To: tet68
I'm glad you stand with the Marine in question, but that doesn't change the fact that this punk Sites betrayed the guys he was depending on to protect him.
If it hadn't been for Sites' betrayal, we never would have heard of this. And you guys all know it. It's Kevin Sites who deserves to be held in contempt and who deserves the losing end of a bar fight.
There's nothing lower than a man who will sell out his countrymen for a rung up on the ladder. Sikes' name could be Kerry.
95 posted on
11/16/2004 7:35:58 PM PST by
O.C. - Old Cracker
(When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
To: O.C. - Old Cracker
98 posted on
11/16/2004 7:42:52 PM PST by
O.C. - Old Cracker
(When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
To: O.C. - Old Cracker
Kerry is definitely worse. In proper context or not, Sites is using footage of stuff that actually occurred. Kerry flat-out lied to the US Congress about Vietnam.
Sites may be many things, but he's not John Kerry.
To: O.C. - Old Cracker
If it hadn't been for Sites' betrayal, we never would have heard of this Why is showing what actually happened a bad thing?
147 posted on
11/17/2004 10:48:05 AM PST by
Modernman
(Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. --Benjamin Franklin)
To: O.C. - Old Cracker
If it hadn't been for Sites' betrayal, we never would have heard of this. Since "this" is a perfectly justified act of self-defense (in the context of dealing with an enemy that shows no compunctions about playing possum in order to spring a trap), who cares whether or not we hear of it?
167 posted on
11/17/2004 11:26:34 AM PST by
steve-b
(I put sentences together suspiciously well for a righty blogger.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson