Should President Obama be impeached? What is worse? Is it worse to put leashes on naked Muslim prisoners, and parade them around, or worse to URINATE (medai urination fetish) on Muslim dead bodies and pose with BODY PARTS of of Muslim suicide bombers? Or is it worse to be a MEDIA fascinated with every incident of misbehavior of American soldiers, such that they blow it out of all proportion? If you vote for anything but the last, yu should apply for a job iwth the Los Angeles Times, CNN or any other mainstream media organization.
Hacker Boy (hacknig into this disgraceful bbog agin in the interest of truth, justice and the American way, and still categorically ddenying Skip's absurd charge that I am Piers Morgan, or some other representative of what skip calls--to no one's amusement--the unfair and unbalanced news organizatioin, as Skip tires to use the British hackng scandal for his own evil purposes): "Skip. You have no connection at all to reality. You say that President Obama will say antything, even if he said the ooopsite ten minutes ago, but yu will say things like this. What does President Obama have to do with the Los Angeles Times printing pictures of soldiers posing with body parts of suicide bombes, or with those pictures of soldiers urinationg on dead Taliban fighters. I can see why you would call the inflated stories on this kind of thing 'anti-American', but it is absusrud to suggest that President Obama be impeached over it."
Skip: "I am glad I can always count on Hacker Boy Piers Morgan (oops! I, just meant to type "Hacker Boy", but my eyesight fail me and I can't see well enough to go back and correct it) to make my pont for me."
What did President Bush and Don Rumsfeld have to do with Abu Ghraib (those pictures of "jijinks" by American soldier guards with Muslm prisoners)? Nothing. Nothing at all. Yet, our media was DESPERATE to say that President Bush was responsible, and that it discredited the entire war in Iraq (rather than jsut being the knid of thing that soldiers sometimes do in ALL wars). Now it is true taht the anti-American, anti-military mainstream media IS trhing to discredit the war in Afghnistan, and CONVICT the USA in general of "crimes" against MUSLIMS, to support the media agenda that America is full of anti-Muslim bigots. An it is true that organizatins like the Los Angeles Times, and CNN (which ran "blurred" copies of the pictures this morning) are perfectly willng to get Americns KILLED in pursuit of this agenda (as Newsweek KILOLED people with its FALSE report--during the Bush Administatration--that a Guantanomo guard had "urinated" on the Koran). And you have that story, blown out of all proportion, that soliders in Afghanistan had "burned" the Koran (without intent to offend). Look at ALL of these things, except for that FALSE Newsweek report aboutt the Guantanomo guard, that OBAMA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. What? You say you agree with Hacker Boy that Obama is not responsible for these acts of individual soliders? well, actgually, so do I. But that is the pont. In the Bush yeas, the minastream media DSPERATELY tried to connect Presdient Bush to EVERY one of these things. In the Obama years, equally as desperately, the media has attempted to DISTANCE Presdient Obama from responsibility for almost anything. These people--our mainstream media--remain the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. And they remain ANTI-AMERICAN. They just now make sure to make clear that they are not ANTI-OBAMA.
Did I mentin that our media are COWARDS, almost to a man or woman. They are willing to get OTHER Americans killed with OFFENSIVE stories and pictures, blown out of proportin. However, they will NOT stand up for the First Almendment by publishing things like thosee Danish cartoons, because that might "offfend" Muslims. YOU COWARDS. YOU HYPOCRITES. YOU EVIL, COWARDLY KILLERS. (I worry, as usual, that I am holding back my real feelings here, and that repressing them is doing me injury.). Yep. Our media worries abut their own skin, if they were to make targets of themselves. But they have not lproblem setting OTHER PEOPLE up to be TARGETS of Muslim extremists inflamed by our media.
Nope. There is NO purpose to publishing these kinds of p9ictures. They are offensive, and have NO "news" value. Why do American sodiers spread this knd of thing around? Well, all it takes is ONE. And the Los Angeles Times evidetny got these pictures from one soldier--almost certainly a soldier with an agenda. Nope. I don't think these pictures say ANYTHING about Americans in general. They may say a little about SOLDIERS in general, who have their fiar share of testosterone (or its equivalent,for women soldiers). General Sherman: "War is Hell." Men at war experience strong emotions, and you can EXPECT them to "let off steam" sometimes, and sometimes in inapropraite ways. As this pro-American blgo--to distinguish The Maverick Conservative from the mainstream media types--has said: You MUST discipline soldiers, in a a measured way, for doing things like this (or for giving this kind of picture to the media). But it is just a case for ADMINISTRATIVE discipline--NOT for a major "investigation" or court martial. Remember when our Liar-in-Chief promised--as always, tring to divorce himself from all responsibility, while still pretending to be on "top of the problem"--"promised" a "full investigation" of that previous incident where our soldiers urinated on dead bodies in Afghanistan? Have you heard anythg about the RESULTS of that investigation? Of course not. And I doubt you ever will, in any major way. But our "fearless leader" does NOT CARE. He "solved" the "problem", as he "sovles" all problems, with WORDS. Did he not call for an "investigation"? He--ur leader--has moved on What about that--more important--"full investigation" of the Ft. Hood shooting? Hav yu seen thte results of that? Of coursenot.
No, there was no reason to publish these pictures. This blog has previusly, and accurately, epoxsed our mainstream media as TRAITORS (at least moreally, for their habit of publishing stolen" CLASSIFIED information. And it is almsot always for an anti-American purpose (when it is not LEAKED information meant to SUPPORT Presdient Obama). Tis over-emphaiss on anti-American "scoops" is now a semingly permanent facet of our mainstream media. Well, at least, does not the unfair and unbalanced netowrk do better? NOT REALLY TRUE. It is true taht the unfair and unbalnced netowrk will not USUALLY publish this anti-American stuff FIRST--jut like CNN put out there pictures AFTER the Los Angeles Times "broke' the story. However, the HYPOCRITES will thne push the story JUST AS HARD as the rest of the media, once someone lese has put it out there. I give the unfair and unbalannced network NO PASS for this.
Some of you have questioned my contempt for the medai as too broad based. If lyu read this blog over the past DECADE or so, you would have seen just how much documented basis I have for what I say about our "recognized" media. They have no redeeming social value, because they are unintersted in FACTS--especially facts of any real significance (including rateher minor misbehavior of soldiers in war). At most, these kind of piictures should be merely "reported" upon in a passing story, rather than publishing the pictures as some sort of big deal. yep. I AM saihg that the media has done exactly the OPPOSITE of what they should have done. They SHOULD have pubished the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, and they should NOT publish things like these pictures of soliders "urinating" on bodies, or holindg up body parts.
"But, Skip, maybe the Los Angeles Times was jsut trying to let SICIDE BOMBERS know how what really happens to their bodies when the suicide bomb goes off." ............................................................Sorry, again, but you really are trying to kill me, as I again went to the foor in an uncontrollable fit of laughter..........................................Sorry.........................Sorry.........................................I jsut can't stop..................................................................
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). .