So essentially the article is a total fabrication and should be ignored? Is that what you’re arguing? Or is ANY news thats NOT rubber stamped by the DOD therefore suspect?
1. Before this report, had you ever heard of the A.P.?
2. Before this report, have you ever seen the A.P. print a news flash that was favorable to our troops?
3. Just how many reports of good things our troops are doing in Iraq, have you seen?
4. Which news source do you think is more reliable, A.P. or the DOD, since you brought the DOD up?
These troops need help and care. There’s nothing treasonable about reporting that.
5. Where did you see me say the A.P. had done anything treasonable?
6. Where did you see me say these troups shouldn't get care?
And quite frankly its sickening that there are hyper-partisans who would rather all info be bottled up, even when it impacts those soldiers who have suffered greviously, if it distracts from the latest talking point.
7. Where did I say I thought any information should be bottled up?
8. Do you think the current injuries to our troops are worse than the injuries in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or the Gulf War?
9. Do you agree that was one of the points in the article?
10. What particular value did the reference to Michelangelo add to the facts in this article?
11. Do you or do you not think this may have been just a wee bit over the top, and a clear propaganda piece?
Thanks in advance.
Your position seems to be “news story about injured troops bad. MUST be designed to hurt Bush. Dismiss as propoganda.” This is trashy and inapporpriate for several reasons the least of which is that you’re preventing the public from understanding what the injured troops are dealing with and facing once they’re back stateside. In short, you seem to express support for the troops only when its politically convienent.
As for your “questions”
1. Yes
2. Irrelevent
3. Only silly DOD press releases that orgasim over the latest tree planted or school built (ignoring how 5 months later its fallen apart due to disrepair on the Iraqis part or destroyed by a $100 RPG)which IMHO and as I’ve stated several times are just as harmful to our war effort as media bias.
4. Neither. Both have agendas.
5. You’re claiming they’re anti-American which is the same thing
6. You’d prefer to see the story swept under the rug with the inevitable consequences that they would NOT receive the attention and care they’ve earned. The disgrace at Walter Reed bears out that lighting a fire thanks to the press helps the troops.
7. See #6
8. Irrelevent - those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve the best care. Period.
9. Again, irrelevent for our discussion
10. Put’s a name to the statistics. Nothing sinister about that.
11. Not at all. I was unaware as to the severity of brain injuries that our troops are facing once back in the US. But then again, I’m not a bot partisan.