"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 . . .
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?
Key words are the dead giveaway.