NBC Nightly News Spikes News About Fewest Troop Deaths of War

Photo of Brent Baker.

As lead-ins to short reports on the posthumous presentation of a Medal of Honor, ABC and CBS on Monday night managed to squeeze in -- more than 20 minutes into their evening newscasts -- brief mentions of how in May the fewest number U.S. servicemen were killed in Iraq in any month since the war began five years ago. But not NBC Nightly News. (And Sunday's Today and Nightly News, as well as Monday's Today, also skipped the good news.) NBC anchor Brian Williams on Monday led with worries that “because it's been underfunded for decades, mass transit may not be ready for all the Americans leaving their cars behind,” and ran his short update, on the Medal of Honor going to Army Private First Class Ross McGinnis, without anything about the decline in troops killed.

Fill-in ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos set up his report on the White House ceremony presenting the honor to the parents of McGinnis by dampening the positive news with the total death number:

The Pentagon reported 19 American troops were killed in May. That's the lowest monthly toll since the war began. The total number of Americans killed in the war is now approaching 4,100.

On the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric also noted the total, but CBS didn't display it on screen, as she painted the fewest killed as “perhaps” a sign violence is going down:

In Iraq, a sign perhaps that violence is decreasing. In the lowest monthly death U.S. toll since the war began, 19 Americans were killed in May. The total U.S. toll for the war is now 4,086.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Yes, she said “monthly death U.S. toll.”

Unlike Couric, Stephanopoulos also pointed out the much-lower civilian death level: “Just over 500 Iraqi civilians were killed in war-related violence last month. That's half the number from the month before.”

ABC, but not CBS or NBC, aired a clip of President Bush praising McGinnis:

In an instant the grenade dropped through the gunner's hatch. He dropped inside, put himself against the grenade and absorbed the blast with his own body. With that split-second decision, Private McGinnis lost his own life and he saved his comrades.

(The lowest-ever U.S. troop death level in May earned a little broadcast network attention on Sunday with a brief mention in an introduction to a story on ABC's Good Morning America and during the news summary on CBS's Sunday Morning, but zilch on NBC's Today or Nightly News. Also nothing on Sunday's CBS Evening News or ABC's World News, nor on Today, GMA or The Early Show on Monday.)

NBC's lack of interest in highlighting the good news echoes the findings of a February 28 Media Reality Check by the MRC's Rich Noyes, “Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq: Networks Minimize Good News From Iraq, Don't Press Democrats on 'Wrong-Headed' Predictions.”

Some examples of how NBC Nightly News has emphasized the negative or avoided good news from Iraq:

An April 8 NewsBusters item, “NBC Stacks Deck Against Petraeus, and Takes a Shot at McCain Too,” recounted:

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams led Tuesday's newscast by listing the burden of the Iraq war in years, troops, deaths and cost before Jim Miklaszewski, unlike reporters on ABC and CBS, found it newsworthy to show a man, in the Senate hearing for General David Petraeus, shouting "bring them home!" In the next story, Andrea Mitchell decided to highlight, again unlike ABC or CBS, how John McCain "stumbled...by again describing al Qaeda as Shiite" and Williams turned to Richard Engel, NBC's Iraq reporter, who described Petraeus' decision to end troop withdrawals in July as "frustrating and disheartening in that the rules of the game have changed." Williams opened: "The war's now five years old. That's longer than U.S. involvement in World War II. There are currently 162,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Death toll is now over 4,000. And the price tag of this war for military operations alone: nearly half a trillion dollars so far."

Before and after audio of a man yelling "bring them home!", Miklaszewski helpfully suggested: "A protestor voiced what some Americans are demanding for U.S. troops." In a piece by Mitchell on how the three presidential candidates approached Petraeus, she pointed how that "the Republican Senator also stumbled, briefly, by again describing al Qaeda as Shiite." She countered: "Al Qaeda is Sunni, not Shiite. McCain immediately corrected himself." So, if he immediately corrected himself, why highlight it?

My November 2 NewsBusters post, “Only ABC Reports Military's Stats on Violence Plunging in Iraq,” reported:

Lt. General Raymond Ordierno on Thursday reported significant progress in reduced violence in Iraq, but of the broadcast network evening newscasts only ABC's World News bothered to cover the positive trend as anchor Charles Gibson introduced a full story on how "military officials gave one of the most upbeat assessments of the security situation in Iraq that we have heard since the opening months of the war." The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly skipped the positive trend, but CBS had time for a story on the investigation of the September shooting of civilians by Blackwater and NBC aired a piece on Hillary Clinton "playing the gender card." The Washington Post and New York Times on Friday also made very different news judgments on the importance of the positive direction as the Post put the news on its front page while the Times hid it in a story, on an inside page, about Iran's role in Iraq.

The July 30, 2007 NewsBusters item, “NBC Skips More Upbeat Iraq Judgment ABC and CBS Find Newsworthy,” revealed:

NBC Nightly News on Monday ignored a development both ABC and CBS found newsworthy, that after eight days in Iraq, two Brookings Institution scholars who describe themselves as "harshly" critical of Bush's Iraq policy, determined the situation in Iraq is better than they assumed and so the "surge" should continue into next year. Instead of reporting the fresh assessment from Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, NBC anchor Brian Williams, citing "a draft U.S. report," aired a full story on how "there are disturbing new details about corruption at the very top of the Iraqi government." But the NBC Nightly News has hardly been reticent before about running soundbites from O'Hanlon with dire warnings about Iraq.

ABC anchor Charles Gibson declared "the column was the talk of Washington today." From Iraq, Terry McCarthy related that "the report tracks fairly closely with what we're seeing both in our visits to U.S. bases in and around Baghdad involved with the surge, and also our trips out to Baghdad neighborhoods talking to Iraqi population. Clearly, security is improving as the U.S. military footprint expands so the violence goes down, the sectarian killings go down." Indeed, on CBS, David Martin noted how "with one day left in the month, American casualties in July are the lowest since the troop surge began in February. And civilian casualties are down a third." Martin aired soundbites from Pollack and O'Hanlon as he described "just enough progress so that a critic like Michael O'Hanlon, who used to think the surge was too little too late, now believes it should be continued."...

As noted above, the NBC Nightly News hasn't hesitated to feature O'Hanlon's previous dire forecasts. On April 28, the newscast featured O'Hanlon's warning: "We're going to have to see some pretty striking results from the surge pretty soon to continue to justify the strain and the sacrifice it's exacting on our forces." A week earlier, on April 20, O'Hanlon predicted: "If al-Sadr's people really fight us hard, we are in very bad trouble. If the car bombings continue like they did on Wednesday, we are not going to prevail." And back on February 3, NBC brought O'Hanlon on to comment on a government report about the situation in Iraq: "This report definitely leaves open the distinct possibility of utter chaos, outright civil war and complete mission failure. There is no doubt that Iraq could simply collapse."...

Transcripts of the Iraq coverage on the Monday, June 2 broadcast network evening newscasts:

ABC's World News:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Now to Iraq, where we learned today that just over 500 Iraqi civilians were killed in war-related violence last month. That's half the number from the month before. Also the Pentagon reported 19 American troops were killed in May. That's the lowest monthly toll since the war began. The total number of Americans killed in the war is now approaching 4,100.

One of those fallen service members received America's highest military honor today. At an emotional White House ceremony, President Bush awarded the Medal of Honor to a 19-year-old Army Private First Class. In 2006, he sacrificed his life to save his comrades as they patrolled Baghdad in a Humvee. The family of Ross McGinnis was there today and so were the four men he saved.

PRESIDENT BUSH: In an instant the grenade dropped through the gunner's hatch. He dropped inside, put himself against the grenade and absorbed the blast with his own body. With that split-second decision, Private McGinnis lost his own life and he saved his comrades.

STAFF SERGEANT IAN NEWLAND: He wanted to ensure that we made it out of it. Actually we train for the opposite. We train to get away from the grenade. He lived to fight another day and that's not the decision he made. Why didn't it go differently, why did he do that? Why did my soldier die in my arms instead of me?

THOMAS McGINNIS, FATHER OF PFC ROSS McGINNIS: I guess the only thing you're going to remember about my son is that he did the right thing at the right time.

STEPHANOPOULOS: A teenage soldier's sacrifice and a country's enduring gratitude.

CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: In Iraq, a sign perhaps that violence is decreasing. In the lowest monthly death U.S. toll since the war began, 19 Americans were killed in May. The total U.S. toll for the war is now 4,086.

That number, by the way, includes a soldier who today was awarded the nation's highest military honor for sacrificing his own life to save his comrades. From the time he was in kindergarten, Ross McGinnis wanted to be an Army man. And in December, 2006, the 19-year-old Pennsylvania native was in the gunner's hatch of a Humvee patrolling Baghdad when a grenade was thrown into the vehicle. Private McGinnis could have jumped out and saved himself, but instead he jumped on top of the grenade and saved his four comrades who couldn't get out.

