A different point of view
 

You guys who love to debate about the war really need to read this article.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/64407.htm

What have there been, say 1500 killed in just the past few days?

I know Peters writing well, he's a very smart guy who's playing semantic games to discredit the mainstream press. His followers love him for this sort of stuff.

It's the Administration and their applogists who have been misleading the American people about the real nature of the war from day one!

-spence

Ralph Peters is a brilliant guy with more "on the ground" experience than 99.9% of the blowhards out there writing from their cushy mid-town offices. To discredit an on the ground report like this lessens the left's credibility.

So I am supposed to buy the "civil war" reports from the Washington Times and CNN, but I must dismiss a first hand report from a NY Post and former military official with his boots in the sand in country?

Articles like this drive the left insane and are immediately dismissed.

There is a lot of banter out there about the conservatives who blindly follow George Bush, what is as frightening is those that blindly hate George Bush. I am not sure either group gets it. Being blind means you lack vision.

So now I'm a spokesperson for the "left"? I should have worn my better shoes!

Do you think the sectarian violence making the headlines everyday is made up?

I'm not seeing this being reported as a "civil war"...civil unrest that could lead to civil war yes and even the Government will describe it as such.

Peters is playing word games, hoping since you don't see bluecoats and greycoats facing off with with muzzleloaders you'll just think this is the "war on terrah"...

-spence

Mr. Peters writings and analysis have been consistent since day one with the descriptions of the Iraq situation that have been relayed to me from my nephew (second tour Iraq) and his fellow soldiers whom I have met. Their first hand accounts of remarkable progress that goes unreported has left me with a greatly diminshed respect for the editorialized "news" reports of most major news organizations.

Glad to hear your nephew is taking part in some success!

But if it bleeds it leads, it's not different there or here at home.

While I have seen many reports of progress in the mainstream media, the simple fact is that I care more about American's being killed than I do about a new school for Iraqi children. We went to Iraq to safeguard non-existant WMD's, not nation build.

Given that the Administration has been wrong on just about every aspect of the Iraq war, and has been caught fudging the reality on a day by day basis, perhaps the "liberal" media isn't being that negative...they're just providing some badly needed balance.

-spence

"So now I'm a spokesperson for the "left"? I should have worn my better shoes!"[/COLOR][/COLOR]

If the shoe fits..........:bl:

"Peters is playing word games, hoping since you don't see bluecoats and greycoats facing off"

I am well aware that many are hoping for a civil war in Iraq. The pall that Harry Whitington's survival cast over the Democratic party would be quickly lifted if a civil war broke out in Iraq.



Well said Stripersnpr, your nephew and Peters voices give many a different and real look at some of the things that are happening over there.

Agreed, but I assume you're talking about foreign terrorists and neighboring countries like Syria and Iran looking for opportunistic advantage?

-spence

Without a doubt the other terrorist nations you have highlighted will be among the throngs feeding from such an event if it were to occur. Some would use it for opportunistic advantage others for partisan gains.

Ahhh good, just wanted to make sure you were'nt talking about any Dems :hs: :wave:

-spence

Is there be any doubt that political factions within our own country cannot help but overflow with glee when any American failure real or perceived can be blamed on the Whitehouse regardless of the consequences of those failures real or perceived? And can there be any doubt that those sworn to destroy America sit back satisfied that they have enlisted support from a portion of the very people they are sworn to destroy? Proper dissent is as American as Apple Pie but it is a very thin line between proper, respectful dissent and behavior that is harmful to our country and I feel the media crosses that line on a regular basis.

I would NEVER do that!!:hihi:

I was a conservative Dem. for a bunch of years, now I am an Independent. I am so disgusted by partisan politics on both sides of the aisle that I refuse to attach my name to either group.

This is an Excellent quote:
This next one is one of the most wry quotes I've come across here in a while; nearly made me piss my pants!

It doesn't get any clearer than the following:

I asked myself, "Self; how is this Bronko fellow able to capture the essence of a particular thought and express it so succintly?"
Then I viewed his Public Profile...
He IS a trained professional. I will NOT attempt this at home.

Great job, Bronko.

I agree 100%...although I started out on the moderate republican side.

-spence

Interesting, I feel that the Administration crosses that line on a regular basis!

Satisfaction at the President being held to account isn't the same as celebrating American failure. If you think "liberals" enjoy seeing US troops die because it makes Bush look bad then you're an idiot.

