There really are two Americas - one which has been at war since 9/11/01, the other which surrendered by December of 2001. The war-fighting side of the country keeps at it, the defeated part just grows more shrill as the war continues further and further past the point where they flunked the test.

We'll have to see how this all plays out - whether any of the people who surrendered will rejoin the war, or whether they'll eventually force the whole of the country to lose the war they lacked the courage and wisdom to fight.

Very well-written editorial. The best point he made:

"All citizens have a right to express their views on this important national challenge, and all should be heard. Veterans ask no more, and they deserve no less."

Though I'm not sure why Matt has to take a shot at the "mainstream media" - last time I checked, the Washington Post was pretty big. But you can ignore that fact I guess to take another potshot at that oh-so evil media.

Why is it that liberals are the only ones that defend the media?

Hmmmmmm

Why is it that the Ultimate Warrior dodges questions? Hmmmmm ....

Hey Ultimate Warrior, is the Washington Post part of your so-called MSM, or not?

If you're so unhappy with the media, then get off your ass, stop blogging at B4B, catch the next plane to Iraq, and report for us all what's really going on over there.

Actually there are some excellent blogs already from soldiers in Iraq, some of them friends of mine. Their take is that most of the reporters from the papers don't leave the green zone and basically use runners which are locals to get their stories from them.

Personally, I would suggest Michael Yon's work who is there currently right now. Of course it doesn't paint the picture the liberal girls in the Green Zone are painting so I'm sure you won't want to read it.

I ask again, why is it that only liberals defend the media? Sure seems to me because it's liberal...gee, who would of thunk it.

-------

Michael Yon

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/back-to-war.htm

There are others as well, would you like me to share them...they are excellent and from the soldiers themselves that are over there fighting.

"I ask again, why is it that only liberals defend the media?"

I don't think it's so much as "defending" the media as it is saying to you, the Republican: stop *blaming* the media for all the problems of your incompetent administration!!

This is news reported yesterday by CNN:

"A car bomb exploded Wednesday in a Shiite town north of Baghdad, killing at least 26 people and wounding 70 others, Iraqi police said."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/12/iraq.main/

So, according to you, it's the fault of the "liberal media" that that car bomb went off, right? You're pathetic.

Obviously all media slants one way or another - the media consists of *people* - you know, who have their own thoughts & opinions - unlike many I see here on this very site, who simply parrot the talking points of the Cowboy President.

The media having biases is not recent news, Ultimate Warrior - hate to break it to you! If it bleeds, it leads - doesn't matter who the President is. So stop your crying! Stop blaming them for all your government's problems, and aim your hate speech at the people at the top, starting with Dr. Evil.

And no, I don't need any more of your right-wing nutjob blogs to read - I get my fill right here at B4B. You couldn't possibly ask for a better collection of tow-the-company-line Sheep!

MF wrote, “Obviously all media slants one way or another”
No sir, there was a time when we all agreed what was news. There was a period in the middle of the last century when the Press reported only what had happened. Analysis and editorial was clearly defined, as it should be, and during the analysis phase both sides of the story was presented.
And, btw, it’s “toe the line” not “tow.” Isn’t that a better mental image?

Maf

The media only reports on version. Why can they not report other stories going on? Why is it about negative, negative, negative? Why is it that I have to go to a soldier's blog to read about positive things...the press should be there reporting things fairly and they do not.

Of course, this is also why the press is held to an approval standard in the 20% range right now, much lower than Bush who you guys harp on all of the time.

Media has become a caricature of itself.

Warrior,

As I said - if it bleeds, it leads. This is *independent* of who's in office, I think. My point was simply - don't blame the media for all your problems. What a cop-out.

Bane,

Do you consider Fox News to be, shall I say, fair and balanced? Every network has it's biases, plain & simple.

By the way, since you're so fond of correcting other people's grammar on a blog, your post should read: "both sides of the story *were* presented," not "was presented."

Actually, "was" is correct, story is singular.
Are you expecting me to defend Fox News? Is that your argument?

"If you're so unhappy with the media, then get off your ass, stop blogging at B4B, catch the next plane to Iraq, and report for us all what's really going on over there."

Hmmm, but it seems perfectly acceptable to you to sit on your ass over here and judge exactly how things are going over in Iraq. Why is that? Because CNN told you that things were going badly?

If it bleeds it leads and the liberals buy it hook, line and sinker.

