liberty as a makeshift human shield, as if she were a slut they can buy and sell, to hide their intent -- set the fire!"
Very well said, ER. You are truly erudite. One question, though:
If liberty in Iraq is not Bush's intent, then pray tell, what is? Read his mind and tell us, O wise one.
"...do you think CWO Jim Funk's views are the majority of the 145,000 soldiers we have in Iraq?
Yes.
Now...do I think you dilute truth with fallacious non-sense?
Yes.
Example:
"The Military Times poll at the beginning of the year showed that 42% disapprove of how the administration is handling the war in Iraq."
In this statement your BenTness shows. The poll you refer to reflects nothing more than a frustration felt at not being able to kick the enemy's ass.
The FACT is, the Warrant Officer you want to minimize clearly stated that he and his brothers-in-arms are offended at the lack of support by YOU and others of their MISSION!
Had the U.S. been full of people like you in the 1930s and 40s, BenT, Israel would not be a factor in today's global politics. It wouldn't exist.
"Freedom means freddom to UTTERLY disagree."
BULLSHIT!
IT does NOT mean that!
It means the freedom to utterly disagree with RESPONSIBILITY!
You're gurus are irresponsibly causing the deaths of thousands of US and coalition troops as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens...not to mention the casualties in other conflicts in the M.E.! By your irresponsible critiscisms that CANNOT be affirmed, you doom thousands of innocent Iraqis and brave soldiers to DEATH, ER!
You and your irresponsibility championing ilk.
You truly make me sick to my stomach, mate!
Geow a brain, for Christ's sake!
Ummm....that is...GROW a damned brain!
BTW, EL. We are ALL fact-based.
I can use facts to take individuals down a variety of paths of "enlightenment".
Truth...that's where the gray-area lies.
"If liberty in Iraq is not Bush's intent, then pray tell, what is?"
Permanent presence of U.S. troops there, probably. Global extension of the myth of "manifest destiny." An ally for big oil and related big business, who couldn't give a hoot about this country, but who bankroll the GOP. And, now the he started the war, a magnet for terrorists. Most of which I could swallow, if I had to.
Actually, I think Bush probably does believe what he says. But that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. As ridiclous at this sounds, I hold everyone in this forum, including Dad, in highrer regard than I do the president -- and I dare say I think most of y'all, if not all, are smarter than he is. What a country.
Oh, and re: "Dissent is having a premise, supported by facts and evidence constructed into an argument that is the expression of a true intent, rather than a false one masking hatred for the current administration or the coveting of power."
I hate to keep saying this, really. But no, it's not.
Have you actually read any history? I mean the history of dissent? It sometimes is as you described.
Sometimes it's the anti-American, anti-gay freak Fred Phelps. Sometimes it's the anti-American American Communist Party.
Sometimes it's warhawks stirring up crap when we'd otherwise be at peace.
Sometimes its Americans who would rather see the whole damn country go to hell in a handbasket rather than morph into some evil, blackhearted version of its worst self.
Come on. Really. Dissent is any damn thing dissenters want it to be. That's why people like you, through history, have used the dominant culture and the police power to lock them, shoot them down, string them up -- and make martyrs of 'em. I'd be careful.
I wasn't condoning censorship, ER. I'd much prefer self-censorship. A small part of me would like to see certain factions silenced, but I censor that part of me and seek to find intelligent ways to persuade others from the influence of those factions. Fred Phelps is one of those about whom I was talking. If he'd shut up and listen, he could be shown why saying crap like "God hates fags" is a blasphemous lie. He is definitely one of those inconveniences with which we have to live in order for our system to work. But he is indeed one who is abusing the system with his words, and everyone who understands how his message is a lie, sees him not as a dissenter, but for the dangerous fool that he is. I don't let such fools define their actions with words that don't really apply. You can call such "dissent" if you like, I call something much, much different.
Fred Phelps couldn't get elected to the Senate, and for that reason alone he's little threat to hearth and home. Harry Reid, however, is supposed to be far brighter than Phelps, yet he consistently takes sides with our enemies, supporting them seemingly every time he opens his mouth to utter inanities... dangerous inanities.
Trash on Bush all you want for being a tongue-tied stumble foot that deserves impeachment, but Reid is just as dangerous, and just as worthy of the same ignoble crown you'd press onto Bush's brow.
...In my book.
Free speech isn't free. It comes with a price. Some appear overly harsh in regard to some politicians' right of speech, while utterly dismissive of others'.
