RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLDIER (DRUDGE SIREN)

Drudge Report ^

[Eagle Eye]

Your questions make no sense since they have no basis in fact.

Those are YOUR assertion; you prove them.

[Darksheare]

"After you've made the drive through Baghdad without armor I might have more regard for your opinion."

My old artillery unit was light towed.
We used the M1097 Humvee.
NO armor, not even Kevlar hoods or doors.
We would have gone to war like that.

You said you haven't slammed any serviceman?
You just did.
My old unit.

"I don't just talk about it and fly a ribbon on my car or sport a bumpersticker. "

Really?
I served my country, not as a contractor either.

"My job is to support the troops."
Then do so.
And quit whining.

[Darksheare]

"Those are YOUR assertion; you prove them"

Really?
From YOUR post 1157:
"Do you believe that America can do absolutely no better? "

Funny, you have to prove that.
Not me.
I am not the one who said that.

[Darksheare]

Checkout 'eagle eye'.
He claims he hasn't slammed anyone in uniform...

[Grampa Dave]

That is the same mantra from every sleezebag who has dished Rummy and then dished our military on this thread.

Then when they rebuked by one of us, they squeal like the programmed rats, they are, "I didn't dish our servicemen! You Bushbots are all the same!"

[Eagle Eye]

What? Your skin is thinner than C-rat toilet paper?

You 'would have' gone to war as you described. I'm sure you would have. But you didn't, did you?

Can you say that you wouldn't have wanted better after you'd seen the results of the enemies efforts?

You're saying 'I woulda, I coulda' but you didn't and you don't seem to really give a hoot about those that did and those that are.

It is easy to puff your chest and boast from your chair.

No slams on the troop. No insults. Can't help it if you feel bad for what I've said.

I've not met any troops who have wished for less armor. Have you?

And, yes, I put in time in uniform as well.

This armor issue is real whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not. I didn't raise it, but I can tell you it isn't going away.

[Darksheare]

Lol!
Yeah, check out his post under yours.
Shows how supportive he is.

[Darksheare]

I never said the armor issue wasn't real.

So what about your comment in 1157?
Are you going to address YOUR comment or not?

[Eagle Eye]

Go back and re read YOUR statements. You made assertions that are false.

They don't have anything to do with what I said.

Again, too many 'freepers' cannot handle anyone outside the groupthink. You don't know the difference between a troll and a differing opinion.

But as I said before, I might have more regard for your opinion if you've been where the troops have been. No, not just talked about it or 'woulda/coulda/shoulda'.

Park your vehicle on a corner in an Iraqi town or city and then tell me you don't want better protection. Better yet, tell the troops that they don't need it. Go ahead, ye who proclaim support, TELL THEM THEY DON'T NEED IT!

That's right, send a letter to Stars and Stripes and tell them that you don't think they need better. Bet you won't do it because you really don't believe it. You really do want them to have better, don't you. And you probably don't truly believe that America has done all she could to get it to them, that there is nothing more that can be done. Do you?

[Darksheare]

Prove it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1297858/posts?page=1157#1157
"Do you believe that America can do absolutely no better? "

If you're going to put words in someone's mouth, at least back it up with quotes.

[rlmorel]

Eagle Eye,
Your insinuation is that I don't care about the troops. You don't know me, so I am trying not to be offended. Let me be clearer about the point I am making.

The title of this thread is: RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS..."

If you search on my posts, you will see that I originally had no issue with the question, as a matter of fact, I supported the soldier, thought it took guts.

When the story broke about this reporter, sneaking around, talking to people, coaching the guys, my view of this changed dramatically.

This is an issue of a non-miliary person allowed official access to various military functions, who for his own personal advancement, is undermining the discipline and cohesiveness of an active military unit in a war zone.

That is my issue. Do I disagree with the way this person asked the question of the Secretary of Defense, and the way it was rigged to happen? Yes I do. Do I think the question should be asked? Yes I do.

