« Obama's Dragnet Appearance | Main | Astroturfers But Not Patriots Welcome at Dianne Feinstein's Office »

Stuff on Van Jones from the liberano media = 0.
Stuff to hurt Americans and there families from the liberano media = I CANT COUNT THAT HIGH.

So, does this mean the AP will begin showing graphic photos of late term abortions? After all, doesn't the public have a right to know?

OBAMA's defense secretary said this?

Looks like he's the next one to go under the bus. They'll make sure he goes smack down the middle of a tire too.

On the other hand, does Obambi even pay attention at all to what his shadow government is doing?

On the other hand, does Obambi even pay attention at all to what his shadow government is doing?

Yes he does.

A modest proposal: AP is welcome to show graphic photos of journalists who are killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

CHUCKLES, who said a few threads back that he has NEVER seen or heard of anything disrespectfull to American troops will ignore this, of course.

Expect nothing less from the leftists AP and its sister UPI both rotten to the core

There will now be a rapid race to the bottom for pictures of dead and dying troops to plaster on the front pages of the dead tree media.

Shortly after that, the network news shows will start broadcasting video of our troops getting killed and maimed.

All in the name of "the people have a right to know." BS. It's just the Viet Nam meme all over again.

Boycott the AP. They have stepped to a new low now, just for raising a few bucks.

People like GoW and Andy have absolutely no problem with this.

Associated Punks are hard to boycott, Jay B. You never know when a news link will take you to one of their stories.

Luckily, conservatives are capable of sorting propaganda from actual news; couple that with blogs like Moonbattery and the truth rises to the top.

Don't you guys wish you could find these jack asses at AP and bitch slap them for hours, I do.

The ASSociated press. Just when you thought they could'nt get any lower...

This is a difficult subject to objectively examine and is an issue as old as written communication and the visual arts themselves. The depictions of war, carnage and all the resultant horror form a thread in narrative and pictures from the time of Homer through Goya and Matthew Brady to the present.

The unrestricted access to battle casualties by the press during the Vietnam War and the resultant depiction of the gory details of said conflict contributed to the popular mood of disgust with the war and went a long way toward molding popular support for the anti-war movement that finally helped put an end to that atrocity.

I have come to the belief that it is absolutely essential to give the American public as graphic and bloody a description of the kinds of conflicts that are being waged in our names around the world as it is possible to give. It is imperative we see not only unedited depictions of the American casualties but also the horror our tacit consent has visited upon the "enemy" and above all on the innocent, especially the children. We must never forget that war is always against children.

When it comes to war, there can no longer be any objectivity or dispassionate reportage. Journalists must help put an end to war by showing us its true face. I am afraid that this consideration must trump even the sensitivity and the privacy of the families of the soldiers themselves. Obama (and his generals) doesn’t give a crap for the health and safety of our soldiers or he would bring them home now. All this nonsense the brass always makes about not showing the flag draped coffins, what bad taste it is to show the pictures of the dead (mostly our dead) and how it violates the poor families, is just smoke and mirrors to cover the fact that they don’t want a replay of Vietnam where Americans turned against the war largely because they got a snoot full of the reality of the war every night on the 10:00 news. Never again!

In order to justify such a ghoulish proposal as mine, I rely, not on my own experience and convictions but, on the words of a reporter who has covered nearly every major conflict in the past fifty years, first hand:

WAR IS THE TOTAL FAILURE OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT

“I tell you, if you saw what I saw when I go to wars when I’m on the front line with or without soldiers or with civilians or wounded in hospitals, if you saw what I saw, you would never, ever dream of supporting a war again. Ever in your life. It’s a remarkable thing that the cinema, the commercial cinema, feature films can now show the bloodiest, goriest themes which are quite similar to what we see in real life, “Saving Private Ryan,” the guts spilling out. And yet real war cannot be shown without censoring pictures which in many cases are exactly the same as what you see when you go to the cinema. Or when you watch a war movie on television. It’s remarkable. And only when you’re there do you realize—If you go to war, you realize it is not primarily about victory or defeat, it is about death and the infliction of death and suffering on as large a scale as you can make it. It is about the total failure of the human spirit. We don’t show that because we don’t want to. And in this sense journalists, television reporting, television cameras are lethal. They collude with governments to allow to you have more wars because if they showed you the truth, you wouldn’t allow any more wars.”

-- Robert Fisk

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/20/robert_fisk

I think it is important to hear him. He is not just speaking of our continued illegal, immoral wars of choice that Obama is waging in Iraq and Afghanistan, but indeed all wars. It is a perilous, slippery slope that leads from the justification of war to the justification of immoral war. We must come to realize that there is no moral justification for any war. None.

Peace,

Bob Boldt

Yale just removed the Danish from a book..about the cartoons

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,547572,00.html?test=latestnews

No moral justification for ANY war? Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo would have loved for the US to have abided by that philosophy since today, half the US would be under Japanese control and the eastern half would be under a Nazi puppet government. The rest of the planet equally divided between the Axis powers.

The problem is half baked politically correct wars. Vietnam could have been solved easily with all out war against the North by make Hanoi and other cities resemble Berlin at the end of WW II.