If this mentality existed in WWII, we would all be speaking German. If it existed in the Revolutionary War we would all be British.

What you're saying is that the press will make it as difficult as possible for a tough decision to be made and since liberals don't ever want to make tough decisions that would put boots on the ground, then our nation will be militarily in jeopardy whenever a liberal is in charge because of the media's bent on it's reporting.

That's comforting and reason enough for me never to put a liberal into the oval office. Notice I didn't say Democrat, I said liberal. Sam Nunn would have been fine. Truman was great. JFK no problem. Liebermann I believe could pull it off. It's the rest of limp risted sallies out there that have removed the military option off the table at ALL COSTS which is the problem.

I think you're wrong. "Story" is singular, yes, but "sides" is plural. As in, "both sides WERE presented."

My argument is: there are biases at CBS *and* Fox News. So what's your point? You're not making any groundbreaking discovery by crying about biases in the media. Get over it!

Isn't the obvious solution to look at *both* sides of the specturm? Hell, why do you think I'm on this site in the first place?

Warrior - simple response: don't allow the press to make your "difficult" decisions! Just allow them to inform, by both sides; *then* you make your decision. Sheesh, you guys sure do complain a lot.

By the way, the reason I started talking about the media was because of Matt's statement: "I know this won't get a lot of play in the mainstream media."

To which I asked: isn't the freakin' WASHINGTON POST mainstream enough for you? They're the ones who printed the editorial in the first place! Of course, neither Bane or Warrior answered that question; apparently they only call out intellectual dishonesty like that when it is coming from the other side of the fence.

Maf

If the media would simply inform honestly, I would agree. But when the media beats the same drum every day, how is the every day person supposed to make an informed decision based on sample size of stories that say the same thing every day?

maf53,

Let's look at the facts. Over 70% of journalists profess to be liberals. There is no way humanly possible for them not to let their personal political bias affect what stories they report on and how they report the stories.

I expect reporters to report the news, good and bad. Not make editorial decisions what news to ignore (like everything positive that is happening with the War on Terror and bringing freedom to Iraq and AFghanistan), and what to report. If they want to provide commentary, like Rush and Sean Hannity do, identify your policial preference, then offer your opinion. I have no problem with that. What we conservatives object to is the journalists who quietly have confirmed that they are liberal, yet try to claim objectivity.

I also have no problem with investigative reporting. But when you step over the line (Rathergate comes to mind) and fabricate stories and documents to advance your personnal political bias, you have no business claiming to be a reporter.

As for Fox, they are far more fair and balanced than any of the other networks, broadcast or cable. For every Sean Hannity, there is a Alan Colmes. They offer both sides the opportunity to present their case and let the viewer decide.

As added illustration of the MSM bias, how many former Press secretaries of a GOP President have been offered a network Sunday Morning show as George Stephanopoulos has? How many GOP Presidential speech writers host a major cable news talk show as Chris Matthews does? Most, if not all of the network talk show hosts (with the exception of Fox) have ties to the Democrats. Typically, the panels on these shows are stacked with liberals.

All we ask for is an even playing field where news is reported, not fabricated.

Yes, the Washington Post IS the MSM. Matt must have mistook it for that other DC rag, the Washington Times.

If there is one thing that is a top 5 outrage topic in conservative analysis outlets, it's the MSM. In particular there is endless carping that the MSM doesn't carry any positive Iraq stories, including B4B. Yet, in all of the conservative friendly media outlets (Washington Times, Fox News, NY Post, etc.) there is no programming devoted to good news in Iraq. On Fox News for example, which devotes 80% of its schedule (and 100% of its prime time) to analysis shows led by conservative hosts, I would expect to see at least one slot dedicated to a show like "Today's Good News in Iraq". Likewise a regular feature in the paper. But there is nothing.

Instead, all we get is "the MSM does this" and "the MSM doesn't cover that". Every time a Fox host does an interview with an admin figure like Bush or Rumsfeld, they inevitably ask whether the MSM is bad and should be chastised. They sound like my tattle-tale sister when I was a kid. To their credit, the interviewee always takes the high road and says the media is not the problem.

I suspect we'll not get a good news Iraq show or page. These outlets would rather fan the flames of divisive outrage rather than put out a positive product. Liberal bashing gets attention. Outrage sells. It's a shame. I personally would like to see a daily show with positive news on Iraq.

Maf, Where are all your lefty kook friends tonight? I guess they didn't want to hang with us sheep, huh! Well, your a brave paid idiot! Who's paying you by the way? Washpo, Nytimes, CNN, comeon dip, you know as well as any other OPEN-MINDED freak show that the MSM's constant WAR(that's right I said it, WAR) against this administration has not only emboldended the enemy, but has also given them a tool to try to win this war! Since they know they can't win by killing 2,000 brave, solid American soldiers every three years! Oops, I'm sorry, you don't understand the concept of winning a war! That's good, cause you and your MSM pals won't win in the long run pal! There are to many like those brave American soldiers out there for you guys to win anything!!!!!

By the way, the reason I started talking about the media was because of Matt's statement: "I know this won't get a lot of play in the mainstream media."

To which I asked: isn't the freakin' WASHINGTON POST mainstream enough for you? They're the ones who printed the editorial in the first place! Of course, neither Bane or Warrior answered that question; apparently they only call out intellectual dishonesty like that when it is coming from the other side of the fence.

Posted by: maf53 at April 13, 2006 09:17 PM

Right, so now let's see how many other news outlets aside from B4B & Hannity pick up this story, or any story from the boyz over there supporting the war! I know you a little slow Maf, but I think that was Matts point from the begining! DUH!

I, too would like to see a daily news show that focuses on positive things happening in our world, not just Iraq. But for the sake of discussion here, Iraq is a great example of one-sided news reporting. Is it because of a political slant or is it just sloppy journalism? I believe it's a little of both.

Fortunately, the new media is filling the void that a lot of people feel when it comes to positive news. I subscribe to an e-mail list from the DoD, for example, which releases daily reports from the front lines of the War on Terror. Believe it or not, there is a lot of good stuff going on. I read countless examples of how schools are being built, community centers are being opened, and roads and bridges are being built or restored. Sure, there is also news about casualties from IEDs, and there are still far too many reports coming out about yet another huge weapons cache. But there is some balance in the bulletins. Curiously, I rarely, if ever, see these stories surfacing in the pages or on the TV shows of the "mainstream media." But when it comes to IEDs or injured people, it's right there on the front pages, and on the leading stories. It's just a fact of life.

Of course, "bleeding is leading," when it comes to the antique media. It's an age-old understanding that controversy and violence sells. And that's the bottom line for all these so-called "Mainstream Media." It's time we - and they - face up to the increasingly obvious fact that they are less and less mainstream. Don't take my word for it. Look at their audience shares, and circulation statistics. Print media like the Old Gray Hag (New York Times), the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, etc. continue to lay off workers because their organizations aren't making as much money as they used to. The same can be said of the "alphabet soup" networks. The Pew Organization has been doing biennial surveys with the American public about their perceptions of the "mainstream media," and every time they do another survey, the MSM "credibility factor" takes another dive. As an audience, this nation is maturing into a different mode of information retrieval. That mode doesn't depend upon the corrupt newscasters like Dan Rather. It doesn't depend upon the audience sitting in front of the TV sets at 6:30 pm EST to hear one of three variations upon the same theme, like it did in years past. People are more savvy and interested in getting information that is specific to their particular issue.

Maf53 stated,
"...So stop your crying! Stop blaming them for all your government's problems, and aim your hate speech at the people at the top, starting with Dr. Evil.

And no, I don't need any more of your right-wing nutjob blogs to read - I get my fill right here at B4B. You couldn't possibly ask for a better collection of tow-the-company-line Sheep!"

I, for one, am not crying "foul" when it comes to the antique media. I don't think it's worth my time or energy to pay any attention to what they say. Precious little of it is original, and I've got better things to do than bang my head up against a wall trying to convince the likes of Maf53 that they are, indeed, bigoted leftists. Many of them, in my opinion, are outright anti-American. But that's just my opinion. The thing that makes this country great is that it tolerates people like Maf53, and the liberal sycophants in the antique media. Without their point of view being expressed, how boring would our discussions be?

I'm surprised that Maf53 still continues to check in with all us "tow the company line Sheep," if we are so objectionable, and such "right wing nutjobs," why does he continue to so adamantly take the time and energy to express his point of view here? Although I rarely agree with his points of discussion, I am obligated as an American, to hear him out. It doesn't mean that it has any impact upon me. Actually, it's kind of like listening to Cindy Sheehan. Once I've listened for two minutes, I begin to yawn and struggle to maintain any interest. But hey! Not all "right wing nutjobs" have closed minds. Believe it or not, some of us were once like Maf53. I like to say that, speaking for myself, I finally saw through the cloud of indoctrination to which I had been subjected for the better part of my life, and saw the sun shining through. Even though it's a much tougher path to follow, alternative thought has its rewards.

