What a loser.

Leftist turd.

But he'll take "their" protection and "their" loss of lives

PEOPLE: This is a Liberal

They do not value other's lives

Life in general has no value to them

They are valueless souls without right and wrong

These people are BAD to all of us - God is watching

. I must remember as one journalist advised, “write in your notepad every day ‘I am not one of them.’”

No, you're not. You're an elitist, America-hating POS who isn't fit to clean the boots of the men you're embedded with.

this man is like most 'journalists'--egomaniacal dipshits. They care nothing about the 'truth' but only the headline!

I guess you prefer the "Der Sturmer" and "Pravda" models of reporting, eh Charles?

Well, I prefer bloggers who aren't shrill shrills for particular Presidential candidates myself. But I'm not getting my way, and you shouldn't either.

‘I am not one of them.’”

No, you most certainly are not.

If he's still embeded then military needs to make him the first person through every door they open.

KICK. HIM. OUT!!!

Can someone explain to me again why embededs are a good idea?!? I'm just not seein' it these days. We'd get better info if they set up a guy in each unit with a blog. Heck - milblogs are pretty much where I'm getting all my info now...

THE MILITARY should NOT protect commercial (non-goverment) journalists

The Journalists should have to fend for themselves

The first time I saw him on TV, I thought, he looks like a tool of the ISM.

Is Kevin Sites Peter Arnett's new pseudonym?

Hemingway once called critics the "lice on literature." This man is the lice on liberty, a parasite on patriotism.

Remove all these embedded bastards. Would you want someone in your face asking tough questions while you were doing your civilian job, let alone fight a war as a soldier?

We've got things to get done and these guys are going to get more killed with their questions. Tell this a**hole to pick up a gun and shoot something instead of crying about the enemy while we're trying to win a war.

Uncle Jack

I know the position they are in, the dread they feel to be bound and awash in the indecipherable language of your captors, to feel your mouth turn as dry as the desert that surrounds you, to wonder if this will be the hour of your death --

He thinks he's Ernest Hemingwog.

“write in your notepad every day ‘I am not one of them.’”

Its a reminder you can NEVER measure up to them, you POS.

Support the Troops, spit on a "journalist"

Hahahahah-It is shills not shrills....

I am not a military or American cheerleader

Don't worry - if you're ever so accused, the case will be dismissed for lack of evidence.

Gordon,

I see as usual you attempt to change the subject.

Care to comment on Kevin Sites' own words?

No, men like Sites "are not one of them" -- never could be, never will be. Those honorable men who are fighting for the freedom of the country and for protection of Americans from terrorism have courage, honor, integrity....and men like Sites can only wish inwardly that they did have something like that in their core, but they don't. As a result, they know it, hate themselves and what America stands for.

If a gunman stands in front of Sites and draws down on him it would be "one of them" who stands between Sites' own life and death.

I would rather NOT have embedded journalists in a war.

#6 Gordon

I'd settle for balanced reporting. What we're getting from the media looks perilously close to propaganda.

But I'm not getting my way, and you shouldn't either.

Now, where is that crying baby photo??.........

I am not a military or American cheerleader, not a mouthpiece signed on to some institutional agenda whether I believe in it or not

Save it for someone who gives a shit, you prick.

You certainly are an opportunist on the order of a john kerry, you are a comrade of the terrorists, your agenda is to smear, just as john kerry, the men and women that let you shoot your fucking mouth off.

You are a nothing, people like you make jacques chirac look 'decent'.

... to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens.

And here's the problem in a "nut"shell. This is the same vacuous idea as the people who say that "dissent is the essence of America" and then go out with a sign saying "We support our troops - when they kill their officers."

Madness. And a complete misunderstanding of the nature and meaning of "questioning" and "honest dissent".

"I am not one of them."

Not an American?
 

Why are they allowed to be the enemy among us? Are we obligated to embed this type of person?
Throw him out.

Well, LGF'ers, Charles has decided to use his favorite method for attacking news stories inconvenient to his blinkered world view - smear the messenger.

And on cue, #15 Lizardoid American Infidel suggests obliquely that Sites should be killed.

Shameful.

16-green Mamba- Kevin Sites parrots the end of a prayer to the Virgin Mary learned during my parochial grammar school days: '...now, and at the hour of our death. Amen"

Nope, he is not one of us, he is one of our enemies.

Please heal the PC brainwashing, use the word ENEMY as much as you can, it cleans thoughts and reflections from the mud created by forty years of subversive propaganda.

Gordon:

Have you opened your own blog yet? Last time I checked, the MSM was doing a fine job of providing their own reality in Iraq (and the rest of the world) in the same way that Pravda distorted reality, Walter Duranty distorted reality, Dan Rather invented his own reality, and this Sites character imposes his own meme on reality.

Sites can and should be critical of US institutions when there are problems, but this is not the case here. In a warzone where terrorists and insurgents routinely use deception in order to lull US soldiers into inaction, resulting in US casualties, a Marine who believed that one such insurgent/terrorist was faking injury was prudent and correct to take the action necessary to eliminate that threat.

Heck, Sites' own health and safety depends on the actions of those Marines to eliminate the threats. Had that terrorist been booby trapped, yet allowed to live, it is conceivable that we'd be hearing about Sites, not for this video, but for his death in a combat zone.

"I am not one of them.’”

Duhh..ya think.

Kevin, go home to your bed and cover your head.

Even asshats sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

A two year trip to North Korea will cure him.

Somebody call central command and have this head case taken away.

This is what happens when you have these reporters along with the troops. This sucks. The whole situation sucks.

Thank god that enough people seem to be rallying around this marine.

I still hate the french.

