The trolls are one thing, we've come to expect their foolishness. It's the outlandish whining and arm-tugging from the usual suspects that becomes so annoying.
We are to now have a new found devotion to and trust of the MSM donchaknow? It's a miracle.
Prairie
I'll have to read the thread but even without reading it, a few names spring to mind.
As to any freeper who has any trust whatsoever of the MSM, for shame!
I think we all need to take a breath. Both sides of this debate are right and both are wrong.
1. The MSM is a cancer. We know that. These embedded reporters have shown a propensity for hostility towards our efforts of late. This sleazeball fabricated a story by orchestrating part of an unrehearsed question-and-answer session with Rumsfeld and the troops. Where there would be no news, he created news. GUILTY AS CHARGED.
2. The troops ARE lacking the best armor for this battle. Regardless of the reporter, it's a fact. When the school where my wife teaches at has a staff fundraiser so one of her colleague's sons in the Marines can buy himself some Kevlar, there's something wrong. It's unconscionable that soldiers were expected to pay out of their pocket for this equipment.
3. Rumsfeld is not a god. Let's stop trying to pretend he is. There are Kool Aid drinkers on FR, too, and if you think Rumsfeld is incapable of failure, then you're living in a dreamworld.
4. The big picture. At the end of the day, who the f' cares about the NY Times, Reuters, the Hillbilly Sentinel-Inbreeder? If this can motivate the Pentagon to improve its planning (note - I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) and make our military better-equipped, then we can condemn the reporter, but still agree that the sentiment is correct.