Thanks for all the fodder you've supplied, Maf53. Although it can sometimes cause some indigestion, it's the stuff that keeps our minds focused on why it's important for us to think things through. By analyzing and responding to your copious examples of talking points, we are able to avoid the intellectual pitfalls that would otherwise trip us up...

I support our Troops. I support our Commander-In-Chief. I support this country. That Maf53 and his associates don't is regrettable, but part of the dynamic that moves this nation forward...

It's extremely telling that Maf53 used the term "hate speech" to describe complaints about the antique media. How he arrives at the term "hate speech" is beyond me. I've said a lot of pointed and unpleasant things about the antique media, but I don't think it even comes close to the type of invectives and ad hominum attacks that he and his associates use when they reference our President and various other government officials. I guess since it's second nature for him and his associates to enter into the territory of "hate speech," they just automatically use the term to describe anything that they disagree with as being "hate speech." I think there is a psychological term for this phenomena of accusing one's opponents of the very thing for which they bear some inner feelings of guilt... but off the top of my head, I can't quite remember what that term is...

How far left wing fanatics like maf53 is beyond me. I know all they want is to have their own beliefs reinforced but how many times does the New York Times have to lie? It started with Al Qaa Qaa and proceeded to the "guy" that was supposedly the one who had the fake wires attached to him in those Abu Ghraib photos. Or how about the lie about the Katrina victim from New York who was arrested for fraud? Not to mention the lie about the 30 headless bodies found in Iraq. Oh, did I mention the lie that the Times perpetrated about Hispanics dying in proportion higher in Iraq than the general population?

I would think that even a moonbat paper like the New York Times loses credibility after so many lies.

Warriornation said, referring to soldiers' blogs as alternate sources of news about Iraq:
"There are others as well, would you like me to share them...they are excellent and from the soldiers themselves that are over there fighting."
To which Maf53 replied:
"And no, I don't need any more of your right-wing nutjob blogs to read."

So I guess the soldiers protecting our nation from terrorists by fighting them overseas rather than here, are right wing nutjobs? Very telling view of the real opinion of those who say they support our troops, just not the war.

patrick63,

Excellent point about Maf53's response to the opportunity to get a different source of news about Iraq. Anyone who's read his posts for any amount of time understands that his objective in posting on this blogsite isn't to engage anyone in substantive debate - it's to verbally defecate a steamy mass of propaganda talking points from the kooks on the left and leave.

But as far as I'm concerned, it's the gift that keeps on giving. For all the excrement that he spews, he's keeping the rest of us apprised of the latest in the stream of pseudo-consciousness that is the political left wing in America today.

Maf53's mind is made up. Don't attempt to confuse the issue with fact. And especially don't offer him an alternative source of information that might cause him to re-examine the fundamentals behind his so-called "rationale" for what passes as thought process. That makes you a "right-wing nutjob..."

Judging from the topics he posts in, and his frequency of posts, it wouldnt' surprise me if he were directed to post here as an assignment by someone in the "cabal" of left-wing conspirators(to co-opt a favorite term of the left wing kooks).

"Cabal..." Sure sounds scary, doesn't it!? :O)

So Maf

A soldier's blog is now a "right wing nut job blog".

How sad for you and your ilk.

It's pretty hard to report "good news" from Iraq because the security situation is so bad that reporters risk being killed or kidnapped any time they leave the "Green Zone."

That being the case, you don't have to be a genius to know what the real "story" of Iraq is. The problem of "balance" (in the FOX sense) is that what is really done is to provide some rightwing talking points to "balance" the actual story -- whether it is justified or not.

"Insurgents overrun and destroy police station -- soldiers pass out soccor balls."

Also, a few misconceptions that keep popping up here need to be addressed:

Reporters have very little (read "no") editorial control -- that's what editors do (and don't forget that they answer to publishers and owners, who are overwhelmingly Republicans) -- reporters that want to keep their jobs generally don't try to "slant" their stories, since making an editor edit less is good for job security.