My military background and family history as the son of a 30 year naval veteran who served through three wars and is buried in Arlington puts me directly at odds with the way this question was asked. I thought it was sneaky, underhanded and disrespectful. I would not have done it that way.

There is another poster on here, Steel Wolf who said it much better than I can. Read his post at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1297858/posts?page=921#921

And by the way, you watch more TV than I do, most likely. I watch none, except for an occasional Patriot game. That is my choice. I prefer to get my news and current events elsewhere.

But that does not mean, just because I don't watch the evening news each night where they make burning vehicles their lead story, that I do not have a fair idea of what is happening to our men.

Just because I don't go to Walter Reed and see the guys who are paralyzed, mangled or have missing limbs doesn't mean I don't know that those injuries are often the focus of an innocuous report from Baghdad that says "A US Soldier was was killed and two were injured today..."

I really don't wish to be confrontational, and I hope you will accept my reply in the spirit it was intended.

[TalonDJ]

Read post 22. I thought his response was right on. The MSM Badly misrepresented what he said.

[Eagle Eye]

Do you not understand the concept of asking a question?

(Oops, there I go, asking a question, and a rhetorical one at that! Bad EE....BAD EE...)

That was a Q.U.E.S.T.I.O.N. that I posed to someone else, not words put into anyone's mouth.

In fact, that was a 'closed ended' question hopefully prompting a direct 'yes' or 'no' answer. I never did get an answer from that person. Nor from you.

But I'm done for tonight, I'm outta here. Watch some TV for me, I'm sure you're good at it.

[Dane]

Again, too many 'freepers' cannot handle anyone outside the groupthink

And people should accept the machinations of the founders of "groupthink" as pure fact, the mainstream media.

Excuse those who think out of the mainstream media box.

JMO, EE you don't.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Uh, what kind of weapons did the VC have? AK-47's and RPG, no different today

[Darksheare]

Do you not understand the concept of "Military Bearing" and "Professionalism"?

During the Clinton Administration, if I'd addressed the SecDef the way that Spec4 did, I'd have been busted down so fast my head would've spun.

Do you also not understand that the reporter BRAGGED ABOUT PLANTING THE QUESTION?
Look at the way it was framed.
Look at the fact that it was PLANTED.

Oh yeah, you don't CARE about fact.
You've already proven that much.

[Darksheare]

Thanks.

[Darksheare]

"That was a Q.U.E.S.T.I.O.N. that I posed to someone else, not words put into anyone's mouth."

And you worded it so that it sounded like someone HAD said America couldn't do better.
Which is why you cannot defend your comment.
No one has said such.

[Eagle Eye]

I read Steel Wolf's remarks and, as usual, he hits it square on the head and with great insight. I have to admire the way he states his case, too, much better than I do.

I see virutually no tv and get almost no radio, so I can get the front end of a story and not get the follow ups.

IMO, if this had been a conservatively minded reporter and the clinton or (gasp!) algore or kerry administration, I truly believe that freepers would cheer this guy morning, noon, and night. But when the shoe is on the other foot, it ain't so funny. I've seen that many times when it comes to namelableing and photoshopping. It is ok to call her 'hitlery' but don't dare do it to Mrs. Bush. It is ok to call janet reno a wookie, but not ok to do something similar to a conservative or republican.

To me, it isn't a matter of the motive of the question as much as it is the fact that the question can be asked. If there was no armor issue, then there could be no questions on it. Maybe the administration should do more to aleviate the problem AND the perception of the problem than they are.

And I do believe that more can be done.

Good night, I'm tired.

[Eagle Eye]

I wish I had pictures for you because you don't seem to understand written words and you cannot stay on focus.

You, too, are more interested in the motives and the delivery of the question than getting the results. That seems pretty dam clear.

I keep saying that the troops need the best, that they don't feel they are getting it, and I'm getting a lot of argument from you and a small group.

Why? Why are you more interested in the motive of the question and the delivery than getting the problems solved?

Why is it that you will expend a great deal of energy trying to dismiss the question rather than solve the problems that inspired the question?

Sorry, I must go, it is late.