More fake soldiers speak up

[kallend 2,106]

Are you trying to claim that Sanchez was not critical of the Bush administration? I fail to see what his opinion of the press has to do with it.

The press did NOT lead us into this war, Bush did. The mess is Bush's mess.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The press did NOT lead us into this war, Bush did. The mess is Bush's mess.

Don't forget all the complicity of the entire Administration... whose family finances are all doing quite nicely.. as well as the friends of the administration. I would also point out all the chickenhawks out there who supported this fiasco from the beginning as well as the neocons who got us into it......Personally for all the laws they have broken with this and all the corporate cronyism they have supported... they need to be real CONS for looting the US Treasury.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Are you trying to claim that Sanchez was not critical of the Bush administration? I fail to see what his opinion of the press has to do with it.

The press did NOT lead us into this war, Bush did. The mess is Bush's mess.

You are the one who brought Sanchez and his credibility into the discussion to prop up your argument. Are you now discarding him and his credibility because only part of his claims fit your agenda?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Don't forget all the complicity of the entire Administration... whose family finances are all doing quite nicely..

His entire Administration? They're all doing quite nicely?

Where do you get this stuff?

I'm pretty sure many Administration members have their assets in blind trusts. How do you know how they all are doing?

Got a link?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Are you trying to claim that Sanchez was not critical of the Bush administration? I fail to see what his opinion of the press has to do with it.

The press did NOT lead us into this war, Bush did. The mess is Bush's mess.

You are the one who brought Sanchez and his credibility into the discussion to prop up your argument. Are you now discarding him and his credibility because only part of his claims fit your agenda?

Whether or not the press is doing a good job is immaterial to this discussion. Even if it were, any GOP good ol' boy can start up a media outlet if they don't like what's already out there. All it takes is $$$.

So let's get back on track after your feeble attempt to divert attention away from the Bush administration's incompetent execution of the war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you trying to claim that Sanchez was not critical of the Bush administration? I fail to see what his opinion of the press has to do with it.

The press did NOT lead us into this war, Bush did. The mess is Bush's mess.

You are the one who brought Sanchez and his credibility into the discussion to prop up your argument. Are you now discarding him and his credibility because only part of his claims fit your agenda?

Whether or not the press is doing a good job is immaterial to this discussion. Even if it were, any GOP good ol' boy can start up a media outlet if they don't like what's already out there. All it takes is $$$.

So let's get back on track after your feeble attempt to divert attention away from the Bush administration's incompetent execution of the war.

WTF are you talking about? The complicity of the the press is exactly what this conversation is about. You are the one who brought Sanchez;s credibility into it to try and prop up your usual "it's all Bush's fault" mantra". I simply asked you if you were giving him the same lofty position regarding his comments about the press and their role in the deaths of our troops as expressed by Sanchez. Apparently you'd rather pick and choose what to believe and then try and change the subject than to admit he may be right. Unless you think Sanchez is a liar. In that case, just simply say so. No need for all the distraction.

[kallend 2,106]

You are off topic. The title of this thread is "More fake soldiers speak up". Go back and read the OP and please try to pay attention to what they are speaking up about. BIG HINT: It isn't the press.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You are off topic. The title of this thread is "More fake soldiers speak up". Go back and read the OP and please try to pay attention to what they are speaking up about. BIG HINT: It isn't the press.

Lame!!! It's exactly about "cherry picking" and you know it.

[skymiles 3]

Quote

Quote

You are off topic. The title of this thread is "More fake soldiers speak up". Go back and read the OP and please try to pay attention to what they are speaking up about. BIG HINT: It isn't the press.

Lame!!! It's exactly about "cherry picking" and you know it.

Cherry picking? As in the Bush administration cherry picked the intel to justify the invasion of Iraq.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Cherry picking? As in the Bush administration cherry picked the intel to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Right.... and the stupid, naive, bumbling, goofballs in Congress like Hillary, Kennedy etc. were totally clueless. And she wants to be our President. Ha!!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Cherry picking? As in the Bush administration cherry picked the intel to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Right.... and the stupid, naive, bumbling, goofballs in Congress like Hillary, Kennedy etc. were totally clueless. And she wants to be our President. Ha!!

They voted for it before they voted against it...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

They voted for it before they voted against it...

That is what SANE people do once they figured out they were lied to....others.. they aint so smart.. they stick by the liars no matter what.

[skymiles 3]

Quote

You have upheld a point that it really does not matter who, why or where. You hate the military (IMO) and will do anything and say anything to try and make yourself BELIEVE you are right. Dam sad

Your responses in this tread have included phrases such as "lies" and "bullshit" and you have accused me of hating Bush and hating the troops. What comebacks can we expect next from you - "oh ya, fuck you". Either your debating skills are weak or you are becoming desperate.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Cherry picking? As in the Bush administration cherry picked the intel to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Right.... and the stupid, naive, bumbling, goofballs in Congress like Hillary, Kennedy etc. were totally clueless. And she wants to be our President. Ha!!

They voted for it before they voted against it...

Not to mention the irony of accusing Bush of "Cherry-picking" information. I'll be laughing about that all day.

[skymiles 3]

Quote

Not to mention the irony of accusing Bush of "Cherry-picking" information. I'll be laughing about that all day.

Bush's cherry picking cost 31,000 dead and injured soldiers, hundreds of billions of dollar, US credibility ...
What did Kallend's alleged cherry picking cost? Your hurt feelings?

[nerdgirl 0]

Interesting debate. Thank you for bringing this part of his comments to the discussion.

Reading through Gen Sanchez's speech (even w/out considering the context of the 2nd half) on the media and particularly noting the specific reporters that he cites as examples of his perception of good journalism, his message may have been that reporters should be tougher on President Bush's Administration, e.g., “Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by ‘high level officials’ who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments.”