As for how many other "MSM" outlets will go with the WaPo opinion piece? Probably not any, since it would require the permission of the WaPo to use it -- unless the writer submitted it to other outlets (which I doubt -- since that would probably reduce its chances of being published in a major outlet like the WaPo). I was actually a little surprised the WaPo ran the thing -- 'though their editorial board has been consistently pro war and proBush.

Columnists and contributors do not automatically represent the opinions of a paper's editorial board, although those columnists that are employees may have some constraints placed on them (like not being allowed to endorse candidates).

Networks, magazines and newspapers do their editorializing in editorials (or in their selection of opinion pieces) -- with the exception of FOX and any number of publications that are clearly identified as "political," for instance, the "National Review" or "The Nation."

The Bush administration enjoyed what has been the most supplicant press in recent memory. The fact that all the news is bad for Bush these days is because there is precious little positve news on this administration (and on Republicans in general) to report -- except for the stuff that they put out themselves.

The right has been pushing this "liberal media" horse hockey for years and it is simply not true -- but it does allow them to explain away all bad news as "attacks by the liberal media."

Get a life -- or at least some new talking points.

Well said Salvelinus. I think often we don't want to get into the whole situation, and actually give it validity. Honestly, I'm ashamed that pro bush people literally choose to shoot the messanger, and actually take the position that what they are saying isn't actually happening, its just the people who are telling you, because apparently they aren't subject to the constraints of typical public life, and are immune from any backlash for unprofessional behavior. Also, apparently, their is little to no control over specific reporters to the point where their own agenda saturates what they report. My main question would be "Why would ALL reporters be liberal when so many of the media company owners are conservative? How do they keep their jobs? Is it too hard to put words together for conservatives to do it? How did this "MSM" organize and where do they meet? After years of making fun of liberals claiming the "vast right wing conspiracy" don't you feel stupid claiming a "vast left wing conspiracy"? Especially when you control the entirety of the elected government? Does any logic ever matter?

Salv

And you know this how? My buddies in Iraq say the coverage is absolute crap when they return to the states. These are guys there TODAY and say it's not balanced.

Your argument is that there is nothing but bad news to report and that is why it is reported.

Poppycock.

Steve

Only liberals defend the media which should be clue one for you.

It has nothing to do with "organized effort" as you like to put it. It has to do with the fact that close to 80% of them self admit to being liberal and so they view things through a liberal lens.

This isn't that hard, but apparently for liberals it is hard to understand....wonder why.

It's not that it's hard to understand. It's that they flat-out won't admit it. The schools of journalism have been cranking out liberals and liberal philosophy for decades. The indoctrination that occurs does have an effect, once the graduates make it into the marketplace.

And how or why is it that because the "vast right wing conspiracy" allegedly "controls the government," a premise which I'm not willing to cede, that somehow that is supposed to carry influence over the press, which is privately owned and controlled, and even by the leftists' own admission, "independent of" the government???

The lack of logic in the liberal argument on this subject is escaping me...

"So I guess the soldiers protecting our nation from terrorists by fighting them overseas rather than here, are right wing nutjobs? Very telling view of the real opinion of those who say they support our troops, just not the war." - Patrick

Please stop hiding behind the "sanctity" of the troops for once. Now, everybody agrees - *everybody* - that those are some very brave young men & women fighting over there. And we all hope they return home alive, and in one piece. I don't doubt their honor, their courage, & their loyalty to this country. And I really don't doubt their intentions, either - some of them think, as Patrick has parroted directly from Bush's mouth, that they are "fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here." Frankly, I just don't agree with them.

And if a soldier wants to blog about how this war is the right thing to do, that we're over there to "liberate" the Iraqi people, that they're protetcing us from evil, etc. - if that's what they want to blog about, then fine. That's their right. And it's my right to disagree with them. Is it not possible to actually *disagree* with somebody's point of view, even if it is (gasp!) a soldier? You all (Patrick, Warrior, Dbog) act as if a soldier's opinions of the war (so long as they are PRO-war, obviously) are absolute. They are not. And neither are mine - hence the point of argument.

And if it's the "nut job" part that has really got your panties all bunched up, I say - get over it. This is B4B for crying out loud - haven't you read Keefer's posts? Kook, moonbat, etc. What - you guys can dish it out, but you can't take it? Once again, the hypocrisy of the right wingers shines thru brilliantly.