Would you want someone in your face asking tough questions while you were doing your civilian job, let alone fight a war as a soldier?

An excellent point.
 

I must remember as one journalist advised, “write in your notepad every day ‘I am not one of them.’”

The great WWII correspondent Ernie Pyle was most definitly "one of them". Sites is not worthy to be mentioned in the same sentence.

Sites' blog gives us a startling insight into the ethics of the elites: "I am not one of them". Ernie Pyle is turning in his grave. Yes, you asshole, you ARE one of them. Except that you are an elitist prick as well.

I have additional insight to share with the embedded journalist: "What do you think would have become of you had a hidden grenade gone off near your crotch before the Marine did his duty by protecting you?"

Which "dominate powers and instituitions" are you speaking of, stupid shit? The same ones that you've thrived under and that are presently under active attack by belligerents? War, my boy, is not won by snide remarks and elitist attitudes. War is won when the enemy surrenders, usually because he can't take it any more. Don't give him aid nor comfort, and stop pretending to be neutral.

Dan Patterson

#20 Geepers: No, it is YOU and CHARLES who are trying to change the subject. The subject is the actions of the Marines in Fallujah (which, by the way, as I stated on the original thread, are not particular causes for major concern analogous to Abu Ghraib). The subject is NOT the counter-character assassination of the reporter who was there.

Well, actually it is the subject of this thread, but only because of Charles' bloody-mindedness.

20 Geepers
I've watched Nodrog attempt to derail and foul up almost every thread that he deigns to post to. His apparent hatred of the work that Charles is doing seems to be obsessive. I suppose that, as others have posted, he's just looking for attention.
It shouldn't be granted to him.
GAZE

#9 Lyana

KICK. HIM. OUT!!!

I agree. Oh, you weren't talking about the name-calling little house turd we haven't flushed yet, Gordon? I still agree, but the damage has been done.

If it wasn't for the Enemy MSM the jihadists wouldn't be able to recruit. Losing the propaganda battle is losing the war. When our defense planners will notice this is anybody's guess. Allowing live reporting from war is a huge mistake.

10 points for the word "meme".

#28 Gordon

Where does he say that?

G_D does not ugly, Sites will get his...

Can we help G_D in delivering justice???

Justice comes in many forms, like a jock strap full of chiggers perhaps.

As long as CNN is run by that lunatic Ted Turner, all of our protestations won't do a bit of good.

I've already been boycotting the MSM for several years now -- Don't know what else to do.

This guy needs to be shipped home to his pot-smoking friends.

Well, actually it is the subject of this thread, but only because of Charles' bloody-mindedness.

Welcome to GordonWorld, where pointing out obvious media bias = "bloody-mindedness".

Go back to sleep, Gordo.

I wish that Sites would get in trouble, call for help and have a Marine tell him "sorry, you're not one of us" and then leave him to the tender mercies of the jihadis.

Best reply is no reply to idiots with no logic or warped logic.
Gordon deserves nothing from here.
You cannot discuss with one who is predisposed to an opinion.

The reporter hinges on treason, his ramblings about the men that are actually guarding his safety in a war zone.

These embeds are mostly idiots.

They should be worried about Sites' comments! They clearly show that he's a cheerleader for the anti-war movement, and, therefore, cannot be a dispassionate reporter when embedded with the troops.

It also makes it clear that he's pushing his own agenda, not reporting the truth.

intresting.... I was watching A&E or the Hiostory Channel this morning. There was a piece about the role of combat journalists in WW2. Amazingly two of the interviewees were Andy Rooney and Walter Cronkite. They stated unequivocally about how they suppoeted Allied victory and engaged in self censorship to help bring about that end. All I could think about during the show was "what the hell changed since then, assholes??!!"

#28 Hard-on

Shameful.

Where are all your sentiments on our marines who have been killed, Gordon? All your sneering is so one sided, as to make it worthy of scrolling by.

When you sneer, at least have a point. Otherwise, you look like the one-sided, blinded-by-ideology zealot that you are.

Go join your fuck-buddy Kevin Sites.

#49
sorry PIMF :)

Is there any way in the future that we Lizardoids can know the names of yet-to-be embedded journalists so we can fact-check their asses and give the troups a heads up? If the government rightly needs to be responsible to the people shouldn't journalists be accountable to us as well?

Wretchard has a good analysis/case study of enemy combatants and the conduct of soldiers facing enemies who routinely abuse 'standards of warfare' including booby trapping bodies, care for prisoners, etc.

Um, I thought we all agreed to ignore Gordo until he resolved his "Daddy Issues."

(You know, I'm still not used to saying PRESIDENT HOWARD DEAN.)

#38 Gordon

Gordon, you magnificent idiot, if you will look at the title of this thread you will see that the topic is Kevin Sites: "Question the Dominant Powers". I.e., a truly blinkered, far-left asshole doing his best to ruin America's efforts in iraq masquerading as a journalist... Oh, and he loves keffiyehs.

inconvenient to his blinkered world view

"Get used to saying it: President John Kerry"

Gordon, you're not a prophet, you're a loss.

Gordon #38

Go to Oprah.

TO: All
RE: Seriously Folks...

...why does ANYBODY bother watching television any more?

CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS they're all worthless. And in some cases worse, e.g., RatherGate, ABC Monday Night Porno, etc.

You want to change them? Do something for yourself. Write up your complaint, affix it to your television set with a wooden stake through its top and drop the carcass on the door step of the most offensive television station affiliate's facility in your town.

Take digital photos of the dead television on the doorstep.

Send the photos and the text of your complaint to the network AND all the advertisers you can reach that you recall from that network.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Only when you get serious about disconnecting yourselves from the(ir) matrix, will you finally have any impact.

#52 American Infidel

I thought he was gone, perhaps I have wrong information...

perhaps I do -- but I can't imagine they've left his ideology completely behind. The other guy that ran it (can't remember his name) loved fellating Clinton.

Sites thinks he's objective because he is not "one" of those who fight for his country or take sides against islamofacism. He is one of those who will stand by when real evil invades, but carefully report any perceived failures of those who fight it.

Would it be too harsh to question his patriotism?

#41-Beagle

Naw - don't kick him out - saves me the time of seeing what the LLL blogs are ranting about.

He wants attention. Don't give him any and he will go away on his own.

#41 Beagle

I repeat what I said yesterday to Beverly : your words are holy:

Losing the propaganda battle is losing the war

The subversives have learned this lesson one century ago and since then they have used schools, universities, newspapers, radios and televisions here and all over the world to spread confusion and hate for the Free world.

The media ARE the enemy because they omit or amplify the information in a way that is INTENDED to wound our Country.

Their supposed "criticism" is in reality BLIND OBEDIENCE to the orders of the subversive HQs.

I love the embeds. Empirical data rocks. But Sites is flagrantly seeking advancement within the MSM. I think the Marines should fall back and leave Sites on point on the next sortie. He'll miss the cover man badly at that point.

What's so wrong with being an American "cheerleader"? We have all the respect in the world for Iraqi "cheerleaders" and Tibetan "cheerleaders" but we are supposed to feel guilty for being biased in favor of our own country? How about we all just respect ourselves, Americans included.

OT: Aaron (of Internet Haganah) will be on the Mike Gallagher show today, for anyone that subscribes to the stream or can get the show in your city.

The negative treatment of our soldiers started with Carter, was renewed with vigor during Reagan, and then Clinton messes it up again, many soldiers I spoke with had NO respect for THAT Prez...........
(don't ask, don't tell.......no replies to military attacks like 4 times, sitting on his arse in Bosnia, Mogadishu........etc etc.)

Now Bush and the military is back, albeit fighting an unconventional war which none of these reporters for the MSM seem to get.

Let that reporter take the 'point' next mission, that ought to change his view.

TO: gharst rhymi
RE: Sites AND...

" I think the Marines should fall back and leave Sites on point on the next sortie. He'll miss the cover man badly at that point." -- gharst rhymi

...Gordon. Together at last!

Regards,

Chuck(le)

To quote Glen Reynolds, Kevin Spite 'isn't anti-war, he's on the other side'.

He's a US citizen and receives all the benefits of being such, yet he doesn't leave which he is free to do. Why doesn't he leave? One can only assume because he believes he can do more damage to the US by staying.

Spite and all of the msm = self-anointed traitor moles

nodroG

If G-D delivering justice is good enough for the New York Times why not American Infidel?.......

It wouldn't surprise me if Kevin Sites wasn't "fragged" by a Marine now.

I wouldn't shed a tear...

Remember, this Marine didn't do anything more than what John Kerry did for his Silver Star.

Just saying. What media bias?

At the risk of being called a leftist or having cuss words thrown at me, Sites' "Manifesto" is a basic journalistic premise--NEUTRALITY. As hard as it is for us to think of an American journalist trying not to want the home team to win, a good journalist has to do that. They have to be absolutely neutral to the sides in a dispute and their only loyalty is to the truth. I don't see anything wrong with Sites' statement--as long as he remains true to it. Think what you want about them but American journalists and English journalists and French journalists and Chilean journalists and Saudi journalists should all follow this way of thinking--the only loyalty is to the truth. Unfortunately, we all know outfits like Al Jazeera don't come close to following this path. But do we want our networks to be as biased as Al Jazeera? I certainly hope not.

#61 thinkingmom 11/17/2004 08:39AM PST

Sites thinks he's objective because he is not "one" of those who fight for his country or take sides against islamofacism. He is one of those who will stand by when real evil invades, but carefully report any perceived failures of those who fight it.

Well put, thinkingmom. The definition of objectivity needs to be critically examined. Before we all die.

When I looked at Sites' photo, I was surprised that he was as young as he is. From the quote, I would have thought he was an old fart in his fifties like me. The reason? Let me translate his quote for you:

"I'm cool. I retain a Sixties mentality. I'm against the military-industrial complex, which is always wrong. My goal as a journalist is to expose it. Watergate is the template for my understanding of the role of journalism, and Vietnam is the template for my understanding of all US wars. I am out to be another Seymour Hersch re My Lai, although I'll do him one better by actually being there to watch the action. However, since I know that, living with these military guys day in and day out might tempt me to "go native" and actually start sympathizing with them, I promise to struggle against that possibility by regularly reminding myself of my true purpose."

How'd I do?

OT

Tornado warning in Quark's general direction until 10:45am

Heavy rain also likely!

BTW, second time in 3 days my comment box suddenly got bigger

(That sound slike something V the K will comment on)

Who was it said, 'It's not journalists that preserve Freedon, it's the soldiers fighting for THEIR Freedom to write'
paraphrasing but.......

Gordon:

I guess you prefer the "Der Sturmer" and "Pravda" models of reporting, eh Charles?

Actually, Gordon, that model is what Charles is COMPLAINING ABOUT.

#30 lawhawk

Had that terrorist been booby trapped, yet allowed to live, it is conceivable that we'd be hearing about Sites, not for this video, but for his death in a combat zone.