Joe Galloway, the first reporter Gen Sanchez names as exemplary (“exemplify” is his exact word), has not been subtle in his writing:
5 July 2007, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/galloway/story/17599.html:

“What we have here, at the very heart of our own government, is a morass of criminal behavior unlike anything seen in recent American history.

“On his way out the door, whether sooner or later, George W. Bush had better sign one last pardon — to himself — for all the damage and destruction he has wrought on a nation that expected far better.”

Shanker and Burns (NY Times reporters) have not been hesitant to criticize either.

He does cite reporters who have pro-actively sought to engage the military and the Department of Defense not ones who have shied away from criticizing or challenging.

He criticizes instantaneous gratification journalism and almost sounds like he’s arguing for more old-style “Nightline” (pre-Ted Koppel’s departure) style investigative reporting. … Or pre-the rise of the 24-hour news channels.

In this paragraph, which I intentionally pulled out the whole paragraph (apologies for the capitals, it’s in the orginal),
“ALL ARE VICTIMS OF THE MASSIVE AGENDA DRIVEN COMPETITION FOR ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SUPREMACY. THE DEATH KNELL OF YOUR ETHICS HAS BEEN ENABLED BY YOUR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE CORROSIVE PARTISAN POLITICS THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS WHO ARE AT WAR.”

In the last sentence, it’s not clear to whom he wants to assign responsibility for “killing our servicemembers”? The journalists with whom he disagrees or those politicians who have engaged in “corrosive partisan politics that are destroying are country and killing our servicemembers”? Particularly if you consider it on light of the words of the journalists Sanchez sites as exemplary.

General Sanchez’s concluding remark (for that portion of the speech) is also interesting. I would have like to have heard his answer.
“Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?”

Is it just the journalists, with whom I suggest primary responsibility lies? The editors who have immediate authority over what is printed? The CEO, etc of the private media news corporations who hire the editors? The consumer market-place that enables commercial 'instanteous gratification' media to thrive? The type of journalism that he is strongly criticizing is responding to a demand from the market place. But that’s part of market-driven capitalism. Remember the much-maligned FCC “Fairness Doctrine”?

Am I just ‘cherry-picking’ what I want to see?

--

In the context of the original post and subsequent discussions, does anyone want to argue that since LTG Sanchez served in Iraq 2003-2004 that his views (like those who questioned the 12 Army Captains views) are not relevant?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Cherry picking? As in the Bush administration cherry picked the intel to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Right.... and the stupid, naive, bumbling, goofballs in Congress like Hillary, Kennedy etc. were totally clueless. And she wants to be our President. Ha!!

They voted for it before they voted against it...

A majority of the US public were in favor too, until they figured out they'd been lied too.

And there are some who STILL haven't figured out that they'd been lied too. Amazing, isn't it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Either your debating skills are weak or you are becoming desperate.

[skymiles 3]

Quote

You keep spouting talking points that are not true and have been proven to be not true, you insert opinion as fact and act like you expect others should take it for fact, you get called on it and you keep it up!!!!

Right back at ya!

The difference between you and me is that you're in an ever shrinking minority.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Right.... and the stupid, naive, bumbling, goofballs in Congress like Hillary, Kennedy etc. were totally clueless. And she wants to be our President. Ha!!

So Bush didn't cherry pick?

Wouldn't that mean that your intelligence agencies are filled with absolute idiots?

And as NCClimber likes to say, show me some proof that congress was shown different intel from what went to the President.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Not to mention the irony of accusing Bush of "Cherry-picking" information. I'll be laughing about that all day.

Bush's cherry picking cost 31,000 dead and injured soldiers, hundreds of billions of dollar, US credibility ...
What did Kallend's alleged cherry picking cost? Your hurt feelings?

Oh gee..you sure got me nailed. Whenever my feelings are hurt, I laugh all day. Doesn't everyone?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Interesting debate. Thank you for bringing this part of his comments to the discussion.

I think it's pretty kick-ass that you manage to maintain civility through the "internet". I try to do the same, though I don't think I could be quite as gracious.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Right.... and the stupid, naive, bumbling, goofballs in Congress like Hillary, Kennedy etc. were totally clueless. And she wants to be our President. Ha!!

So Bush didn't cherry pick?

Wouldn't that mean that your intelligence agencies are filled with absolute idiots?

And as NCClimber likes to say, show me some proof that congress was shown different intel from what went to the President.

You are so far off understanding what is being discussed, I can only ask what conversation you are reading.

Here's a clue..cherry-picking statements to prove a point and then accusing others of the same thing is incredibley ironic and laughable. And then to claim any points made in a speech other than the cherry-picked statements have no validity is ............well you fill in the blank.

Oh, I'm not the one making the claim that Congress was shown different information. You'll have to take up your demand for proof with that other poser.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Here's a clue..cherry-picking statements to prove a point and then accusing others of the same thing is incredibley ironic and laughable. And then to claim any points made in a speech other than the cherry-picked statements have no validity is ............well you fill in the blank.

Not arguing that with you. Just ironic that this comes up in a discussion about events the US is in due to cherry picking.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Right.... and the stupid, naive, bumbling, goofballs in Congress like Hillary, Kennedy etc. were totally clueless. And she wants to be our President. Ha!!

So Bush didn't cherry pick?No, but that is your talking point. Hell even Hillary admited she did not read the report given to Congress

Wouldn't that mean that your intelligence agencies are filled with absolute idiots?Yep, destroyed by Clinton and the libs. Does Gorelic mean anything to you

And as NCClimber likes to say, show me some proof that congress was shown different intel from what went to the President.

You are the one making the claims, you come up with the proof

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln