Good for him so why doesn't the rest of our Representatives stand up to them? If they had up to this point we wouldn't be facing the possibility of a lib takeover.
Michelle Malkin came right out and said it on O'Reilly tonight. "CNN wants the U.S. to lose this war."
Until someone in the Bush administration has the brass orbs to actually charge one of them with treason or sedition or some other crime, they'll only get more brazen about their hatred for all things good and right. The lib media are thumbing their collective nose at Bush and saying "We've chosen sides and you're the enemy." They need to be treated like the enemy.
And then there was the CNN president (Eason-somebody?) who admitted, "Yeah, we knew Saddam was a barbarian, but we didn't report it because we didn't want to lose access to Baghdad".
what was blitz's answer?
Great stuff from Hunter.
Michael Ware, eh... I had a feeling. Something about that guy doesn't pass the smell test, how many times has he met behind the lines with jihadi's??? (and lived to report on it?)
"Does CNN want America to win this thing?” - do the dorks of America = rats
no
vote them out for good
Big Time. "Take CNN out. You can't be for both sides." Said Hunter.
Why is it wrong for CNN to show a snuff film at the behest of snipers?
1. Maybe one of their video guys or a stringer used in the past actually made the video. If so, why didn' they warn the American soldiers of the danger they were in?
2. If the terrorists made the video, then why not show it?
a. Because it could be their intent to get it shown, in which case CNN is part of a propaganda campaign (information warfare), and they should be opposed to being an accomplice of their nation's enemy.
b. For the same reason that CNN would NOT (I think) show a violent rape put on camera by a rapist and handed over to them. They would have some sense of responsibility to the victim and the victim's families. Can you even begin to imagine Wolf Blitzer saying, "But we didn't show insertion."
c. For the same reason we don't pay ransom: we don't want to encourage repeats if the initial action is rewarded.
DUNCAN HUNTER BTTT!
Great post, pissant.
CNN is an agent of enemy propaganda. Is there any precedent from WWII for the treatment of enemy propaganda agents, or was nobody brazen enough back then to engage in such tactics?
Duncan is my rep - and I'm so proud of him for taking on CNN over this.
Also .. I noticed on the audio played by Hewitt that Duncan was also talking to some General (didn't catch the name), and he was upset at the General. Duncan told him that if he was a commander of a unit in Iraq and was asked if he wanted a CNN imbed - he would say NO!
Also .. the General admitted a little secret - evidently the enemy "snipers" were lousy - and most of the film was not about actual kills. CNN blacked it out so we couldn't see THAT THE ENEMY DIDN'T HIT THEIR TARGET - but the black out was supposed to make us believe they were hitting the target every time ..??
NOW, I'M EVEN MADDER ABOUT THIS THAN I WAS TO BEGIN WITH.
CNN HAS GONE WAY OVER THE LINE THIS TIME - THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH.
Anyone who gets the answer to this one wrong just isn't paying attention. (BTW, the answer is "no.")
ping
Of course they don't. It wouldn't be good for ratings. Bad news (bombings, etc) is more exciting and better for ratings than good news (schools being built, etc).
That was good! And he wants to be President? Well, let's consider his candidacy...