No, Sites would have been outside of the blast or line of gunfire. He would now be pouring out crocodile tears for the brave soldier who was forced to give his life in Bush's illegal war -- while claiming to be "one of them".

looks like Kevin is ashamed to be an AMERICAN:

I give them a big smile and shake all of their hands, to be as disarming as possible. One young man, wearing a red kaffiyeh just glares at me, but then reluctantly takes my hand. Another named Mohamed speaks a little English. He asks me where we stay so I tell him in Baghdad since I don't want to say we live on the base. It's only a partial lie since our main bureau is in the capital. He asks me where I'm from and I say Ireland, another partial lie—since I carry an Irish as well U.S. passport.

or is he afraid to to tell them he's an American?

Either way, what a seed.

The comment "I'm not one of them" is _supposed_ to mean that Journalists do not take sides. You can't be "Fair and Balanced" if you take sides.

The question is whether we want impartial reporting and if it is even possible.

"I'm not one of them" is what reporters are supposed to say when they, for example, traveled with Kerry during his campaign. It is what almost ever poster here wanted the MSM _not to be_...not to be a DNC Operative and to report the facts because we all felt that the MSM _were_ One of Them.

QM

67 the keeper

The negative treatment of our soldiers started with Carter

YOU REALLY NEED TO READ MORE HISTORY --NOW--

BWAAAHHHHHHHHHaAAAAAAAaa

Carter.....BAWAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaa

Gordo has a lot of unresolved issues with his father. Because of their poor relationship, Gordo seeks out Charles as a surrogate-father, constantly seeking Charles's approval while at the same time admonishing him, blaming Charles for the shortcomings in his own upbringing. Which is why Gordo never comments on the thread topic, but vents his frustrated juvenile rage at the closest thing to a real father he's ever had.

Sad and Pathetic, really.

#72 Dr Mike

Excellent point, that!

#73
Does neutrality include fighting without the lowlife tactics they are using, whilst STILL staying neutral?!
When I see cheaters, I give them no mercy, why cannot this writer?
His 'home' team requires that he cheerlead, whether he is a writer or not.
As in WWII, it is up to the press to give nothing to the enemy, or is that too much for youthful stinking liberal tree-hugger peaceniks?

You make no sense, neutrality only occurs in peacetime.

OT

Ramallah CSI or Palestinians Head to Paris to Probe Arafat's Death

But uncertainty surrounded the cause of Arafat's death because French law prevents doctors releasing details without permission from his wife Souha, who has maintained a veil of secrecy.

"The conditions surrounding the death of President Yasser Arafat raises questions," Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie's office said in a statement.

Palestinian leaders have dismissed speculation among ordinary Palestinians that Arafat was poisoned by Israel, which has also denied any involvement. No evidence has been provided to back the allegation of poisoning.

France's Le Monde newspaper quoted doctors on Wednesday as saying Arafat, 75, a longtime symbol of Palestinian nationalism, suffered from an unusual blood disease and a liver problem.

Rawhi Fattouh, Arafat's interim successor as president, told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah: "A delegation will go to France to obtain clarifications on the medical report on what caused the death of our martyr leader Yasser Arafat."

45 Occasional Reader

mindedness

Is this even a word?......

or

Is it a nodroGenism?.......

#73 MikeL

NEUTRALITY is the name that subversives give to their own position every time that we are at war with powers that can destroy Freedom.

Looking for the truth has nothing to do with NEUTRALITY, has to do with moral wholeness.

How many times do these "neutral" journalists have explained to the general public that a fighter without dogtags and uniform can be SUMMARILY executed in compliance with the Geneva Convention ?

How many times do they report a fact extracting it from its context ?

How many times do they present to the general public the information about the world war that islam is waging in every continent against Freedom ?

73 MikeL

Sites' "Manifesto" is a basic journalistic premise--NEUTRALITY.

That's what it's supposed to be in theory but it doesn't work out that way in real life.
It's time to critically reexamine the notion of journalistic neutrality.

Dusty
I meant in the current 'realm' of politics, meaning when he backed down on our hostages, he opened the door to this stuff.
I have read lotsa history, just a general point there, you scholar you.
;)

I just hope there isn't an "accident" that happens to this f'n "reporter of trustworthy news"

#81 Quilly Mammoth

The comment "I'm not one of them" is _supposed_ to mean that Journalists do not take sides. You can't be "Fair and Balanced" if you take sides.

The problem with Sites' "I'm not one of them" is that it really means "I'm on the other side".

The military should take the hard but necessary step of kicking out the embeds. Many of them are traitors and it simply is not worth the effort to pick out the few good ones from the majority of anti-American douchebags.

71 Kevin P.

Fragging implies taking out someone in the same unit, organization or side as you are.

As Sites tells us himself, he isn't one of them.

Thanks AI!
I knew it was Zell-buddy, still having coffee waking up.
LOL

*+*

#73 MikeL

High, Mike! How r things in the wurld of hi finanze, & billyunaires?

And huw iz D.J.'s "Wife"?

If Evil is one side and Good is on the other, there is no virtue in Neutrality.

CHARLES,

Kevin Sites is somehow associated with this woman who seems to hearald from the Beverly Hills/San Francisco Left coast (a frequent contributor to NRO). Maybe Mr. Sites himself is a left coast resident or sympathizer:

BOING BOING

49 Beblebrox

intresting.... I was watching A&E or the Hiostory Channel this morning. There was a piece about the role of combat journalists in WW2. Amazingly two of the interviewees were Andy Rooney and Walter Cronkite. They stated unequivocally about how they suppoeted Allied victory and engaged in self censorship to help bring about that end. All I could think about during the show was "what the hell changed since then, assholes??!!"

Call me cynical, but the fact that Hitler had invaded their beloved Soviet Union might have helped.

Kevin Sites is not one of us, indeed, he is one of them.

not one of them...

hmmm.....in a combat zone...not one of them...when I was in a combat zone you had friendlies and unfriendlies. So if he is not one of the (friendly) then he must be an unfriendly!!!