Harry Reid has crossed a line no one sworn to office should cross. Who doesn't realize he's become a laughable caricature of Walter Mitty with illusions of heroic grandeur. He thinks himself Dirty Harry, when in fact he's Barney Fife with a painfully fresh bullet hole to the foot.
Heh. Then the state of Nevada is at fault. Find a way to spin it off. Mexico would probably take it. Back.
Realize that some of us feel the exact same way about the president. The EXACT same way. He has, indeed, "crossed a line no one sworn to office should cross" -- which is why he, and the veep, should be impeached -- and why, the fact is, the GOP masy very well hold onto the WH and rewin Congress if they are NOT impeached.
"the GOP may very well hold onto the WH and re-win Congress if they are NOT impeached."
One can hope.
I love it when Democrats bring up Fred Phelps whenever they try to denigrate the religious right. What Democrats probably know, but don't want Republicans to know, is Phelps is himself a registered Democrat. He even attempted to run for Governor of Kansas a couple of times. As a Democrat.
The really ironic thing is that Phelps is really a typical Democrat. Most Democrats are as whacky as he is, they just conceal it better. Usually.
And I'm not saying he was mentioned by a Democrat in this thread, only that he often is.
"Heh. Then the state of Nevada is at fault."
Ain't it the truth. Just like Massachusetts is at fault for Kennendy and Kerry, and Illinois is at fault for Obama and Durbin. (and Arizon for McCain)
I do realize some feel the same way for the president. It's just that I don't see as they are as easily justified. Bush has said some stupid things regarding those who disagree about the amnesty bill, but beyond that, I can't think of anything else that is Reid-like.
"As ridiclous at this sounds, I hold everyone in this forum, including Dad, in highrer regard than I do the president..."
Read: "I am superior to all of you."
Actually...
"As ridiculous at this sounds, I hold everyone in this forum, including Dad, in higher regard than I do the president -- and I dare say I think most of y'all, if not all, are smarter than he is."
...means what it says. ER thinks highly of us and considers many of us to be intellectually superior to our esteemed President.
Now...
Truth be told, everyone here, at times, has expressed sentiments of personal superiority despite knowing full well the delusional nature of such speech. It is undoubtedly true that some positions held by individuals, AT TIMES, have been of superior quality in truth and relevance, but not a one of us is truly greater than the other... And each of us knows it.
Bravado is one thing, but I think each of us understands the dangers of Conceit. For those of us who don't, there are plenty of folks here ready and able to take him or her down a peg.
How could anyone get "I am superior to all of you" out of that? Hmm. Anyway ... EL, you heard me right.
Oh, and as for Phelps being a Democrat. That just shows ... what? When I mean right-wing Repubs, I usually say it. When I refer to right-wingers, I mean right-wingers of whatever party.
I guess it does show that Dems aren't the solid bastion of leftyism that some thing they are. Our Blue Dogs, in fact, our pretty dang conservative -- more so than some, if not most current, Repubs.
"How could anyone get "I am superior to all of you" out of that?"
"Actually, I think Bush probably does believe what he says. But that doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about."
This implies that YOU, Dear Reverend...DO know what YOU're talking about.
I can read between the lines.
EL, you give the Reverend waaaAAAYYY too much credit.
And I, Dad, brother, give you more credit than you surely deserve, based on your remarks here and elsewhere.
But that's the point of grace. Enjoy grace! LOL. I waller around in it myself. LOL!
(Oh, just for Dad: Jesus loves queers, just as they are.)
Hee hee, again. A character test for Dad! Will he walk away, or will he ...
Oh, and I didn't mean to merely imply.
I do, in fact, know what I'm talkin' about -- as far as it goes. So does E -- as far as it goes. So does everyone else here -- as far as it goes. So do you -- as far as it goes.
Which, honestly, is more than I think of the president.
OH! LET ME!
Jesus loves ax murderers just as they are.
Jesus loves thieves just as they are.
Jesus loves the bestial just as they are.
Jesus loves tax dodgers just as they are.
Jesus loves deadbeat dads just as they are.
this is fun
Jesus loved John Wayne Gacy just as he was. (past tense, too)
Here's a serious one: Jesus loves us despite what we are.
"(Oh, just for Dad: Jesus loves queers, just as they are.)"
Who said anything other than that? I mean...besides the Democrat, Fred Phelps.
God HATES homosexuality, though, pal!
Prove it.
"Prove it."
Jeez, ER. You really want to start that up again so soon?
"Prove it."
Umm...make notes when you read of the destruction of Sodom...and Gamorrah.
You know, Rverend, I don't think it's the homosexual you love...but the homosexuality itself.
That puts you 180 degrees out of phase with the Most High.
Post a Comment
<< Home