SERGEANT LYLE BUEHLER: I still ponder everyday how you can make a decision that quick.

TOM McGINNIS, FATHER: He did the right thing at the right time.

COURIC: Today, President Bush presented the Medal of Honor to Private Ross McGinnis' parents.

ROMAYNE McGINNIS, MOTHER: Ross did what he did for his buddies.

SPECIALIST SEAN LAWSON: If it wasn't for him, I would be dead. I wouldn't be married right now. I wouldn't have a life of my own.

NBC Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: For the fourth time since the start of the war in Iraq President Bush today awarded the Medal of Honor, this nation's highest military decoration, but for the fourth time the recipient is not alive to accept it. Specialist Ross McGinnis, then a private, was killed in the line of duty back in 2006. He was on patrol when a grenade landed in his Humvee. He threw his body over it and saved the lives of four men. All four men were on hand at the White House today for the ceremony. Friends say they remember McGinnis drawing pictures of soldiers in kindergarten. He wanted to be one. Ross McGinnis, recipient of the Medal of Honor, was 19.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

God forbid.....

they show a positive take on Iraq.  God how I hate the MSM, and their biased BS. 

"If a man does his best, what else is there"?

General George S. Patton Jr.

What !? No mention of Keith

What !? No mention of Keith Olbermans 4 tax warrants in lieu of 150 k, I thought for sure they would run that.

 "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

                               " The Cake is a lie."   

Or...................

 Al "I'm so far left I'm ready to fall off the planet" Franken.  True sign of the apocalypse is the election of Obamanation, and Al "I have no clue" Franken.  Time to dig shelters if that happens!

"If a man does his best, what else is there"?

General George S. Patton Jr.

“a sign perhaps that violence is decreasing”

On the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric … painted the fewest [s/b US soldiers] killed as “perhaps” a sign violence is going down:

In Iraq, a sign perhaps that violence is decreasing. In the lowest monthly death U.S. toll since the war began, 19 Americans were killed in May. The total U.S. toll for the war is now 4,086.

Yes, she said “monthly death U.S. toll.”

…And BDS Liberals rant about how stupid Bush is?!?

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

NBC. ugh

If "My Name is Earl" ever moves to another network, there will be no need to ever watch NBC again in my household. 

The Coward, Brian Williams

I would like to see everyone who will, e-mail nbc and tell them what a coward and a chicken-$hit brian williams is, Here is an e-mail address,nightly@nbc.com
E-mail Address(es):
  nightly@nbc.com

 supposedly at this address they want to know what you think.

(GRINS)

kilrod

Brian Williams is a scum-sucking bottom-feeder.

Not to mention an enemy propagandist.

Think of him as the Tokyo Rose of WW IV.

There is no England anymore.

Any news org that reports

Any news org that reports 50% of the news can only be 50% credible.

Lame Stream Media

The Lame Stream Media must live up to their name at all cost. So far the cost is the NYSlimes and several broadcast outlets on the verge of never being seen again. Down the old 'we're broke' hole they go still spouting anti-american propaganda. NBC is the only Lame Stream Media outlet ever on in my home and that's for the 6 and 11 PM local news. Man's got to know how many democrats died of drug overdose in the neighborhood and they never fail to please. I know they're democrats because it goes from welfare to drugs to dead.

 

Old, Retired and glad of it.

"Only 19"

Only nineteen American sworn troops killed?

"Only?"

Well, hell then, lets fucking celebrate! "Only nineteen dedicated Americans were killed!

What a triumph!

What sick and twisted situational ethics think that "only nineteen" Americans were killed?

Nineteen would've wiped out my squad in Nam + a few.

Fuck them and anyone else that thinks that "only nineteen" Americans died last month is a "good thing."

Very much.

 

Emotionally I agree with

Emotionally I agree with you with the exception of the profanity.  We all mourn losses, particularly for our comrades which I have losta couple during this war.

Analytically I disagree with you when I analyze the situation and realize  a.)  The situation is rapidly improving.  b.) The cost paid is minimal in comparison to history.  c.)  The goals are slowly and surely being met.

Being responsible means we must react analytically, not emotionally if we intend to win any war.

.

.

First, watch your mouth,

First, watch your mouth, that language is not acceptable here.

2nd, your sense of proportion is way off over the 19 soldiers dying in Iraq.  We lost 58,000+ soldiers from 1964 to 1973 (9 years) in the Vietnam War as compared to 4085 from 2003 to 2008 (5 years) so as far as the small rate of our people dying you should be grateful.  http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml  I don't hear you screaming bloody murder over the 40,000+ people who die on our highways every year, so your criticism is just specious. 

3rd, While we are not happy any soldier dies in service to his/her country, death is fact of life in the military and they knew full well when signing on as a VOLUNTEER that the possibility of dying was very real.  Remember, in Vietnam most were drafted, you had no choices.  So drawing any negative conclusion on your part is primarily a political one, not one based on reality.  Our soldiers are not helpless victims of the Establishment.  And don't you dare attempt to denigrate our soldiers by claiming they were too stupid like that waste of space Kerry or make the specious claim they had few choices and needed a job.

4th, Your attitude is based on the context of prior wars like the Vietnam War where military officers did not have the same sense of protecting their soldiers as assets and instead viewed them as expendable.  That sea change in attitude probably was the most instrumental in reducing mortality rates even with introduction of bullet proof vests.

 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.  

For the profane Harry

Why, harry?  Could it be that this country isn't as whiny and pathetic enough for you?

Iraq isn't a bowl of cherries but nor is it a lost cause as you so desperately want to believe.  And judging by the tone of your post, there isn't ANYTHING in this country you see worth defending.  Fortunately for the nation, not many share your sentiments.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

For the unprofane Unsane..

For the unprofane Unsane...you might want to check out some of profane Harry's other posts.  He seems to be farther to the right than even you claim to be. :-)

Jer

Not a stretch

For those who habitually read my posts, that really isn't a stretch.  I am not as far to the Right as you think.  Not too many Rightists think too highly of Ayn Rand... 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Unsane...

That comment was at least partly tongue-in-cheek, Unsane.  I do habitually read and am informed by your posts.  I'm not quite sure where to place you ideologically--and really don't worry about it anyway.  But having put me well out on the Left, I'm not sure you give it much thought either. :-)  I believe Rand was once held in considerably more esteem by the Right than she has been in recent years.

Jer

Rand

Ayn Rand would be a conservative heroine in this country if it weren't for the fact that her philosophy is rooted in uncompromising atheism.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Rand panned

I think you are one hundred per cent correct.

Jer

They also never report how

They also never report how many terrorists are dead.

20,000 frags, 4,000 deaths. I see a difference.

Indeed. This is probably the most underreported statistic throughout the entire war. Of course, if the media published it, the approval rating for the President would skyrocket, so the statistic would be counter-intuitive!

The 20,000 terrorists deaths are only from 2006 - to present

I'm sure there were many more during the initial Afghanistan invasion.

2002-2005 probably had a higher total if anything. I remember back then that the military didn't want to release the death totals for some reason. I think they didn't want to be morbidly glee about killing people or something. I don't really understand it.

I never saw these numbers from 2006-to present before and it's nice that this guy is keeping track with the press releases. Seeing these numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2002-present total exceeded 50,000. Does anyone know the number that have been detained?

It's unbelievable that the media loves to report U.S. casualties and "Civilian" deaths that are made up, but they won't report these.

They aren't going to report

They aren't going to report this Dee it doesn't fit their leftist agenda...

mattm....great chart...thanks.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

BT - I was hoping someone like BD would know the total number

of terrorists detained. I'm curious what that number is also.

Sorry Dee, I have no

Sorry Dee, I have no idea. 

 

Maybe what we need included

Maybe what we need included in every report is monthy and to-date numbers of soldiers, terrorists and civilians killed?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Yeah whichwing but fat chance we'll ever get it

We should also have totals of Civilians killed in America each month for comparison.

They are not interested in giving us a balanced picture at all. The are only interested in making things in Iraq look as bad as possible.

This isn't bias, it is

This isn't bias, it is truth. You are asking for bias. Most of you seem to think they should report the number for May and not mention the total. That would be biased wouldn't it? You want them to give you the good news and keep the bad news to themselves. You take the good with the bad.

And remember this: a reduction in violence is not an end to the violence, which would be a much better goal to strive for.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

WW,


And remember this: a reduction in violence is not an end to the violence, which would be a much better goal to strive for.

Yeah, all we have to do is surrender and leave, then the violence would end, right?

Yeah, just like it ended after we quit Vietnam.

Only problem was, the violence didn't end, as several million people were slaughtered after we left.

But hey, at least our conscience was clear, right? After all, that is really all that matters to you surrender monkeys, isn't it?

Who cares about the innocents who will be slaughtered in droves if we leave Iraq? Right?

After all, it's peace at any price, no matter what. Right?