OK MARINES! Smile for Kevin's camera. Show him the gunsight, then pull the trigger!

Then he really won't be one of them....the living

(one less enemy combatant!)

Did you catch the part in Site's blog where he compares US troops to the Saddam Fedayeen? Pathetic.

By the way, to cleanse the palette of Sites, and read something by a truly anti-idiotarian embed, read anything by Jonathan Foreman (who used to work with me, way back when).

This may be at least an indirect result of defense spending cuts. My first 8 years in the Air Force were spent as a photographer, and we were deployed to "document" military activities in the field. My specialty was as a still photographer, but there were also motion picture photographers deployed. Our products were often shared with the Public Affairs office, which provided them to press outlets.

Spending cuts resulted in a great number of photo-related facility closures and conversion of military personnel to civilian contractors, who didn't deploy to the extent that the military photogs had.

In a war situation, of course, it would certainly be preferrable to have military personnel covering the action than to rely on the loose cannon approach of embedded MSM pool people.

The public's "need to know" doesn't trump a soldier's right to security and freedom to do his job without having to look over his shoulder at the MSM.

As hard as it is for us to think of an American journalist trying not to want the home team to win, a good journalist has to do that.

Bull.

A "good journalist" -- if such a creature exists -- can tell the truth while still wanting his side to win. You can, for example, truthfully report that troops don't have the supplies they need, with the goal of them getting what they need.

Modern journalism doesn't do that. They MAKE UP reports that the troops don't have what they need, then try to make political points off of their fantasies. They push videos like this one, that show a single, isolated incident, and try to create the impression that it's the norm.

If "journalists" really don't want to be on one side or another, they should all move to Switzerland. So long as they want to claim protection from the US government (ie, my tax money), they should at least act like they're on our side.

I wonder if Mr. Sites would get the same media exposure, if the Marines would turn him over to the "freedom fighters." Doesn't fair and balanced reporting require that both perspectives be viewed? Yes, I think Mr. Sites would excellent candidate to be exchanged. Surely, the "freedom fighters" would enjoy having such a devoted journalist to their cause. Who knows, maybe he will convert to Islam.

Just thinking out loud.

#94 Kragar (proud to be kafir)

I know, but dead is dead. ;o)

#87
No one respects Sen. Miller more than I, but he's not the author of that quote. It's by a chaplain, Fr. Somebody (having a moment here). Lots of Protest Warriors put this on the back of their signs.....

#98 Andrew

Hmmm. . . could be.

Interesting, if he is.

Apparently Sites has not heard of 'friendly fire'.
:)

I wish he would..................really. Maybe just a graze near his ear from behind.......
The demoralization and propaganda that one vermin like him can create............send him home in the same plane as some bodybags and see if he still feels 'neutral'.

Idiot.

The Three American Traitors

BENEDICT ARNOLD
KEVIN SITES
JOHN KERRY

How about a song Benedict, Kevin and John?

#41 Beagle

*hangs head*
I know, I know - I forgot "the prayer".

Now - for the traitor Sites:
This whole thing has had me spitting mad. Can you just hear the seething if that body had been rigged and Sites had gotten killed? "They are't doing enough to protect, blah, blah, blah..."

I was ranting to my husband, and he suggested that maybe the embededs needed more "training" before they went along for the ride. I just stood there and stared at him for a minute.

These media whores remind me of prom weekend at my old high school. Someone always had to come back on Monday with the best story (arrested, drunk, scored, etc.). All these embedded hounds are doing is feathering their nests to become the darlings back home, with a cushy anchor spot, or their own show. Whatever happened to Peter Arnett?

104 Robert Crawford

Right on. One can report fairly and objectively, and still see that there is a side that executes a woman that had spent 30 years trying to feed the poor of Iraq, and a side that is trying to stop that.

Terrific, and on-topic quote from Lileks today:

For God’s sake, if Patton were alive today he’d be slapping civilians.

And here I thought we had flushed the johns......

Too bad he wasn't a target practice dummy.

#68 Chuckie-the-killer-doll:
Sorry, you're wrong again. :)

CHARLES,

XINI JARDIN is the producer of Kevin Sites blog. Check out her bio page:

BIO

I just got back from reading the Kevin Sites blog. All I can say is that perhaps it is a GIFT that Kevin is being so transparent in his anti-war stance.

The American public recognized the bias that the MSM had against George W Bush and reelected him as President. From what I am seeing in the media in the last few days, this story of the marine shooting the terrorist is gaining no substantial ground. The talking heads are starting to try to put it in context. Maybe they are listening to their audiences.

When the light is shown upon Kevin Sites, people can judge fairly his bias. He is gaining no sympathy from the middle, and the left fringe is becoming more irrelevant as each day passes.

#110
I would add Carter to that, his recent behavior and words I consider almost traitorous for an ex-prez.

Trying to jump on that Arafish funeral bandwagon was the last straw for me.
He has no support/respect for the majority opinion in this country.

What a bitter man..........

Traveller (#50)

Where are all your sentiments on our marines who have been killed, Gordon? All your sneering is so one sided, as to make it worthy of scrolling by.

I think gordon is actually Ted Rall posting in disguise.

We're on to you Ted...er...I mean... gordon.

#107
No, my mistake. The quote is by a Charles Province. It was used by Fr. O'Brien, of the USMC, at a Veteran's event, and then picked up by Sen Miller.

Proper attribution is tough in this day of insta-info...

Oh, and d*mn Woodward and Bernstein...

MikeL #73:

No, this guy isn't neutral. This is the quote: his goal is to "be skeptical; to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens."

