Nobody focuses on it...
Not once during this entire news commentary was the name "Obama" mentioned. It seems not that long ago whenever criticism of the war was enunciated George Bush* was mentioned... How often? TNTC**
* The difference between Bush and Obama concerning the war...Bush cared about the soldiers, Obama could care less!
**TNTC = Too Numerous To Count
Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
5 comments:
It should be How Little Media Morons Know of War!
They were the evry ones complaining about every step, urging retraint after 9/11 and calling both Iraq and Afghanistan lost causes.
They are the ones who sensationalize every soldier that does wrong or is accused of doing wrong, while completely ignoring the daily examples of heroism of the majority of Troops.
Since day one, these a**holes have wanted this one lost too and once lost, will be the first ones crying about losing it.
A note on China: They didn't suffer 3,000 innocent civilians burned and crushed to death in a brutal mass murder by high jacked aircraft.
If they discover Mulism extremists in their midsts, they don't put on the kid gloves, they just kill them.
Right on Lew !!!
I looked and found the article mentioned, How little the U.S. knows of war By Richard Cohen, who claims the Army that fought in Viet Nam was "my Army" in that he served in the Active Reserves during that era.
Right off the bat, he shows his ignorance and bias with, "The U.S. Army that fought the Vietnam War was reviled, not spit upon (that's a myth) but not much admired, either."
A myth?
It can hardly be a myth with the media publishing reports of it happening as far back as 1968 and even the darlings of the left making claims it happened, before someone decided it was "a myth."
For The Record - Spitting on Vets a Myth?
Showing how little the author even knows, in the article he claims today's Troops are "embraced and praised" without any acknowledgement that such treatment of today's Troops is due in large part to those of us who served in Viet Nam and remember how we were treated and our vow of "never again."
It is Viet Nam Veterans, aging as we are, that have led the effort to ensure today's returning Troops are not mistreated or "spat upon" as we were.
Further evidence of a disconnect from the author is found in, "The military of today is removed from society in general. It is a majority white and, according to a Heritage Foundation study, disproportionately Southern. New England is underrepresented, and so are big cities, but the poor are no longer cannon fodder - if they ever were - and neither are blacks."
Even with the draft in the 1960's, the Army of then was largely the same as he describes today. In fact, in the Viet Nam era, those serving in Viet Nam had numbers showing a much larger degree of enlistees (volunteers) than was seen during World War Two, the "Great War" used as a measurement of all "good wars!"
Another point, the only thing that ever lessens the Troops to "cannon fodder" is politicians and a general public who don't care and won't allow us to fight the battles they inject us into.
Or, as I wrote a little over three years ago, from comments by one of the Troops then, Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”
If he can't even get that part right, how do you trust the rest of what he claims?
I looked and found the article mentioned, How little the U.S. knows of war By Richard Cohen, who claims the Army that fought in Viet Nam was "my Army" in that he served in the Active Reserves during that era.
Right off the bat, he shows his ignorance and bias with, "The U.S. Army that fought the Vietnam War was reviled, not spit upon (that's a myth) but not much admired, either."
A myth?
It can hardly be a myth with the media publishing reports of it happening as far back as 1968 and even the darlings of the left making claims it happened, before someone decided it was "a myth."
For The Record - Spitting on Vets a Myth?
Showing how little the author even knows, in the article he claims today's Troops are "embraced and praised" without any acknowledgement that such treatment of today's Troops is due in large part to those of us who served in Viet Nam and remember how we were treated and our vow of "never again."
It is Viet Nam Veterans, aging as we are, that have led the effort to ensure today's returning Troops are not mistreated or "spat upon" as we were.
Further evidence of a disconnect from the author is found in, "The military of today is removed from society in general. It is a majority white and, according to a Heritage Foundation study, disproportionately Southern. New England is underrepresented, and so are big cities, but the poor are no longer cannon fodder - if they ever were - and neither are blacks."
Even with the draft in the 1960's, the Army of then was largely the same as he describes today. In fact, in the Viet Nam era, those serving in Viet Nam had numbers showing a much larger degree of enlistees (volunteers) than was seen during World War Two, the "Great War" used as a measurement of all "good wars!"
Another point, the only thing that ever lessens the Troops to "cannon fodder" is politicians and a general public who don't care and won't allow us to fight the battles they inject us into.
Or, as I wrote a little over three years ago, from comments by one of the Troops then, Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”
If he can't even get that part right, how do you trust the rest of what he claims?
It appears someone (Google maybe) took the video down...must have touched a nerve.
Post a Comment