Look at 'Mr. Jump To

Look at 'Mr. Jump To Conclusions' here. Why didn't you jump to the conclusion that I meant total victory, surrender by the enemy, or something along those lines? Maybe you were just looking for a chance to say "surrender monkey."

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

WW, either you support total victory...

...and I mean until the last one of 'em is dead, or at least incapacitated to the point of impotence, or you do not.

There is no middle ground here.

Compromise = surrender.

Period.

You are fighting an

You are fighting an ideology, dont' you see how that is an impossible cause?

Your inability to compromise would keep as at war with one group of people or another until our nation collapsed onto itself. I hope that isn't your aim.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Get real

Your inability to compromise

 

What, why is it we should compramise? When have they ever comprimised, they have broken every agreement ever made with them. Like I said, Hopeless

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

WW, If you knew anything at all about the history of Islam...

...you would not have posted that comment.

There is no such thing as "compromise" with the barbarians. They see any attempt to do so as weakness on the part of their enemy (that being any infidel alive and breathing on this planet.)

Islam has been at war with the civilized world for over fourteen centuries. During that time, countless nations have arisen, only to disapear shortly thereafter.

The average life-span for truly free nations has historically been only 200 years. This country is now in its 238th year of existence.

We are living on borrowed time.

Just sixty years ago, had an attack such as we suffered on 9/11 taken place, Harry S. Truman would have responded with everything we had, including nukes, most likely. He would have literally put the fear of Allah into the minds of the camel-riders, to the point that they would probably have left us alone for at least a half-century or so.

By 9/11 2001, the cancer that is liberalism had so weakened the resolve of this nation that our response was, quitre frankly, rather impotent.

Once again, we have shown weakness to an enemy that knows how to exploit said weakness to the fullest. They have been doing it for 1400 years.

At least GWB knows something about Islam that most people (apparently including you) do not, and that is, in the event of a Jihad, all Muslims are commanded to go to wherever the conflict is, and fight.

Perhaps you woud rather have them come here?

The Islamic supremecists are currently winning the GWOT. Unless what remains of Western civilization pulls its head out if its rear-end and does something decisive, Islam is going to ultimately prevail.

Waiting until after the Islamo-fascists have destroyed a U.S. City will be too late.

 

For the weak, whiny WhichWhine

 You are fighting an ideology, dont' you see how that is an impossible cause?   Explain the Cold War, and the events of 9 November 1989 then.

Your inability to compromise would keep as at war with one group of people or another until our nation collapsed onto itself. I hope that isn't your aim.   I know you LOVE and LIVE FOR the idea of living on your knees in servitude to others, but bear with me here.

How do you compromise with those who want us either dead or converted to Islam? 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Violence. It's what brings peace.

And remember this: a reduction in violence is not an end to the violence, which would be a much better goal to strive for.  So therefore you advocate MORE violence?

You see, we can bring the whole thing to a halt.  But what I have in mind will make you extremely squeamish (as the whole thought of protecting and defending the United States makes you sqeamish) and break out into uncontrollable vomiting.  However, it WILL work.  Violence ALWAYS works, after all.   

Finally, as one who has completed my time in the desert recently, the problem is that the media want to do the complete opposite: report ONLY items which feed their penchant for defeatism.  From what I saw, Iraq is NOT a bowl of cherries, but neither is it an irredeemable hellhole the media desperately wants you to believe it to be.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

"Finally, as one who has

"Finally, as one who has completed my time in the desert recently, the problem is that the media want to do the complete opposite: report ONLY items which feed their penchant for defeatism"

Unsane, don't you realize that as a military member that you don't matter?  How dare you suggest that the MSM's view and their egos don't trump the views of soldiers putting their asses on the line.  Don't you know that the MSM and their ego were correct in the reporting on the Tet Offensive?  Who cares if the VC were virtually destroyed, and that S. Vietnam could possibly be like S. Korea?  No, all that matters Unsane is the MSM and their egos.  Your attempts at getting out the truth are futile, because left wing college professors say that Vets don't matter, and only they, the MSM and all of their egos matter.

Carl!!!

Carl, that's what I like about you.  BEFORE I get carried away with thinking that I learned something useful from my experiences, you step in to bring me down to earth and show me the errors of my ways.  I need to defer my critical thinking and my experiences to those who know best, the MSM.  I won't allow myself to get so carried away again.

Hey, from what I understand, according to the MSM, Robert Mugabe was unfairly maligned and he, in fact, won the election in Zimbabwe with an overwhelming majority.  Shame on the MDC from trying to swipe the election from him. 

:-)

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

So we all agree?

We all agree that it was not "liberal bias" to report the total number of deaths along with the May numbers?

(Good to hear from you again Unsane, glad your home.)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

No, we all agree the story

No, we all agree the story has a negative spin USING the total number of deaths along the with the May numbers to MINIMIZE the progress in Iraq.  The story carries the unspoken agenda of opposition to the GWOT, a JOURNALIST is supposed to report the facts not imply or insert their opinions and agenda.  Since this story carries with it the implied agenda of opposition to the GWOT in Iraq, it is a PROPAGANDA piece, not journalism.  We know the difference between journalism and propaganda, do you?

 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.  

They did report FACTS. You

They did report FACTS. You don't like that they included more than one fact and have decided to call that "liberal bias." Saying "X number died this month, bringing the total to Y" is not propaganda. When they pulled another body from the WTC and then told you the running total did you cry bias? I bet you didn't. In both cases they were reporting the facts, how are they different?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Apparently, you didn't read

Apparently, you didn't read what I said and substituted what you wanted me to say.  The facts are fine, context is fine but spin is not fine.  The article was spun, SPIN = PROPAGANDA. 

JOURNALISM = ALL THE FACTS WITHOUT OPINION OR AGENDA

I can't make it any clearer for you.

 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.  

You don't need you to make

You don't need you to make it clearer for me, I see the story and I have apparently come to a different conclusion. I saw no spin, just the facts. If too many facts equal spin you should head over to Fox News for less facts and more opinion. (Your whole argument is based on them including one more fact than you wanted to hear, you don't even dispute the fact.)

Many stories have been spun, whether for the benefit of the right or the left, but this was not one of them.

P.S. This is the "propaganda" in question:

KATIE COURIC: In Iraq, a sign perhaps that violence is decreasing. In
the lowest monthly death U.S. toll since the war began, 19 Americans
were killed in May. The total U.S. toll for the war is now 4,086.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Now to Iraq, where we learned today that just
over 500 Iraqi civilians were killed in war-related violence last
month. That's half the number from the month before. Also the Pentagon
reported 19 American troops were killed in May. That's the lowest
monthly toll since the war began. The total number of Americans killed
in the war is now approaching 4,100.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

To claim no bias on this is absurd whichwing

Did you even read the article? He didn't claim that ABC or CBS didn't mention it, he said they were both at least 20 min into their broadcast before they did and then that mention was brief.

NBC was the one who failed to mention it at all.

All three showed way less attention to it than they did to the "bad news" like a soldier dying before he could receive his medal. An increase in deaths would be more prominent in their broadcasts and missing from none.

I disagree. Their mentions

I disagree. Their mentions of the monthly and year-to-date totals were indeed brief, but they were used more as a lead in for the story about the Medal of Honor than anything. And as you said, one network didn't report either total, just the story about the soldier.

Maybe we're beginning to look too hard for bias. Let's just take the good news of May being the lowest monthly total and stop trying to find something to bitch about.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Yes you do agree WhichWing

You are saying to me right back what I said. You seem to be touting the soldier medal story as a positive and I'm saying it's a negative because they only focused on it due to the fact that he's dead. They have ignored many medal stories of live soldiers. I have no problems with them mentioning the heroics of brave soldiers who have died, but they should also mention the one's who are alive. They used this story ,to give a negative face and overshadow the improvements. Regardless, I still have no problems with them mentioning the brave soldier and his story, it's just how they did it that was tacky. They need to find much more time to mention the heroics of all of our soldiers.

The fact that one Network didn't mention it and the others two used it only after the lead in of the medal story with a focus being on the soldier not living to receive it is pretty pathetic and transparent. If the death total had increased, it would have been more prominent with no counterbalancing story about something positive.

"WE" are not doing anything. YOU don't see much problem with the media. "WE", as in others of us, do see bias. This is as clear a story of bias as any and if you can't see that, then you don't watch much news or are brainwashed by it.

You are the bias. You took

You are the bias. You took positive stories and complained about how they were delivered to you.

News provided:

*half as many civilians as last month were killed (good thing)

*a sign perhaps that violence is decreasing (good thing)

*the lowest monthly total, 19, since the war began (good thing)

*the total for the war, 4086 or 4100 (not such a good thing)

*a soldier was awarded the nation's highest military honor (good thing)

*sacrificed his own life to save his comrades (good, honorable thing)

Cry and cry that they give you no good news, and then cry that they don't make it sound good enough when they do.

And they didn't focus on the soldier being dead other than to tell you that he was recieving the Medal of Honor for giving his life to save another's. (Except for Brian Williams, his choice of words were less than ideal.)