Skepticism isn't neutrality, it is doubt and questioning. His goal isn't to be skeptical about just anything, either, it is to be be skeptical about the actions of "my nation," (i.e. the US). Notice the phrase, "dominant powers and institutions," also. It betrays the leftist mindset. The citizens are ignorant dupes, and he is out there protecting us from the actions of our dominating government, including the military. He isn't saying a think about neutrality here.

And, by the way, neutrality--if that indeed were what he was esposing--is not appropriate for a reporter embedded with our military as part of a worldwide war against an implacable and ruthless enemy out to destroy us.

I think the genesis of the problem is that this guy--and many other of my former companions, the liberals--don't see this war as part of the war against terrorism, which they narrowly define as a war against Al Qaeda (a war they think is basically "good"--at least, the least loony of them do). They define the war against Iraq as "bad," and, like Vietnam, which was also "bad," they see it as an incubator for journalistic glory, a la Sy Hersch and My Lai. They don't see the two wars as a combined global war against Islamofascism, which is what it really is, although for PC reasons the government hasn't been too eager to say so. Neutrality in that war is not an option, any more than it was in WWII. It would have been an obscenity for a WWII US reporter to have been neutral, and it would be an obscenity here.

LMAO@h-town!
Nice one..........

I have often wondered too, definitely not Al Franken, maybe it's that O'Donnell creep from MSNBC?

*+*

It's a testament to the integrity and good character of the men and womeh of the Marines and the Army that Kevin Sites is alive and unharmed, protected by them.

NO OTHER military, from no other nation would protect a guy like him.

#6 Gordon:

I guess you prefer the "Der Sturmer" and "Pravda" models of reporting, eh Charles?

Uh, Gordon, isn't that exactly what Sites is promising at his blog? You are terminally obtuse.

GAZE

Since when is the Military obligated to aid and abet the for-profit media??

What ever happened to military censorship in combat areas? This has been the rule for covering ongoing operations since time immemorial, and as we can see, for very good reason.

The surest way to let the hippie Captain Queegs of the MSM relive thier "great cheese incident" of 1968 (Vietnam) is to continue to allow this snarky self-interested "journalism" to infest the body politic with its snide, second-guessing and puusy-pink moral -equivocating and phony "objectivity."

Military commanders throughout history have considered "journalists" spies, parasites or worse. The modern MSM has morphed into something far worse. It is actually an enemy propaganda arm which is now "embedded" with our troops.

Does anyone else see the insanity of this? Have we all been blinded by the creeping leftism that has brought us to this pass?

You want to question the "dominant powers" Sites? Why not begin with the ones that sign your paycheck asshole?

Coming down arbitrarily "in-the middle" between good and evil IS NOT objectivity, it's a compromise with evil and moral equivalence at its most COWARDLY. Sites is a traitor and a danger to the troops he's "reporting" on.

He should be shipped out of there to a safe "journalist holding pen." Fragging is too good for these reporter-shitbags.

#63 Poitiers-Lepanto

your words are holy

Thanks! Now I can move on to my rightful position as God-King! MUHAHAHAHAHA...Cough. That would be a great quote for my blog, taken wholly out of context of course. ;-)

I agree with what rosh said just below us (#66). Everyone has a cheerleader in the media except our troops. It's a travesty. Many of our media aspire to al-Jazeera standards, or exceed them.

I agree with you.

The subversives have learned this lesson one century ago and since then they have used schools, universities, newspapers, radios and televisions here and all over the world to spread confusion and hate for the Free world.

Communist propaganda is a gift that keeps on giving. But for three percentage points, we almost elected one president.

Can anyone name an embedded reporter with actual combat experience other than Col Oliver North?

Gordon...

Charles HAS done a lot. He's helped smear egg on Dan Rather's face. He's helped expose the MSM's intentions and he's elevated the status of weblogs as a reliable source of truth. You've done nothing besides making a name for yourself as being contrary.

You remind me of American Muslims who fight the very source of their well being and want to destroy that which has given them so much.

same blog, some 10 paragraphs above, relates this telling incident:

Near the end of the war [so, Mission Accomplished? -ed.] my CNN team and I had been in the very same position. But we were captives of the men American forces now hunt down -- Saddam's Fedayeen militia. We had pushed too hard to be the first journalists into Tikrit, the last major city not fallen to coalition forces. Thirty kilometers from our prize, at a checkpoint near a village called Amulbedi, we are forced from our vehicles at gunpoint and told to lie face down on the road. Their leader, a middle-aged man wearing a red head scarf called a kaffiyeh and a dirty trench coat, looks at me and says in Arabic, "This one is surely an American spy."

Then he lowers the barrel of his AK-47 and fires a shot on the asphalt between my legs. I am frozen in place. My colleagues are kicked and punched while my arms are bound tightly behind my back.

My translator, a Kurd from Sulamaniyah named Tofiq looks at me and says,

"Today is the day that surely we will die."

But it is Tofiq who will save us -- goading a tribal chieftain to intervene with the Fedayeen, telling him that if we are harmed coalition forces will turn Almubedi into rubble.

We are eventually released, but have lost one of our trucks, most of our gear and all of our money; thousands in U.S. dollars that were supposed to help buy us out of binds like this one. Instead it is words, Tofiq's words that have set us free.

Yeah, that and the very credible prospect of Uncle Sam avenging yer death, asswipe. Carp, whine and undermine...but continue to hide behind Uncle Sam's skirts. Sound familiar?

I bet if those soldiers were to READ that idiot's daily writings, ya think they might leave him open to fire more?

food for thought, because if they WERE aware of his position...........he'd be gone.