Dbog says, "And especially don't offer him an alternative source of information that might cause him to re-examine the fundamentals behind his so-called "rationale" for what passes as thought process."

Right, Dbog, because B4B isn't an "alternative source for information." I mean, it's just so liberal! And that's all the information I seek out, right? Do you even realize what you say while you're saying it? And how you contradict yourself within your own statements?

As for the "frequency of my posts," well, I'm sorry I can't sit in front of my computer all day waiting for the next B4B update, like yourself, at the ready to chime in with some witty remarks.

The point is - the media IS biased, at some degree or another, from both sides. Get over it. And so as Salve said, get a life, or get some new talking points.

Maf

You can disagree with a soldier all you want, but when you value the opinion of a journalist sitting in New York, or Ted Kennedy who has never been to Iraq yet calls it a Quagmire, or even a journlist there who sits in the greenzone over the very opinions of a guy or gal in the service and there every day on the front lines.....when you disagree with that very soldier because of pure ideology and not on the facts..

well you're damn right some of us are going to come down on you. If the soldier is lying, then that's one thing. But when you guys completely disregard what these men and women are saying and they say it all of the time in the press but are ignored by the press and the left....yeah that screams B.S!

You have made up your mind on things because of ideology and nothing more.

We could find 100's of acres of WMD tomorrow and you guys would scream too late or not enough or whatever. Doesn't matter to you guys, you have no ability to reason because your opinions are set in stone.

Large hypothalamus gland or something...just hardwired at birth I guess, I don't know how else to explain you guys.

Warriornation:

Cheers from "the vast right wing of mind-numbed Bushbots!" LOL!!

Seriously, though, I couldn't agree with you more.

Maf53 has a valid point about one thing. Speaking for myself, I am a "keyboard warrior," inasmuch as I haven't been out there fighting the "real" fight. But it's equally important, here on the home front, that we wage the battle of ideas to the best of our abilities to complement the "real warriors" out in the trenches and burms across the globe. The left understands how important our role is, because they triumphed in the 1960s when they subverted the efforts of our military fighting in Vietnam, here on the battleground on the home front.

So does the jihad media. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Vietnam-era and were politically astute enough to see how things went down, recognize today that the same modus operandi is being followed by the political left. It is therefore, imperative that the "keyboard warriors" do our duty to back up the troops by not allowing the ideological rug to be pulled out from under them (and us).

Keep on countering the arguments coming from the likes of Maf53 and his ilk. You are a powerful voice of reason in countering the irrational hatred displayed by the leftists among us.

They can ridicule or discount our role all they like, but secretly, they understand the strategic value of the keyboard battles being fought. Why else would they spend so much time posting their ill-conceived and overtly anti-American thoughts here on a blogsite dedicated to supporting the President and his policies...?

"All that that evil needs to succeed is that good men remain silent..."

That's why we must continue in our efforts to support our President and Commander-In-Chief by putting forth our thoughts in the marketplace of ideas...

Warriornation:

Cheers from "the vast right wing of mind-numbed Bushbots!" LOL!!

Seriously, though, I couldn't agree with you more.

Maf53 has a valid point about one thing. Speaking for myself, I am a "keyboard warrior," inasmuch as I haven't been out there fighting the "real" fight. But it's equally important, here on the home front, that we wage the battle of ideas to the best of our abilities to complement the "real warriors" out in the trenches and burms across the globe. The left understands how important our role is, because they triumphed in the 1960s when they subverted the efforts of our military fighting in Vietnam, here on the battleground on the home front.

So does the jihad media. Those of us who are old enough to remember the Vietnam-era and were politically astute enough to see how things went down, recognize today that the same modus operandi is being followed by the political left. It is therefore, imperative that the "keyboard warriors" do our duty to back up the troops by not allowing the ideological rug to be pulled out from under them (and us).

Keep on countering the arguments coming from the likes of Maf53 and his ilk. You are a powerful voice of reason in countering the irrational hatred displayed by the leftists among us.

They can ridicule or discount our role all they like, but secretly, they understand the strategic value of the keyboard battles being fought. Why else would they spend so much time posting their ill-conceived and overtly anti-American thoughts here on a blogsite dedicated to supporting the President and his policies...?

"All that that evil needs to succeed is that good men remain silent..."

That's why we must continue in our efforts to support our President and Commander-In-Chief by putting forth our thoughts in the marketplace of ideas...