"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

You are the one cry cry crying Wichwing

You are crying about this story that has complete validity and not complaining about tons and tons of bias in the reporting.

You didn't address how NBC news ignored the story completely or how all of the three networks have been pathetic in their coverage of medals given to live soldiers.

Of course they can't ignore completely (except NBC I guess) stories of decreases when they have been reporting the increases so vigilantly. The difference is in the tone an placement and what they use to offset it. This article is about the absence in NBC and the tone and placement of the other networks. You are cry cry crying that we don't have a right to complain about tone and placement.

You are blind if you can't see it. I don't think you want to see it. In either case, you have no write to cry cry cry about our complaints.

You win, negativity seems to

You win, negativity seems to be your strength and you should stick with what you know.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Nice try Whichwing - you brought up crying

you're the negative one. I'm just playing your game. I know I won - because your points weren't valid.

  WW, nobody is

 

WW, nobody is suggesting that pointing out the deaths for the month and the total, or even the fallen solders medal is where the bias is. It is in the "tone" of the commentary, suggesting that  “perhaps” a sign violence is going down. When it is a trend and it is obviously going down, this is a snide comment to anyone with an even keel.
Also mentioning Iraqi citizen deaths, without putting them in context. Are these all deaths, including natural deaths, accidental deaths, killed by terrorist, or are they suggesting (as I personally think they are) are these "all" that our military has killed this month.

Not to mention nbc's silence on the subject, yet these guys will announce from the mountain top when it makes our country and our military look bad.

But if you do not want to see it, you wont. So I will not waste any more time explaining it to you.

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

We will have to agree to

We will have to agree to disagree. I still see 3 generally positive reports and a whole bunch of people complaining that the reports weren't delivered to their satisfaction. The general public (i.e. centrists) are going to come away from these reports thinking they have just been given good news about the direction of the war.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

No whichwing - you don't speak for the general public

you only speak for other left leaning people like yourself. It's obvious to anyone who pays attention that there is bias here and you still haven't addressed the points

1.) NBC ignored the News completely

2.) The other 2 networks only reported it after counterbalancing it with a very sad story of a heroic soldier who didn't live to get his medal

3.) The networks don't cover the majority of medal stories where the soldier is alive to receive them.

4.) News of increased deaths are not counterbalanced with stories of good things happening in Iraq and they are mentioned closer to the top of the broadcasts.

You even admitted that Williams was inappropriate in the way he conveyed the medal story, so with the three networks there are 2 degrees of bias. NBC was the worst, then CBS & ABC. Even the better ones still used the sad story to counterbalance and preceed it and waited 20 min or more into their broadcast to mention it.

A 'sad' story about a

A 'sad' story about a soldier being awarded the Medal of Honor?? Waiting too long to report the news you wanted to hear??? Get over it, they have delivered good news and you have decided to reject so that you continue to bitch about the 'liberal' media. It was GOOD NEWS!!!

And where in the world do you get the idea that I am 'left leaning'? Based on what? I'd be willing to bet that you are far more to the left than I am.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Whichwing is leftwing because

only a left winger could think that their isn't a problem with the bias in the media.

I'm on the opposite side of everyone here on Immigration, but I don't get into arguments or complain about the coverage because I know that the media his highly bias to my side. They are even much more left than I am. They only portray the anti- illegal immigration stance as racist and never give a proper airing of their grievances. Just because I'm for a guest worker type solution doesn't mean I'm going to ride the MSM bandwagon of labeling everyone who disagrees as racist or backwards.

That's why I don't argue it much here. Everyone knows I'm not in agreement with most on it, but I'm not frustrated by my side not being heard on that issue. I am frustrated that like everything else, the media doesn't allow an intelligent debate on it.

Whichwing like any other liberal, doesn't see any problems with the media when they support his position that goes contrary to the normal Republican position. He buys into nefarious reasons for going to war and staying there and is okay with our military being portrayed as a bunch of criminals and thinks it's crying to expect them to tell good stories and pay attention to soldiers that receive medals while alive.

Most true conservatives like myself, are fine with both sides being presented and can recognize how unfair the media is even when we agree with their position.

You are a false

You are a false conservative. You are more than ok with tax and spend policies that get us no where. You are for bigger government. (Such as Homeland Security.) You dont' complain that we have wasted tax payer dollars and soldiers lives in Iraq, you only complain that the media doesn't spin in a more positive way. I think you have a guilty conscience and the only way you can assuage it is too call other people liberal, regardless of their position on economic and social issues. You don't even care to hear their positions on such subjects, just disagreeing with you over some stupid newbusters post is enough to make them a liberal in your eyes. You better look at yourself before calling someone else a liberal.

A "true conservative like yourself?" HA!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Huh?

Actually, you would be the "false conservative", because no conservative I know want America to be the pushover wimp nation you so ache for it to be.  

And Homeland Security is a waste of money?  It kills you to see ANY laws enforced in this country, doesn't it?  This nation cannot take any steps to defend itself without you throwing an absolute temper tantrum. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

This is why I question your

This is why I question your conservative credentials. Since when is it a conservative position to advocate more and bigger bureaucracies? I thought it was liberals that wanted big government?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Shoot me

I'm all about smaller bureaucracy, but I am one of those weird people who have no problem with the government enforcing laws, delivering mail, and (gasp!) defending the country.  Shoot me.    

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

»→ Shot

Government enforcing laws?

Brilliant!

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

Nope

The Left and the media wants us to FAIL and FAIL MISERABLY in Iraq, so no, I disagree wholeheartedly.  I am even more convinced of that than ever now that I have returned home.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

If it's any comfort, I'm on the Left and

If it's any comfort, I'm on the Left and I don't want us to fail.

Jer

Jer... And all this time

Jer...

And all this time I thought you were a neo-con.

"Abstain from McCain"

Well, Clear...

And all this time I thought you were a neo-con.

Well, Clear...that's because you lack my "superior ability to read people" which you recently so graciously acknowledged.

Jer

In your case...

Then you are an exception to the rule.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Good...I like the sound of

Good...I like the sound of that.  [Not sure that I agree, however.]

Jer

WW...It is Bias...when you don't compare...

Iraq Deaths to 15,000 Murders in the USA each Year.

400,000 WWII deaths

45,000 Auto Accident Deaths PER YEAR in USA.

And NOW, the May Totals are comparable to Phillidelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, etc...Murder Rates.

Lets PULL out of Detroit....it's Not Safe there...RETREAT..

I'll just let you chew on

I'll just let you chew on that for a while.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

You should chew on it WhichWing - we are losing more of our

citizenry to murder in our own country than we are in Iraq. A lot more. More than three times as many in one year than have been lost in Iraq in 5 years. You don't seem too concerned about that.

We lost 3,000 people in one day to a terrorist attack and it took 4 years to lose that many in Iraq. On Sept 11 only 19 terrorists died. Now the ratio is reversed. The difference is that the 3,000 people were complete innocents while the terrorists are not.

Who knows how many more attacks we would have had and how many thousands would be lost in the U.S. had we continued with the "law enforcement" tactic of the Clinton administration.

This is an entirely

This is an entirely different topic, and one I am concerned about. Alot of the crime in this country can be attributed to the War on Drugs, and I'm all for ending that. But if you are still up for comparisons, compare how many innocent people died on 9/11 to how many have died in Iraq over the last 5 years.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

"compare how many innocent

"compare how many innocent people died on 9/11 to how many have died in Iraq over the last 5 years"

All from the same source -- terrorists.

Now, WW, start adding up the rest. Here's a start -- how many hundreds of thousands killed by Sadam? How many by the Taliban? Your comparisons are stupid; your logic is non-existant. Your bias is overwhelming.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Why would you call our

Why would you call our military terrorists? Or are you trying to pretend like we haven't killed any innocent civilians in our invasion and 5-year occupation?

(This one's for you too JayPeePee)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

You're a fool, WW

The U.S. military doesn't kill innocent civilians in Iraq. Period. Terrorists kill civilians to make a point or to force the rest to obey. The U.S. military doesn't.

That's an unequivical statement, WW.

Now, as for your statement: "Why would you call our military terrorists?" Don't ever accuse me of that again. I was an officer in the U.S. Air Force. My son is currently serving his second tour in Iraq as a Marine officer. My father fought in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. I don't tolerate fools who denigrate the honor, dedication, service, and sacrifice of our soldiers; and you are a fool.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Well, we don't

Well, we don't _intentionally_ kill innocent civilians, right? 

No Bal, we don't. My son

No Bal, we don't. My son has never received orders to go kill innocent civilians. He has never given such an order to his troops. The commanding General of his base has never given such an order. Just the opposite, in fact. They are doing whatever they can to protect and engage the civilians in his area of responsibility. This has been going on since he arrived at his current duty station. It also went on during his last tour, at the beginning of the surge.