I still think Spiro Agnew described the condition most succinctly:

Effete Intellectual Snobs

andrew2 (#98),

She runs his blog.

From a previous thread by LarryDarryl&Darryl....good enough to repost....wish I had the whole wav file!

"We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

our gal sal

It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC (often incorrectly attributed to Charles M. Province)
-- Author: - Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

Scapbook Organization

Has Sites ever published any pro-US military stories?

Am I the only one who has had enough of Gordon's anti-American, anti-Jew, anti-LGF, hate-Charles Johnson, defense of islam, defense of terrorists, defense of liberals Bull Shit?

I know Charles and the rest of us LGF have tolerated and laughed at Gordon's moronic comments. But now every time he posts he is hell bent on slamming Charles and the LFG'ers.

I have had enough of his cowardly vomit. I ask that Gordon be banned.

Blackhorse

Thanks Dusty!
Great prose, all the above posts too.

Another reason to hate the Fedayeen;

And as we moved up on the final checkpoint, some men beckoned us to come a little bit closer. We looked at them. They didn't look like Peshmerga. And they stopped us. We told them that we were journalists, and they made us get out of the car and they told us we were American spies, started to get very angry with us, started to point their Kalashnikovs at us.

We said, "We're journalists. We're not here to do you any harm. We simply want to see what's going on in Tikrit."

At that point, they started to get very violent. They pointed their gun at me and said, "This one is certainly an American," and shot a round at my feet.

Link

Aim for the head!

Zell was quoting:

It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.

- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC (often incorrectly attributed to Charles M. Province)
-- Author: - Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC

I first heard this shortly after our troops were sent to Afghanistan

#73 MikeL:

I'm weighing in on this, so bear with me...

Yes, I agree that journalists should be reporting the truth. I can bet for every MSM saying "OH MY GOD, ARMEGEDDON HAS COME TO IRAQ! BRING THE U.S. TO THE WORLD COURT FOR WAR CRIMES!" there are some out there saying, "WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? WE JUST CLEANED THAT PLACE UP THREE MONTHS AGO AND EVERYTHING IS BACK TO NORMAL...LAY OFF THE KOOLAID, WILL YA?"

If Sites end result is to be neutral, then it doesn't require to be a pompous above-it-all jerk to do it. There's a difference between "I have no opinion, because it would be impolite to assume one upon others" versus "Do nothing, because any form of retaliation is wrong/illegal/unjust."

What I find wrong/illegal/unjust is that we actually have so-called objective reporters who feel they are arbiters of all thought, that their opinion is infalliable. In some cases, they can be proven wrong very easily; in others, it takes a lot of thought and legwork to do otherwise.

TO: gharst rhymi
RE: Wrong?

"Sorry, you're wrong again. :)" -- gharst rhymi

Hardly.

You ever walk point? In closed terrain, such as urbanized, you need a slack man with you on point.

I think Sites and Gordon would make a wonderful pair. They could hold each others' hands. They could be a tag team for turning over insurgent bodies.

Sooner or later, they'd come up with one covering an 'easter egg'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Once the pin is removed, Mr. Hand Grenade is no longer your friend.]

#111 Lyana

Can you just hear the seething if that body had been rigged and Sites had gotten killed?

That's a critical point. Whatever the facts, the story will be spun (especially the headline) to fit the anti-American propaganda outcome the journalists *spit* want. I've seen it time and again. The reporting in Najaf during the fight against Sadr's Madhi Army was particularly egregious.

By the way, all foreign reporters in Najaf during that fight were licensed to report by Sadr's religious court. I saved that story on my blog somewhere. Here it is.

In its heyday, the court issued accreditation to foreign journalists. Women swathed in black squatted in a narrow alley outside the two-story, dust-covered tan building to ask about detained relatives.

Yes, the ENEMY licensed the reporting during the fight in Najaf. This is modern journalism *spit*.

What I hate most about the "question authority" idjits is that they tend to interpret that as "defy authority". I question authority all the time, and you know what? Sometimes the people in charge have it right. Automatically taking the contrary position does not make you an intellectual. It makes you a lazy person with an insufferable personality.

Another "journalist" who wants to "change the world"........

Put a bullet in him Sgt.

The truly sad part of this story to me - other than the grief this Marine is and will be taking - is that the damage has been done - Al JaDweebers broadcasts the story 24-7 and all over the mid east we are now officially "prisoner" shooters. What a ball-breaker in the morale department for the Marines.

I begin to feel I’ve betrayed the people that depend on me to be skeptical; to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens.

Let's recall when Zell Miller, in the GOP convention, stated, "it's not the reporter who defends freedom, it is the soldier."

Chris Matthews took this really hard during the post speech interview, obviously perturbed.

The question is, "Why?".

You see, reporters have a guilt complex because they know that when they see a bunch of men and women taking bullets for their freedom of speech, the journalistic profession is primarily one of navel-gazing and mental-masturbation. Instead of the action of many others, which is to honor the soldiers, the leftist takes the passive-aggressive stance of sneering at the soldiers.

Media darlings like to take the profoundly narcissistic position, unstated of course, that while soldiers are warriors for the powers-that-be, journalists are "warriors for truth". Thus they can paint themselves in the Joan-of-Arc light, as Christ dying for your right to know.

I've known for a long time that for many people, their politics stem not from logic and reason, but from deeply nurtured psychological motives. Maybe when Sites was in high school some jock kicked his prissy ass and then joined the military, so now Sites hates the military -- who knows?

At the same time, faith without deeds is empty, so in order to maintain the psychological game that validates their self-esteem, they need to impose their sneering politics as best as they can into the "truth", with the hope of compelling others to validate them as well.

