Posted on 11/19/2004 8:30:45 AM PST by campfollower
GE contributed big time to Kerry.
NOTICE HOW HE ISN'T CONCERNED ABOUT BETRAYING THOSE HE DEPENDS UPON TO KEEP HIM ALIVE, BUT THE LIBERALS BACK HOME TO WHOM HE'S PLEDGED HIS ALLEGIANCE....
---
Your right.. the other thing which stood out in my mind is "reminding your self that you are not one of them."
"It is with stunning swiftness that these Iraqi men, these suspects in a guerilla war against occupation forces become newly crowned"
Occupation forces... Nice... What an A$$hole.
"these suspects in a guerilla war against occupation forces"
read the whole thing
but this is very telling
this is the view of the left: brain locked in the past, they have to resort to VietNam era emotion-laden terminology.
"guerilla war" -- this is clearly a completely inaccurate assessment; it tells us Sites' point of view, but NOT reality. They are not all even Iraqis! Does this refugee from a time-warp even know the difference? would he care to know the difference? These terrorists do not have the best interests of the Iraqi citizens in mind -- or they would not have to blow up so many of them! Sheesh!!
"occupation forces" -- again, clearly inflamatory language; it is clear that US forces will leave when Iraq is stable. We are NOT an occupation force. For Sites to claim this, in his sympathy with the -- ahem -- ENEMY is mind-blowing. I.E. he doesn't claim this is what the terrorists think: this is how HE characterizes it.
"suspects" -- my heavens!
This guy needs to be introduced to reality. This is how an embed should report the events from duty with a unit: Give him 4 weeks of boot camp, take his camera, give him a rifle for the duration, and THEN read his rants. Maybe his reporting would be a tad different . . .
His writing flows so smoothly, but when you really think about what he's saying you just want to puke.
Yes, didn't you know? It's the Dan Rather school of journalistic thought.
So, does anyone know how we can get him MORE EXPOSED?
If Rush or Sean would read some of his slanted writings on the air, they could discredit his journalistic credentials in a heartbeat.
Someone please tell me why our side can't seem to go there with success?
Sites is a freakin traitor!!
He says nothing I care to read and no photos I want to see.
Freelancer/traitorous jerk
"does anyone know how we can get him MORE EXPOSED? "
I guess we should demand that this entire rant be read to provide the proper context before each time the video is shown . . .
I have been thinking for a while that Sites should be the issue NOW, not the Marine. [The Marine IS being investigated. What more do people want if they keep replaying the video? do they want to see that Marine before a firing squad? or beheaded?? so it will be acceptable to the terrorist-mind-set?????]
i.e. Has Sites released other videos that have been aired? What do they show? If not, why not?
If all his reporting has been these Blogs, we know what message he is trying to get across with his "reporting."
How? I don't know. Rush, Hannity, Ollie North . . .
It is appalling how "elites" like this can remove themselves from reality, divorce themselves from the facts of their existance then turn around and play god with the world.
Everything Sites has, his life, his education, his freedom, was paid for with the blood of soldiers. And now, soldiers stand directly between him and death. And so he judges himself better than them, aloof and superior. He plays moral equivalence between the soldiers protecting him and the terrorists who commit exibitionist murders of unarmed women.
Hey Sites: Stop playing God. The position is already taken, and you suck at it.
You have a point.
Key words are the dead giveaway.
Email to kevin:
kevin.
I am not in favor of abortion, but in your case I would make a retro-active exception. Since this can only be fanciful daydream, instead may I suggest you stop in at a local bar next to Camp Le Jeune (wearing a large name tag, of course) and experience the Marine Corps love and respect for you.
Ernie Pyle you'll never be.....Dan Rather, maybe, if you continue to hone your traitorous skills.
RedWireNut
Arkansas, USA
"No! No! I'm an American journalist! I'm on your side!"
I wonder if this guy is still embedded. If so, I hope that all the little hairs on the back of his neck stand up, and he gets that prickly, apprehensive feeling, every time he's in the presence of Marines.
"Key words are the dead giveaway."
yes, he's talking in "content-pre-loaded liberal-speak", not real English language used in a way designed to inform the reader of the actual reality.
AS SUCH: he is NOT "reporting" at all. I.E. he is not communicating objective reality from an objective point of view.
course I know the Blog is not supposed to be the objective-reporting part; but I doubt the other "reports" are objective-reporting either -- if the video is a representative example.
How is "uncalloused, slender" not the facts?
It is information that's not only interesting, but can have implications. It could imply that the insurgents were so weak that they had to have "desk jockeys" out there in the field. Or it could mean that "the insurgency is so pervasive that even desk jockeys are taking up arms against us!"
But he didn't do that. He reported some facts, which is what a Free Press should do. I'm very glad we have a free press, and don't want America to become like one of the regimes that's afraid to show what really happens.
It was NBC that took his footage and edited it, from what I understand (I didn't see it).
Yes, I've seen him report off and on since the beginning of the war. And let's just say, that I knew exactly what his ffeling on the war have been. Just not as onvious as say, Dan Rather.
No Kevin, you liberal idiot, it's what Tofiq said, to wit: he threatened a tribal chieftain to with total destruction of his city by coalition forces if he did not intervene with the Fedayeen
You are alive today because of the strength of the military you so want to distance yourself from in your touchy-feely world of liberal idiocy.
It never ceases to amaze me how heads such as Kevin's don't spontaneously explode in the midst of the incredible mental gymnastics required to maintain moral equivalency.
"I've seen him report off and on since the beginning of the war. And let's just say, that I knew exactly what his ffeling on the war have been. "
So somehow, against all his "objectivity", his real opinion came through . . .?! imagine that ?!
It certainly does on his Blog, which although it is couched merely as his observation and opinions and not reportage -- they ARE the observations and opinions he is registering BY VIRTUE OF his experiences as an embedded reporter WITH our military. So, he should keep them to himself til after the war, IF he wants to be perceived as an objective reporter instead of as an anti-war ACTIVIST.
IOW, he is not freelancing, as some reporters did in past wars, sustaining himself while reporting on the war. He is an official POOL reporter. Hence, his reporting BECOMES the input to the entire pool, when it is his turn to be the pool rep.
He is just not objective enough for that level of responsibility, IF he cannot keep his opinions out of his reporting, including WHAT he choses to report and what he chooses to NOT report.
I.E. IF he is implementing his anti-war agenda, not merely objectively reporting, he is in the wrong place. IMPLEMENTING his anti-war agenda would be INCONSISTENT with his responsibilities as an embedded reporter and member of the pool. THAT needs to be done using his free-speech rights as a private citizen, or as an employee of maybe el-jezzera (however you spell it).
IOW, due to the SERIOUS effect of his video inflamming the Middle East . . . it must be established that he is above reproach in his reporting. I.E. HE must be investigated. OTHERWISE we have a person IMPLEMENTING an anti-war agenda and causing harm BY VIRTUE of being an embed and pool reporter. And that is not acceptable . . .
The lens needs to be turned onto HIM. [The Marine and his unit are ALREADY being investigated.] This is not a free-speech issue, it is an issue of HOW he uses his POSITION as an embed and pool reporter.
As I mentioned on another post here, I don't know HOW to do it. I just wanted to explain my reasoning in detail.
But, they will never investigate him. Does it not seem as though he is considered above reproach, because of who he is? I have no answers, but I certainly hold these 'journalists' with overwelming contempt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.