That's the word, now, directly from Iraq. I hope your comment and question was to actually extract direct evidence on the ground, and wasn't a sly attempt to imply that our military does kill innocent civilians.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

No not at all. I wouldn't

No not at all. I wouldn't ever think that our commanders are ever telling soldiers to kill innocent people, but I assume that unfortunately some people get caught in harm's way.

Getting caught in harm's

Getting caught in harm's way is way different than "killing innocent civilians" and all that that phrase implies. WW is trying to tell everybody that our military delibertly and purposely goes out of its way to kill civilians. His "proof"? -- dead civilians that get caught in harm's way, whether they are killed by U.S. ordinance or directly by the enemy. This is the argument of a leftist -- take something and twist it to meet your agenda; and make sure the agenda always harms the United States of America. And always, always give the benefit of the doubt to our enemy.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

"WW is trying to tell

"WW is trying to tell everybody that our military delibertly and purposely goes out of its way to kill civilians."

WW did no such thing, and you only say this in a pathetic attempt to muddy the argument.

And yet another leftist cry, maybe you all just don't understand left vs. right on the political spectrum?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

WW says: "Or are you trying

WW says: "Or are you trying to pretend like we haven't killed any innocent civilians in our invasion and 5-year occupation?"

TnT says: "Getting caught in harm's way is way different than "killing innocent civilians" and all that that phrase implies. WW is trying to tell everybody that our military delibertly and purposely goes out of its way to kill civilians"

WW says: "WW did no such thing [meaning, ww didn't say we have gone out of our way to kill innocent civilians; ww only said we kill innocent civilians]"

Summary: WW was a fool before; he's a fool now; looks like he's destined to be a fool forever. Give it up, WW. Your argument has now become circular; you've been caught in your lie and obsfucation; and you're wasting white space and oxygen.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

I'd say that it is you that

I'd say that it is you that is using circular logic. Playing 6 degrees of separation to claim that I say "our military delibertly and purposely goes out of its way to kill civilians"

Pretty sick on your part.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

What we are taught to do

balboa, before we deploy (and by "we" I mean my AF brethren) we get trained on the Laws of Armed Conflict.  We have it deeply ingrained in our heads that it is not acceptable to wantonly kill civilians, AND that we cannot be ordered by anyone to do so.  To ensure this happens, the AF is crawling with legal officers to make sure this does not happen (among other things, ensuring that targets for our planes are in fact legal according to LOAC.)

Therefore, anyone dumb enough to loft the accusation that the U.S. military goes out of its way to target civilians is a blithering idiot in my estimation. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

The military doesn't kill

The military doesn't kill innocent civilians in Iraq?? That's the claim you make right after calling me a fool? That's hilarious!

I didn't call the military terrorists, you did by saying that all the people that have died in Iraq have been at the hand of terrorists, and since some have died at the hands of our military YOU called them terrorists.

Qualifying it by saying 'intentionally' as Balboa did would have helped your cause. But to claim that no innocent civilians have lost their lives as a result of our operations in Iraq is not only foolish, but extremely ignorant as well.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

WW, ever hear the phrase

WW, ever hear the phrase "dumb as dirt"? The only person you are fooling on this blog is you. Fool!

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

WW, the only ignorance displayed on this thread is your own.

And a profound ignorance it is.

War is what it is: Extreme violence.

Innocent civilians died in droves in WW II. They died in Italy, France, Burma, China, North Africa, England, Germany, Japan, Russia and a host of other places you have probably never even heard of.

Should we have surrendered to Germany and Japan simply because innocents were being killed?

You can only do so much to prevent this without suffering huge losses on your own side.

I have seen estimates by very highly trained and well educated people in positions who should know who have stated that at least half the casualties U.S. forces have suffered in Iraq were due to the fact that our guys are going out of their way to protect the lives of innocent civilians.

I consider this situation wholly unacceptable. Our goal should be to win this as quickly as possible as, in the end, many more lives would ultimately be saved.

I personally blame candy-a$$ liberals like you for this unfortunate situation, as you and your ilk's shallow-minded PC BS is getting many more of our guys killed than would otherwise be necessary.

BTW, just exactly whose side are you on, anyway?

 

Somehow I do not think it is ours.

You've exposed yourself as

You've exposed yourself as the dumbass here. It was your fellow 'newsbuster' up there that made the claim that innocent civilians have not died in Iraq as a result of our presence, not me. Or do you agree with him?

And again with labeling me liberal, what have YOU based that assumption on? Wouldn't you be the liberal for calling for the policing of the world? Calling for and defending our invasion of another nation that posed no threat to us. I've come to realize that Democrats are called 'far-left' because Republicans are now 'left.' 

Whatever side I am on, I can assure you that it is not yours.

Give my party back!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

WW, Liberal or not, you are still a candy-ass.

First of all, I was not responding to "my fellow 'newsbuster' up there."

I was responding directly to you.

You assert that Iraq was no direct threat to us, and maybe that is true to a certain extent. However, Iraq was a threat to the region in which it resides, as evidenced by its invasion of Kuwait, which touched off the first Gulf War.

Germany was not a "direct threat" to the United States, either, but had Hitler not gotten greedy and attempted to swallow Russia and had instead consolidated his holdings in the Mediterranean, the Third Reich would be in total control of that region to this very day.

It is obvious that you know little or nothing of the tactics of the Islamic barbarian horde, nor are you familiar with the vast areas of the globe they once held, as they are very near re-taking what they once held, and then some, for themselves.

I believe the civilized world is going to eventually lose out to the 7th Century illiterate barbarians, and people like you will be the reason for it.

 

 

 

 

"Iraq was a threat to the


"Iraq was a threat to the region in which it resides"

Is this the business we are in? Our men and women, our blood and treasure spent to police the world. Promoting freedom with a gun. Insisting to the world that our way is the only way. We should be leading by example, not force. And our military should be used to defend our nation, not everybody else's. Can we agree on that?

I do pity you for the fear and contempt you hold for the rest of the world. I hope that you can one day overcame this.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

WW, fine. I'll agree.

Then let's give Manchuria back to the Japanese, France, Italy and North Africa back to the Germans, and South Korea back to the Norks.

And Kuwait should be handed over to the Iraqi's post-haste. After all, it wasn't "our" fight, now was it?

Of course, buy your somewhat simplistic (not to mention shallow) logic, we should give ourselves back to the British because, when the Revolutionary War broke out, the United States of America did not technically exist. :-)

I could go on, but I'm tired.

 

Wouldn't it have been

Wouldn't it have been easier for you to say:

"Yes, I support using our military and the people's taxes to enforce my ideals upon any nation I see fit. We should be the world's police force, consequences be damned."

Had you kept it short and sweet like that you may not have been tired at the end of your post.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

More for WhichWhine

 You should be more intellectually honest and say that you are enraged that the United States has the will and the means to protect and defend itself and to be proactive in its defense.

Also, admit that your dream America is one so weak, so gutless, so WHINY, that Andorra could conquer the country in one afternoon. 

I for one actually LIKE keeping the enemies of my country as far from shore as possible.  I really don't want to live in a nation with 300 million sheeple waiting to be slaughtered. Your mentality got us into serious trouble in December 1941. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

We've been through this so

We've been through this so many times before, Unsane. I am all for defending our country. And agree in keeping the enemies of my country as far from shore as possible. The problem is that we are creating enemies and then seeking them out far from our borders. Once you stop pretending the invasion of Iraq was in the name of defense we will be able to progress in our discussion.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Contradictions collapse yet again

 We've been through this so many times before, Unsane.  Well, it's not my fault you refuse to comprehend issues of foreign policy and national defense on levels above that of a kindergartner.  I am all for defending our country.  Your entire history here on NB contradicts you.  And agree in keeping the enemies of my country as far from shore as possible which then you completely contradict with the rest of your whiny post.

The problem is that we are creating enemies and then seeking them out far from our borders.  This fact with fill you with extreme, excruciating pain, no doubt, but the day the United States stops creating enemies is the day the United States ceases to exist.  You, WhichWhine, are 232 years too late, as of the 4th of July.  Once you stop pretending the invasion of Iraq was in the name of defense we will be able to progress in our discussion.  Um, once you learn to stop barking orders at one WHO WAS IN IRAQ and telling HIM what to think and what not to think about the war, we will be able to progress in our discussion.  Nor do I think there is much sense in "progressing in discussion" with one who is embarrassed and ashamed that his country can project power worldwide, and that this is done in the name of defense, via the concept of peace through strength. 

Iraq is not a bowl of cherries, but it is not as bad as you think.  And yes, it was and IS fought on defense.  See, I'd really rather see the terrorists die in Iraq - and they live short and exciting lives over there - rather than sit around and wait for cops to take them out after they have killed a few hundred people.  This requires being PROACTIVE.  It is scarcely my fault that you absolutely positively refuse to understand that basic concept. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

You are blind to any point

You are blind to any point of view but your own. You can make no case for the INVASION of Iraq being a defensive war.

