Couldn't agree with those people more Chief.

Used to be a time when reporters, journalists and all of that ilk reported on the facts. Well facts aren't all that fun to read so they add in tidbits and snippets of their opinion. Now it is the norm instead of the "Editor's Comments".

Christopher Hitchens on the media coverage of Iraq, and whether some on the other side are recognizing what they've wrought.

03-22hitchens.mp3

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001487

One voice among how many? Sorry I am tired tonight so I didn't bother to listen to the link.

This has been my schedule for awhile now:

In the rack at 0100 up at 0330 to pack my ruck and head out, back home at 1700, repack my ruck, do some work brought home, hopefully in the rack by 2400the next day. Sometimes the military let's me sleep 8). But I feel good for doing it. Supporting the guys and gals overseas makes it all worthwhile when I get an e-mail saying thanks a million.

Is that a fact Marinerhodes, or just your opinion?

Originally Posted by Ted

Is that a fact Marinerhodes, or just your opinion?

Want to clarify that question?

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Couldn't agree with those people more Chief.

Used to be a time when reporters, journalists and all of that ilk reported on the facts. Well facts aren't all that fun to read so they add in tidbits and snippets of their opinion. Now it is the norm instead of the "Editor's Comments".

This is the post I was trying to be "sarcastic" about. Well, not really sarcastic more trying to make fun of the third party (the journalists) by reflecting our comments on this specific group with your words.... I guess I didn't really succeed, did I? But no harm intended and I hope none caused!

Originally Posted by Ted

This is the post I was trying to be "sarcastic" about. Well, not really sarcastic more trying to make fun of the third party (the journalists) by reflecting our comments on this specific group with your words.... I guess I didn't really succeed, did I? But no harm intended and I hope none caused!

Want to clarify that statement?

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Hey, if you and people like you think "Dubbya" is a failure and incompetent, then why did Americans re-elect him?

because majority rules. it was a close close CLOSE election. but in the end the swing states and the states with the most electoral college votes had enough power to keep him in.

Originally Posted by phoenix80

Hey, if you and people like you think "Dubbya" is a failure and incompetent, then why did Americans re-elect him?

The first time around, seven idiots in gowns interfered in Florida's right to oversee their own election processes which placed the selection of GW into the 'doubtful' column even tho the Electoral College vote put a win on King George's balance scales ... the second time around, look at who the Democrats came up with ... even many Democrats voted against their own candidate.

Get real ... If there had been a real choice, GW would NOT have been re-elected.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

The first time around, seven idiots in gowns interfered in Florida's right to oversee their own election processes which placed the selection of GW into the 'doubtful' column even tho the Electoral College vote put a win on King George's balance scales ... the second time around, look at who the Democrats came up with ... even many Democrats voted against their own candidate.

Get real ... If there had been a real choice, GW would NOT have been re-elected.

That is a sort of irony don't you think? When you consider how many people from however many different factions vilify President Bush. . .