Iraq was fought in a politically correct way until Patraeus showed up. Afghanistan? Mistake there is trying to fight them using uniformed forces using traditional warfighting techniques. Afghanistan war should be fought using Predator and Reaper drones along with small units that blend in with the local population who would then coordinate the drone attacks. Find a Taliban/terrorist base then call in the drones. This would apply to the entire war against Radical Islam in other terrorist havens like Somalia.

"When it comes to war, there can no longer be any objectivity or dispassionate reportage. Journalists must help put an end to war by showing us its true face."

That inane comment - in addition to actually quoting Robert Fisk (seriously? Robert Fisk? WTF?) - will win you the scorn of anybody with more than a single functioning brain cell.

Hey Bob Deadbolt, would that be the kids the Taliban throw acid on? As you said, "but also the horror our tacit consent has visited upon the "enemy" and above all on the innocent, especially the children". How about the teachers the Taliban execute? Them too, or should the press just show the American dead? You're such an ass, that it really does defy description.
The "end of that atrocity", as you put it, really worked out well for the South Vietnamese and Cambodians, didn't it? Do you even remember the Killing Fields, the "re-education" camps?

Do you even remember the Killing Fields, the "re-education" camps?

Of course they do. The left admires mass murder in the name of global leftist enslavement and badly desires the same carnage here. Expect it soon enough under the new reich.

I am used to ad homonym arguments accusing me of defective intelligence and suspect motives. I have come to accept it from those who do not have the resources with which to address any debate on its merits and must fall back on assassinating the messenger. How wonderful it must be to simply regard your opponent as mentally defective and hence below your regard, rather than actually hearing what he has to say and framing a reasoned response.

I do however take exception to the defaming of a man whose international reputation is beyond repute. You detractors should be ashamed to impute the words and the character of a courageous journalist whose actions in the pursuit of truth put you all to shame. But don’t take my word for it. Why don’t you take your one and one half (plus) brain cells over to the “Robert Fisk” entry on Wikipedia and read his bio for yourselves.

“Fisk holds more British and International Journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent.

The New York Times once described Robert Fisk as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain." He reported the Northern Ireland troubles in the 1970s, the Portuguese Revolution in 1974, the Lebanese Civil War, the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Iran–Iraq War, the Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. A vernacular Arabic speaker, he is one of few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden, three times between 1994 and 1997.

Awards include being voted International Journalist of the Year seven times.

Fisk has been living in Beirut since 1976, and was present in Beirut throughout the Lebanese civil war. He was one of the first journalists to visit the scene of the Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon, as well as the Syrian Hama Massacre. Fisk also reported on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Kosovo war, the Algerian civil war, and the Iran-Iraq War. Fisk suffered partial but permanent hearing loss as a result of his being within close proximity to Iraqi heavy artillery in the Shatt-al-Arab when covering the early stages of the Iran-Iraq conflict.”

Here is a man with balls, a man you might be well advised to regard with at least a measure of respect even if you disagree with his conclusions. Your vilification of Robert Fisk reflects only on your own shortcomings—nothing more.

Respect is the key word here. Respect is what seems to be so sadly lacking in this nation’s discourse today.

You will be hard pressed to find a more severe critic of Obama than me on either side of the fence and yet I am willing to give him at least a grudging measure of respect. I also give him the respect of disagreeing with his real policies based upon my understanding of real (not made-up) issues. I also try to give you on the Right a certain measure of respect although your proclivities to vicious maligning, fabrication and lies makes this respect hard to muster.

You speak of the desirability and the effectiveness (the humanity?) of the Allied scorched earth policy in WWII and the drone attacks in Afghanistan on our part and then decry the horrors of our “enemies” of choice in fundamentalist Islam and south east Asia. In these comparisons I hear a not too far suppressed wish to emulate the excesses of “the evil doers.”

Finally, I am of the generation of those born just before WWII and am receptive to the argument that this was perhaps the last Good War. Even so this was the war that gave us carpet bombing, massive civilian casualties and of course the militarily unnecessary bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (this assumed necessity which was once accepted as axiomatic, is more and more being questioned by contemporary historians and military strategists.) This is the war that took the phrase, “man’s inhumanity to man” to a whole new level as a result of the actions of both sides.

I find it interesting here that, when most intelligent discussions of war occur, the militarists usually are unable to bring up any conflict after WWII to refute the pacifists. Certainly only on these and other similar pages is there ever any attempt to justify the Vietnam and the Iraqi War. I defy anyone to explain how either of these wars was in any way served the humanitarian or strategic interests of the US and were justified by anything other than lies and deceptions on the part of Presidents Johnson and Bush. There was and is no morality in either war and, in fact, all the “enemy” horrors cited by you are solely the direct result of our attempted imperialist interventions or reactions to them. The blood is on your hands—and mine as well.

Peace,

B

Bob Doldt-Here's a reasoned response, after hearing what you had to say. You're an idiot.

Dear Bob,

Start a blog. Write a piece. Post it on your blog. If I want to read your 12 paragraph essays, I'll go there. Here the scroll-wheel says NO.

Peace,

-G

Congradulations on getting through the first paragraph all by yourself! I hope your lips didn't get too tired.

Peace,

B

Gregory,

I HAVE a blog. I just like to kick you guys around once in a while. It is so much fun to upset lip-readers like the literate responder who calls himself "bobdoldtsanidiot." Where else on the Internet can you find insightful comments like his?

Peace,

B