Furthermore, I never heard a single media report that reminded the public that after Senator Kerry voted to send the troops, he voted AGAINST the money to fund them with what they need.

I just don't understand how some people can't seem to see how bias the media can be.

As far as the lack of understanding of the military and how it works, I will point out again (earlier post a few weeks ago after Rick posted the sad news about a family friend being killed in Irag) The NY Times report that Ralper posted a link for concerning this the reporter could not even get the rank of Lance Corporal Nick Ziolkowski correct, referring to him as Corporal. Anyone, that knows anything about the USMC should know that they take their proper rank VERY seriously.

While I am still standing on this soapbox. My least favorite example of bias and illlogical reporting was at the start of the Iraq war when the military confiscated the GSM and satelite phones from the reporters that where embedded with various combat units. The media cried foul! Their First Ammendment rights were being violated by this censorship. They were being prevented from reporting what was going on, etc. The reality was that the specific make and models of phones that were confiscated transmit a GPS signal that could be picked up by scanners to detect the exact coordinates of the reporter embedded with a combat unit. DUH!!! What a crock of IMO a reporters job is to report the news. Plain and simple: Their job is NOT to change the world or change the course of the news.

I will get down off my soapbox now and go put on my Nomex.

 

Matt

I don't want to get into a tussle over this, and certainly whether or not the reporter reported Mr. Ziolkowski's rank properly is not the topic of this thread, but in fact, I thought that had been cleared up in the other thread.

I thought that Mr. Ziolkowski's rank had been reported properly by the reporter but that he (Ziolkowski) had received a promotion posthumously.

None the less, I fail to see what this has to do with this topic and why many of you insist on attacking the press when the story is really about the adequacy or inadequacy of the equipment our men and women in uniform have been given. Quite frankly I'd have thought that those of you who have a military background and those of you who do favor the war would be the first to insist that our soldiers and marines be given every advantage possible, including uparmored Humvees. I'd have thought that you would be the first to applaud this question.

 

My boss (and friend for +25 years) was a Marine Sgt in 'Nam....leading reconaissance missions. After the question by Spc. Wilson, Frank was absolutely overjoyed that someone had the balls to stand up and speak. Furthermore, he said that the rousing applause by Wilson's fellow soldiers was even more amazing, as a testimony to the sad state of their equipment

My friends analysis has more credibility to me than an anonymous quoted name in a newspaper article.

 

The fault with your stance as usual, dear charlie, is that you are asuming that the people that are finding fault with this incursion into Iraq are just now jumping on the bandwagon when, in fact, many of us with an educated opinion have believe from the outset that this administration did not have a reasonable view nor a coherent plan for achieving their goals.

 

Brant respectfully I understand exactly were you and yours are coming from. You are a pacifist like many here, nothing wrong with that but I'm glad your not in charge of our country.

hope your enjoying your stay in Philly, been to Tony Lukes yet?

 

[QUOTE=paS2K,Dec 17 2004, 01:05 AM] My boss (and friend for +25 years) was a Marine Sgt in 'Nam....leading reconaissance missions. After the question by Spc. Wilson, Frank was absolutely overjoyed that someone had the balls to stand up and speak.

 

So, those of us who are opposed to the war in Iraq are all to be unceremoniously tossed into the pacifist bin?

Dean

 

Jesus Christ, Charlie.... Are you comparing WWII to Iraq??

 

For the record, I'm not a pacifist. I think I speak for a number of other folks around here when I say that my objections to Iraq have nothing to do with being a pacifist.

I'm not sure what Brant's position is, though... You do realize that he's from a military family, don't you?

 

[QUOTE=Chazmo,Dec 17 2004, 02:58 PM] Jesus Christ, Charlie....