The most damaging "aid and comfort to the enemy" is from the arrogant and reckless policy decisions that seem to confirm the imperialist anti-Islamic rhetoric Bin Laden and others use to exacerbate existing tension and further support for their actions among moderate Muslims throughout the World.

Or more simply, actions speak louder than words.

-spence

I dont recall refering to "Liberals" in my post. If you deny the fact that there are factions within this country that celebrate Bushs failures then you are the idiot. I hate to stoop your level by name calling but you fired the first shot.

Never stooped to anything, but rather framed the argument in more detail so you could decide where exactly to sit.

-spence

And I suppose it was Bushs "reckless policy decisions" that led to 32 Terrorist attacks against the US and US interests between 1990 and 1999?

I believe there's a mix of well intended and ill intended US policy decisions that have influenced terror prior to 9/11. Certianly you don't argue that we have had a large hand in shaping the political landscape in the middle east do you?

But post 9/11 our actions have been much more rash and poorly planned. When it's obvious that certain actions will caused serious negative reaction one would think a little homework and objective thought would be called for, but sadly it's not to be.

-spence

Spence, we were like two ships passing in the night.:laughs:

Thanks Monrone,

Comes with the job, but I'd rather be known for lugging a 50# out of the surf.:buds:

I doubt there was that much difference to begin with. What confuses matters today is that there's another dimension beyond partisanship...called outrage :hee:

Often confused, but not necessarily the same.

-spence

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king :hihi:

That was why I laughed and immediately dismissed his report. 3 sentences in and I could tell he had an agenda. Anyone watching the news or reading the paper knows that almost no one is reporting what is taking place as civil war. Exaggeration or lying about the media's reporting of what is going on over there doesn't exactly lead to credibility in my eyes. Why he doesn't support his arguement with truth?

I think there's a huge difference.

Much of the disdain I see for the Left is part of a purposeful effort to demonize "liberalisim" in general. If you're following the GOP handbook you attach liberal to Democrat to smear your opponent.

It's silly because the majority of people actually hold some views that are quite liberal, but it's also been executed with success because the Dems haven't been smart enough to counter.

Must of the disdain for Bush is focused on specific policy decisions, rather than on "conservatisim"...Why? Because people naturally segment moderates from social conservatives. They haven't been lumped together like the moderate and progressive Dems have.

To make matters worse, lines have been drawn segmenting Bush followers from everyone else. A conservative thinks Bush's tax cuts are going too far! Agast, they must be a closet liberal! Burn them!!!

My beef against Bush has to do with individual policy decisions and his style of leadership, not a broad based attack against "conservatisim".

But then again, we both know Bush ain't no conservative!

-spence

Spence you made an interesting statement regarding the Democrats inability to shake the liberal moniker. I think they lack stratigical planning and foresight. I hang around with a few dyed in the wool liberal democrats. They are frustrated with the lack of leadership within the party.

Where do you stand on Dean and his grass-roots approach? His attempts at changing the party landscape started off with a bang, but have since stuttered. I'd be interested in your take.

Dean's a idiot :smokin:

His campaign fell flat because he couldn't project a forward thinking message. Kerry did a better job, but not enough to overcome the smear campaign against him.

The DNC really needs to give him the boot. It's not that he doesn't have some good ideas, but Dean doesn't realize that his job is to support the party rather than make the headlines himself.

Neither Terry McCulliff or Ken Melman (sp?) ever had this problem.

The Dem's big issue is a lack of coordination. The Alito hearings were a perfect example.

The GOP has a great ability to frame an issue in simple terms then use the various outlets to institutionalize it before anyone even has a chance to tear it down.

Combine that with the Administration's secrecy, disdain for the media and near inability to tell the truth when pressed...and it's no wonder the average joe hasn't a clue as to what's really going down.

-spence

We had a nice little political roundtable today.... and all this without Skip_N.:tooth:

I am heading into the Bruins:sled: with clients :gu: , so I will gracefully bow out of any further discussions.

So did I win? :hee:

-spence

It appears that a very basic division exists within the Democratic party. The dyed in the wool Kennedy Democrats (JFK) like my Grandfather will not rally around the "NeoLiberal" Democrats of todays party. Lets face it, JFK by todays standards was no Liberal.
When you see extremes like Lieberman and Dean within the same party it makes unity difficult.