"one who is embarrassed and ashamed that his country can project power worldwide, and that this is done in the name of defense, via the concept of peace through strength. "

It's that mentality that has gotten us here today. We are spending all our money overseas, troops in 130 countries around the world, and you just put your hands over your ears and shout "WE ARE HERE TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY! Yes, the one 6,000 miles west of here."

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

WhichWhine the whiny appeasing defeatist

 

You are blind to any point of view but your own.  Says WhichWhine, the very paragon of enlightened open-mindedness.  You can make no case for the INVASION of Iraq being a defensive war.  Oh, yes, I can.  The instant one of our planes were fired upon in the No-Fly Zones was enough of a casus belli to go to war, period.  But you are blind to all points of view short of you seething, overwhelming RAGE at the thought of the United States military existing, much less projecting power around the world. 

This nation will never be wimpy enough for you, will it?

It's that mentality that has gotten us here today.  And your mentality would lead directly to the enslavement of billions.  But you could care less: it is simply beyond your grasp that freedom must be fought for and EARNED.  We are spending all our money overseas REALLY?  With $3 trillion being spent by the government, ALL OVERSEAS as you just said, you'd think I'd get a better chow hall when deployed!, troops in 130 countries around the world You better be willing to back this number up.  It's crap, considering that our military has shrunk dramatically.  The USAF once had 691,000 at the end of February 1991.  Now it may have 330,000.  I have traveled though abandoned base after abandoned base in Europe - you know, the region of the world you would have been OH SO HAPPY to abandon to Hitler OR Stalin back int the 1940s, whimpering the entire time like a beaten, scared puppy.  , and you just put your hands over your ears and shout "WE ARE HERE TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY! Yes, the one 6,000 miles west of here."  "When we protect freedom in Berlin, we protect the freedom of London and New York as well."  - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)  I for one really DON'T WANT TO WAIT for the next Pearl Harbor as badly as you do.  I really don't want to sit around and wait for 3000 of my fellow countrymen to die before being roused into action as badly as you do.

Alfred Thayer Mahan taught that having two oceans to isolate America simply is not enough.  In this age of communication and rapid transportation, this is especially true.  That you refuse to understand this speaks volumes for your total lack of understand of history, human nature, and your ridiculously simplistic thinking on such matters.  (I am convinced you can't be much older than 10 the more you type on international defense and foreign policy.  Hell, I had more sense that that in those areas when I was 10!!!)

In fact, I would wager that if the Mall of America got shot up by terrorists, if you didn't crawl up to them crying on your knees begging them to stop, you would join in, happily mowing down your fellow Americans in the hopes that they will be taught a lesson. 

 Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

How about you use your own

How about you use your own wonderful sources that you can evaluate and come back and confirm the 130 countries bit. I do admire your desire to be proactive. Instead of sitting around and waiting for 3,000 Americans to die, as you put it, you think we should send them to a foreign nation to die. Brilliant thinking.

By the way, you mention the size of our Air Force, how big was Saddam's when you were enforcing no-fly zones and invading Iraq?

You and your ilk will provide the crushing blow to this great nation. You will tax and spend us into squalor and then proclaim our country defended. I'll thank you to stop defending me in this manner.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Unsane: 12 and

Unsane: 12 and counting.

WW: -100, at least, and failing in every attempt to be logical, consistent, reasonable, and more intertaining than a 2-year old.

___________________________________ 

Thank a teacher and a Soldier. - My barber

What an idiot

 

How about you use your own wonderful sources that you can evaluate and come back and confirm the 130 countries bit.  No, idiot, YOU loft the accusation, YOU back it up, and YOU use a source that I can evaluate.  I do admire your desire to be proactive. Instead of sitting around and waiting for 3,000 Americans to die, as you put it, you think we should send them to a foreign nation to die.  No, again, idiot, if the World Trade Center towers were standing, we wouldn't HAVE any casualties of war.  What would YOU do in response to 11 September 2001?  Let me guess: turn the State of New York into the Caliphate of New York so The Bad Guys Would Just Go Away And See Just How Super-Nice We Really Are.  Brilliant thinking.  I'd rather die on my feet that live on my knees. 

 By the way, you mention the size of our Air Force, how big was Saddam's when you were enforcing no-fly zones and invading Iraq?  When HE INVADED KUWAIT - a point that is totally lost on you - his military was the 5th largest in the world.  After the United States got done kicking his ass...well, he didn't have much of one.  But it didn't matter how big it was.  He shot at our planes.  That's enough.  I know you would have tried hugs as therapy, but there are people in the world who can't figure out what people are telling them unless punctuated by bullets and bayonet thrusts.  Some of us - me and a few other posters here - simply accept this reality. 

You and your ilk will provide the crushing blow to this great nation. You will tax and spend us into squalor and then proclaim our country defended. I'll thank you to stop defending me in this manner.  I'll thank you to renounce your citizenship and go to some coddling European Nanny State, you whiny ingrate. 

YOU will provide the crushing blow to this great nation by turning it into a whiny world laughingstock.  And, when the Bad Guys will come for you and your family, you'll be on your knees, crying, "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!  YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO MEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!  I HAVE RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!   I HAVE RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  And those will be your last words before you get your dumb ass blown away. 

See, this is what your constant urination and defecation on those who protect(ed) and defend(ed) your freedom will get you. 

Me, tax and spend this country into squalor?  You are quite obviously a civics idiot.  We are getting MORE than enough revenue to pay for our government, but since you keep voting in the dumbasses in government who give you your pork and your entitlement programs, which, by the way, far outweigh the defense spending that fills you with overwhelming rage.  (So much for your so-called love of the Constitution: Article I calls for the Congress to fund an Army and a Navy, yet you bitch and scream about that spending, and nothing else.)

So, go on, find another country, and go renounce your citizenship if you hate this country so damn much.  I doubt you have the guts to do much of anything. 

 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Hey WW

I see you quote one of the most prolific socialist propagandist of all times.

You and Shaw are peas in a pod.

 

Dofus.

 

Another for WhichWhine

 Or are you trying to pretend like we haven't killed any innocent civilians in our invasion and 5-year occupation?  Spoken like a real idiot who hasn't spent a nanosecond in country.  Need I list the innocent civilians lives SAVED in the hospital I worked at in my spare time?  Those civilians did not have much in the way of doctors before the war, because if you were smart and could BE a doctor, you got the hell out of Iraq. 

But then, you simply cannot imagine fighting for...anything.  At all.  You suck the tits of democracy and capitalism constantly, all the while crying and bitching about how wrong it all is.

Also, I love how you say "good to hear you are home Unsane" while ON THE EXACT SAME THREAD you call ME a TERRORIST.  You pathetic little worm.  I don't even know where to begin with that one...

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

You can't make a valid

You can't make a valid point so you have to make false accusations about me, you are no where near smart enough to be a terrorist. I was trying to be cordial with you earlier, something you apparently cannot reciprocate. All your comments go to such extremes that I think your only true intent is to end discussion.

You accuse me of sucking the tit of democracy, while you advocate a nanny state for the rest of the world. I don't even know where to begin with that one...

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Weak

 You can't make a valid point  This wouldn't be the first time you admitted to a refusal to read.  You accuse the military of purposely killing civilians, I demonstrate where just he opposite happens and why, and you can only whine that I can't make a valid point.  You are so f$!#ing weak.

I was trying to be cordial with you earlier, something you apparently cannot reciprocate.  You define cordiality as comparing my (part-time) profession with terrorism? What a strange, twisted individual you are. 

All your comments go to such extremes that I think your only true intent is to end discussion.   Hmmm.  I advocate the defense of the United States, and I am the extremist?  Quite simply, you have demonstrated yet again your penchant for typing just to see yourself type, for you simply have no clue what you are talking about.

You accuse me of sucking the tit of democracy, while you advocate a nanny state for the rest of the world.  Uh, WHAT?  Put the drugs away, step back, and be prepared to elaborate on that one.  By the way, get it straight.  I didn't accuse you of anything.  I STATED a nasty fact: that you suck the tits of democracy and freedom, all the while whining and bitching about how wrong and evil it all is.  That's what ingrates like you do, especially when you don't fight/work for anything and think everything there is there for the taking.  If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps it is time for you to do some very serious soul searching.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

You aren't really about to

You aren't really about to claim that you don't advocate a nanny state for all the silly backward Muslim nations are you? And every where else that you think we should have troops stationed for 50-100 years. Or at least until we are bankrupt. You talk in circles, you support a foreign policy that is as productive as the War on Drugs, or prohibition of alcohol. You support bleeding this country of all its wealth in the name of defense. And as long as you can go play in the sand once in a while you are content.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Whine some more

If we don't invest SOME of our wealth to defend this nation, you will have nothing to bitch about, because there WILL be no wealth, because there will be no nation!  But as long as the nation is drug-addled and drug-infested, it's all 100% okay with you.

Your unbelievable failure to read never ceases to astound me.  Show me where I have advocated a Nanny State of any sort.  I tend to seperate humanitarian efforts - doubtless that fills you with overwhelming rage as well; how DARE we Americans be Americans and rush to the aid of others??? - from what you are whining about.  I suspect you consider our recent attempt to aid the people of Burma's Irrawaddy Delta region a Nanny State product as well?

 And every where else that you think we should have troops stationed for 50-100 years.  Well, until the job is done.  You simply would not have been able to hack one nanosecond of WWII.  I'd be willing to bet that in the spirit of compromise, you would have happily handed CA and HI to the Japanese, instead of fighting for anything - why, that would require EFFORT and FUNDS!!!

You talk in circles, you support a foreign policy that is as productive as the War on Drugs, or prohibition of alcohol.  Yeah, our foreign policy is ineffective, but thanks to us, your dream society, that being the Netherlands, was liberated by U.S. forces in 1944, and was protected from the threat of Soviet invasion.  Our foreign policy is so ineffective that it has destroyed tyrannies left and right, liberated billions of people - in some cases without firing a shot.  It is so ineffective, we saved Europe from themselves THREE TIMES since 1914 (I count the Cold War) and liberated much of Asia.  If that is ineffective foreign policy, I can live with it.

And I talk in circles? Really.  It is YOU who are talking in circles.  For evidence, go back over this thread where others have caught you repeatedly. 

Prohibition is actually still in effect.  Don't believe me?  Then go to Lubbock County and try to buy beer.  Did you know that alcohol consumption fell in this country long term as a result of Prohibition? Did you ALSO know that the countries that tend to frown harshly upon the consumption of illicit drugs are the countries that are the most ambitious and dynamic: namely, the United States, China, India, Japan, South Korea (to name a few)?  Those who DO legalize drugs are content to watch their societies Go Absolutely Nowhere.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Which Wing Wang . . .The Terrorists Kill Innocents not USA

WW,
You really have to get this Straight...the Suicide Bombers in the markets of Iraq, are NOT United States Soldiers..OK ?

If you can't get that Particular FACT of Life Correct, then you're just an Ignorant Bird Brain.

If Genghas Kahn and his Hordes come over the horizon, YOU would be the first one I would send out to "Meet and Greet" ....and then you may begin to understand why we need a Military fighting for your comfort.

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

According to Osama bin

According to Osama bin Laden and the other Wahabbists, the only "innocents" who died in the 9-11 attack were the 19 "martyrs" who hijacked the airliners.

According to my way of thinking, nobody who has been killed in any place we have been fighting Wahabbists was entirely innocent.  There is no middle ground in this war.  The nature of the Wahabbist objective is the reason why:  All must accept Islam, accept Dhimmitude, or die.  Each and every man, woman and child must make a choice: either accept the inevitablity of the Wahabbist creed, or resist.  Blind fools like you who think they can put off this choice merely assign it to their children.

Keep up with your fear

Keep up with your fear mongering, it's taken us this far. To group millions of people together, as you have, shows the level of prejudice you carry with you.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Hopeless?

Hopeless?  

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Let's not give up on him

Let's not give up on him just yet.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Sickening

Yep, if we just stick our heads in the sand and pretend such things as the Black September movement, Entebbe/Mogadishu, the Embassy takeover, the Embassy BOMBING(s), the Marine barracks BOMBING, the Achille Lauro, the shootings up of Schwechat and da Vinci airports, PanAm Flight 103, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, 11 September, the Bali BOMBINGS,11 March 2004,and so on just didn't happen, The Bad Guys Will Just Magically Go Away.

Your naivete is just sickening.

By the way, what happened to your Shahinshah?  (I speak of course of your personal Messiah, the "jaundiced pipsqueak" [h/t to Unsane's Old Man] Ron Paul.)

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

If we had kept our heads

If we had kept our heads out of their sands long ago we mostly likely would not be facing a majority of these issues today. You are only calling for perpetuation of this conflict.

I'm still behind Ron Paul, as for you, I hope you are able to hold your nose long enough to cast your vote for McCain.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Hiding and running away gets a society nowhere

 

If we had kept our heads out of their sands long ago we mostly likely would not be facing a majority of these issues today.  Unfortunately for you history contradicts you.  The United States does not exist in a vacuum.  We HAVE to interact with other nations at some point.  To be truthful, this began way back during the early 1800s when Thomas Jefferson decided to do something about the hassling of our vessels in the Med.  Now, I know what YOU would do.  You'd whine to the beys and PROMISE we'll never be seen in that part of the world again.  Jefferson, on the other hand, understood the importance of commerce and trade to our nation, and decided to punch some of those beys in the mouth so that the United States would continue to enjoy the freedom to trade with whoever wanted to do business with us. 

No nation has ever gotten far on this world by hermetically sealing itself off from the rest of the world; refusing to interact with other nations, and by not confronting challenges.  But then, I am talking to someone for whom the United States simply cannot be weak, whiny, pathetic, enough, or be in severe enough a state of complete internal rot. 

You are only calling for perpetuation of this conflict.  I am calling for this conflict to go on as long as it takes to ensure they get the message that the United States is NOT to be screwed around with.  You think being cowardly and running away from every conceivable challenge does the trick.  I have studied enough history to know that every so often you HAVE to punch people and nations and societies in the mouth.  Hard. 

Oh, and we COULD make the war go MUCH faster, and it WILL bring peace to the region for centuries.  But the methodology will make you extremely squeamish.  But, it WILL WORK.

We didn't get our independence this way:

Franklin: "We want to leve and set up our own country."

Lord North and King George III: "Oh, OK." 

In the meantime, perhaps, since you are gutless, you should take the time to remember the shehada so that you can recite it on you knees when you are called upon to do so. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

"Oh, OK"

Good one Uns. 

You're never going to be able to convince a liberal of the sanity of our position on the GWOT.

Speaking of which.....cool pics of one less terrorist...The RAF, based out of Las Vegas, flying UAVs.

Um, WW....does this level of precision work for you?

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Unsane,Looking back thru

Unsane,

Looking back thru this thread, it's pretty clear WW really is an agenda-driven mental midget with no backbone or capacity for logical thought. Like a lot of similar people, the louder he rants and raves, the better he feels about himself. What's amusing is that he thinks he's made some points -- even though all he's done is contradict himself; merely spouted leftist talking points (which we can read ourselves at any number of far-left rags like the NYT); and when he has nothing else to say (which is often) he resorts to whining; making factless accusations; or completely changing the topic -- like war on drugs.

I've actually seen children do this. The difference is that I have hope that children can learn to do better, and not constantly repeat their mistakes. Children also (like WW) try to get in the last word by mouthing off to everything. Children, however, can be sent to their room until their behaviour changes. WW is doomed to the greatness that is only in his mind.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

It's sad, you haven't

It's sad, you haven't directly addressed anything that I've actually said. You've taken my statements out of context and then demanded that I defend them. Even in this very post, you accuse me of changing the subject to the War on Drugs, when in fact I brought it up to show the person I was replying to that they were off the subject. Then you've declared me a leftist/liberal. Based on what? You dont' know. All you know is that I oppose the war in Iraq and that is enough to make me the most liberal Democrat you ever came across.

You aren't willing to have a reasonable discussion about anything, you just want to shout and point fingers. Which reminds of a phone call I got the other day. It was from the Minnesota GOP (you'll be surprised to know that I've never voted for a Democrat). The man on the phone told me he was with the MN GOP and that they were facing a tough challenge from the liberal Al Franken, who was funded in part by far-left organizations like MoveOn.org, and asked if I could make a $75 donation in support of Sen. Norm Coleman's campaign. I told him that I could not because I felt like the party had been on the wrong track. He warned me that the liberal Al Franken was our biggest concern, and we needed to work to keep Coleman in office, and could I make a $50 donation. I then told him that throughout this call he had only told me about liberal Al and far-left MoveOn.org. I said tell me about your guy. "Norm Coleman is a common sense conservative was believes in less taxes and lower spending," the man said. "Lower spending?" I asked. "We've had a federal budget deficit every year Coleman has been in office, and he's voted for it each time. We have a $9 trillion national debt. We spend $12 billion per month in Iraq. How is that lower spending?" I let him know I could not support that and I hung up.

Similar to you, he didn't want to discuss issues, he wanted to shout about the pesky liberals and far-left crazies. And then the alternative offered is almost as liberal as the one being bashed. (i.e., Obama vs McCain vs Clinton)


"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Children and their need for last words...

Bingo! And very, very predictable, too. The rant was an added, nice touch there WW. Dual Bingos!

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

I rest my case.  

I rest my case.

 

More naivete on parade

 "We've had a federal budget deficit every year Coleman has been in office, and he's voted for it each time. We have a $9 trillion national debt. We spend $12 billion per month in Iraq. How is that lower spending?" I let him know I could not support that and I hung up.  So, you think that if we surrender a won war in Iraq, you think Congress is going to magically start paying down the debt with that money?  You are more childishly naive than I have given you credit for. 

See, I have no problem with Congress spending money on national defense.  They are tasked with funding an Army and Navy in the Constitution. 

What I DO have a severe problem with is entitlement spending.  Why is the federal government in the business of providing Medicare/Medicaid when the private sector can do that much better and much more efficiently?  Why can't we privatize Social Security over time?  I can finance my own retirement infinitely better than the federal government can if given the chance.  By the way, I operate on the assumption that I won't see Social Security checks ever, because of the government's refusal for various reasons to reform it.

And the reason we are in debt is partially your own damn fault (and yes, mine).  We should be demanding the same efficiency from the government that we do from General Motors (h/t to Tom Clancy) but we do not.  The federal government is awash in money and getting record revenues all the time, but they constantly squander it on stupid projects of dubious value like the AK Bridge to Nowhere that Sen. Stevens has fought so hard for.  (The bridge may be a great idea, but I can't understand why people in AK and Anchorage can't pick up the $231 million tab for it instead of fleecing me and my TX neighbors for the dough.  Just ONE example.) 

I have demanded a balanced budget amendment every year since I became of voting age; have you? 

By the way, as scary as this sounds, the U.S. national debt is NOT the world's largest. 

We can defend this country just fine, finish up the won war in Iraq, and continue operations in Afghanistan (doubtless that pisses you off also), AND be paying down the debt RIGHT NOW - IF enough people demanded it.  But as of now, because apparently not enough of us are demanding a balanced budget - we deserve all the crap we can handle. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Worshipper of Paul

Scary as it sounds, he is not a Leftist.  This guy is a Ron Paulbot.   

Actually I would have to label WhichWhine as a reactionary.  He seems disgusted by much in the modern world.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

You might be trying to

You might be trying to define too finely. I think he's a leftist. (1) He tries to define his own terms and expects us to agree to them. (2) He simply ignores facts and logic. (3) He brings leftist talking points to the table. (4) When you present a logical argument, he illogically claims the argument isn't logical -- and expects that no one has the ability to see thru his rediculous claim. (5) He doesn't understand our Constitution and its powers. (6) He disdains our military.

Sounds leftist to me.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

I agree TNT because

Libertarians like Paul and Sarc don't have a disdain for the military. They might not agree with the war, but they don't resort to the conspiracy theories and things and certainly wouldn't object to positive stories about our soldiers. I also responded to WW above on reasons why I consider him left wing.

Sarc is a more right leaning libertarian (even though he disagrees with the war) because he doesn't blindly ignore the obvious left tilt of the media. There are other things that Sarc holds the left argument on, but I consider him to the right because he recognizes the bias and reasons more independently and doesn't just use left wing talking points.

I know that Roger and BD go at it hard with Sarc and I respect all three of them and try to stay out of it. It gets very heated, but one thing they should give Sarc credit for is that he doesn't just spew the Lefts bogus talking points. Ron Paul didn't either. I'd rather have Ron Paul than Obama any day.

I think you're right about

I think you're right about sarc. You have to include all my points (at a minimum) to be leftist, which WW has; and sarc does not. He made a good point about the military within this particular discussion which emphasizes your point.

Just because WW says he is not leftist doesn't make it true. He's leftist through and through.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Should I be surprised?

Why am I not surprised that not only do you want America to be as whiny, weak and pathetic as possible, but you ALSO want desperately to induce massive societal ROT from within? 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

I see, you complain about

I see, you complain about using taxes to control behavior in one thread, and then promote their use in a such a manner in another. What do we spend on the War on Drugs now? $200 billion a year? And what do we have to show for it?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

More idiocy

 I see, you complain about using taxes to control behavior in one thread, and then promote their use in a such a manner in another.  What?  I only support taxation to raise revenue for government operations.  You have some horribly severe reading problems from the look of it. 

 What do we spend on the War on Drugs now? $200 billion a year? And what do we have to show for it?   Let's see here: a society full of ambitious people that propel the world's largest, most dynamic economy and society forward every single year; a society and an economy that people around the world are racing to either join or emulate. 

I don't see China, India, Japan, Korea, or other aspirants to greatness rushing out to legalize drugs.  In fact, looking around the world, I can't think of very many successful countries with the ambition to stay that way going out and legalizing drugs.  I wonder why THAT is?

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

You are so deeply afraid of

You are so deeply afraid of freedom and liberty for the individual. You think the state needs to step and tell people what to put or not put in their own bodies. And then you call me a leftist/liberal. That's just great. You want to grant all the powers to the state, individual be damned. You support the idea of a central bank, which is counter to everything we know about free market principles. Then you call me a liberal.

It's these attitudes that have disenfranchised most Republicans and it's also why we are about 6 months away from a Democrat controlled Congress and White House. You have all abandoned conservatism in pursuit of labeling others liberal/unpatriotic.

What a shame.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Say, aren't you one of

Say, aren't you one of those guys that thinks 9/11 was an "inside job"?

"Non sequitor"

"Non sequitor"

Irony/hypocrisy

This from one who out of the blue brought up ICBs in a post on a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with ICBs, monetary policy, or anything of the sort.  My irony/hypocrisy meter is fully pegged... 

Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

So much idiocy and so little time

 You are so deeply afraid of freedom and liberty for the individual. You think the state needs to step and tell people what to put or not put in their own bodies. And then you call me a leftist/liberal. That's just great.  Yeah, aren't I the most evil human being on the planet because I don't want to see the world's largest and most advanced economy and society commit suicide and COMPLETELY ROT from within? 

Being that you so support freedom and liberty, you will fully back my right to murder whenever I see fit? Or to have sex with ANY female I choose with no regard to consent?  (Yes, that's right, WhichWhine.  We have these things in society that REALLY piss you off the most, called STANDARDS.)

You want to grant all the powers to the state, individual be damned. You support the idea of a central bank, which is counter to everything we know about free market principles.  And you bitch to a poster down below about "non-sequitor"?  Where in the HELL did THIS topic come from?  I guess you realize that you are getting your ass kicked by everyone here, so you have to throw out another red herring. 

It's these attitudes that have disenfranchised most Republicans   Yeah, I missed those polls and news stories that indicate that people's #1 concern is the existence of an ICB in the United States.  I also missed those polls that show the majority of Americans desperately want to live in a dramatically weakened America.  What world are you living in?

You have all abandoned conservatism in pursuit of labeling others liberal/unpatriotic.  You know, you will never get ANYWHERE on NB by proclaiming yourself to be the standard bearer of "true conservatism", which apparently you are here.  Last I checked, conservatives actually like living in a society with standards that is willing and able to defend itself when called upon; ALL things that you find absolutely ABHORRENT in the extreme. 

What is shameful is how greedily you suck the tits of freedom and capitalism from the bosom of mother America, all the while you plot matricide, and why?  Because said mother feeds you liberty and free markets, all the while doing this while protecting you from the merciless outside world.  Yet you STILL want her dead...FOR DOING THOSE THINGS.  If THAT isn't the very definition of ingrate I don't know what is.

So, do everyone here at NB a favor.  Just pick a country, since you ahte this one so much, and go renounce your citizenship.  We will ALL thank you for it. 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

I can always count on you

I can always count on you for a chuckle, thanks.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Chuckle?

I can always count on you to get in one weak last word that makes absolutely no sense.   Your posts would be funny if they were not so foul.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Chuckle.

You're right, I apologize for being foul. Instead of debating an issue with you, I'll do as you do, and declare that you are weak and whiny and hate your country. Oh, and you think everyone in the military is a mindless drone. (Plus, I have a sneaking suspicion that you like kicking puppies.)

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

You know, WW, most people

You know, WW, most people use this forum to honestly try to communicate and deliver information and informed opinions. Your posts, though, add nothing to the discussion. Nobody's impressed; you're not entertaining, informative, or clever; and you're very tiresome. Maybe that's your objective, maybe not. But a little advice -- you really should try to change your tactics a bit. Just try it for once.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Well, it's very ironic that

Well, it's very ironic that I deliver a reply in the style of "Unsane" and I am immediately criticized. My above comment was an obvious mockery of how "Unsane" always responds to people he disagrees with, so I trust you'll be there to straighten him out next time.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

 

Silliness

Actually, I have quite effectively debated this issue with you.  Hence the silly post I am responding to. 

You COULD, I suppose, declare I am weak, whiny and hate my country, but I actually LOVE the fact my country projects power globally AND uses it on occasion.  I also defend the country when called upon, and am smart enough to know that oftentimes that means confronting the enemy far from home so that they don't get here.  If I hated my country, I wouldn't do those things.

Yet, I have ample evidence that you want America to be weak and whiny.  It pisses you off to know that the United States can project power globally and occasionally uses those abilities on occasion.  You think that we should just go to 100% defense and sit and wait to get slaughtered before lifting a finger to do anything, IF we are to do anything at all. 

As for this "everyone in the military being a mindless drone" and kicking puppies, I have absolutely no clue where that came from.   

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.