The holy grail, then, is to get 48 million people to pat you on the back for being the holy martyr of some ersatz ego defense.

#138 Blackhorse

I'm afraid I've got to vote with you on banning Gordon.

I've actually enjoyed sparring with him, and reading the posts of others sparring with him, and he does say intelligent things from time to time, unlike most of the other trolls, who never say anything worth reading at all.

Lately, however, he's just been screaming abuse at Charles, and ranting about smear tactics, and our lack of sympathy with the Moslem world.

I hope he cleans up his act, so he can stick around. Otherwise---yeah, I vote for banning!

I scanned the blog and particularly that part of it.

There's nothing wrong with what he wrote there (other than being a bit pompous)... I don't get CNN so I have no idea whether the guy is any good at his job or not.

But anyway protestations that he's supposed to be detached and neutral are not declarations of war on western civilization.

It is strange to me that it is not so much pity that I feel while I am videotaping them, painting them green with the infrared light on my camera, but recognition. I know the position they are in, the dread they feel to be bound and awash in the indecipherable language of your captors, to feel your mouth turn as dry as the desert that surrounds you, to wonder if this will be the hour of your death -- or to wonder if the hours to come will make you wish it had been, to know that at this moment you are helpless and hopeless and that the question of whether you have any control over your own destiny has finally and irrefutably been answered.

Kick. Him. Out.

If this isn't propagandizing on behalf of the enemy, I don't know what is.

Not one of 'them", huh? So I guess that means there's no reason for the Marines to protect you, is there? And just how do the Marines depend on you? Stop having such a high opinion of yourself. You're worthless. You are more of a burden than a help to the Marines. This country needs the military. It does not need you.

I went to Site's Blog, registered, and tried to post. The message center is closed down. Ummm, wonder why?

I must remember as one journalist advised, “write in your notepad every day ‘I am not one of them.’”

I see I'm not the first to hone in on that quote - hi, everything this man says and does screams the above. Writing it down is strictly redundant.

It should be followed with "Note to self: I really suck."

Can anybody ever be truly "neutral". For a reporter to attempt to report from a "neutral" position is in itself proof that they are not "neutral". You can try to be objective, but attempting objectivity is not the same as actually being objective.

Believing in your own impartiality is a bias itself and will skew your views of any situation.

Perhaps a reporter could try and see a situation from multiple points of view in order in order find the "truth". I think that when reporters talk about be neutral this is what they mean. Trying to pass off this multiplicity of views as "objectivity" is dishonest.

Sites problem, and one evidenced by many here, is that he can't tell the difference between one side and the other.

Truth telling does NOT require "neutrality", it requires disinterest. ( for the linguistically challenged disinterest is not the same as uninterest)

A Judge is disinterested in a case, this does NOT mean he is neutral between the cop and the criminal.

Neutrality is the euphemism of the moral equivocators. Those that are incapable of telling the difference between a cop shooting an armed felon and an armed felon shooting a cop. To these sorts of people there is no difference here. Both are armed, both shot, both are morally equal.

As pointed out, when the MSM start detailing the truth about the Geneva Conventions and how they apply to the "freedom fighters" then you will see disinterested truth telling. Don't hold your breath.

Which network was it that forbade flag pins in the aftermath of 9/11 because they "betrayed" the reporters neutrality?

The American media should act like good home town sports reporters. They can cheer the home team on and grieve at the missed chances (see Red Sox) BUT STILL REPORT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HOME TEAM'S MISTAKES or the refs and umps screw ups and the cheating by the other team. They are not neutral, but, they can still tell the truth!

#127

What ever happened to military censorship in combat areas? This has been the rule for covering ongoing operations since time immemorial, and as we can see, for very good reason.

Great point!

Sure, it was kinda cool to "be there" as it were through the media via the imbeded journalists, but by the same token I couldn't help but think that it was dangerours as well.

There are some things that we, the civillian public, just shouldn't see. I have never believed that there should be no secrets when it comes to the safety and security of this country.

Frankly, there are things that go on behind the scenes every hour of the day and in every country that we, the citizens will NEVER hear about. We should be happy about this, because these are the things that we really don't want to know about.

This Kevin Sites guy is one of those who seek to destroy this country by spreading mis-information or spinning things to suit their agenda-- why people like Ted Turner or George Soros feel so guilty about the fortunes they have earned that they become communists is beyond me. I don't think I will ever understand it.

The best we can do as a free nation of thinking citizens is to turn off our televisions, or at least boycott those networks, and teach our children patriotism.

The hippies are a dying breed, thank God. My generation is making sure that the values this country was founded upon are taught to our children so that we can contunue to be the great country that we are.

TPP

151 Lewis

Uhm, it's called empathy. Now Sites wasn't showing a great sense of perspective in that paragraph, but I've never gotten the impression that news men are hired for their intelligence. Jesus, people get a grip!

I went to Site's Blog, registered, and tried to post. The message center is closed down. Ummm, wonder why?

You mean he's not letting people "be skeptical; to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation"?

"...to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens"...

This guy just described the role of "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" in a parlimentary system. And that is the problem with the media today, it's self-appointed mission to be a political force, against the government.

Our politicians aren't worth much, but we voted for them. Reporters are employees of private corporations. You can vote with your stock, but I don't think that's what Ben Franklin had in mind about the exercice of political power in a democracy.

That outlook would also explain why the media is constantly criticizing the US while barely mentioning the actions of the "resistance".

Hey, I don't think I'm some kind of genius for pointing all this stuff out. Didn't Spiro Agnew say something along those lines long ago?

These egotist's self-appointed mission to use thier power to manipulate opinions and affect policy is a travesty of the right to free speech.

The media is losing credibility fast. I wonder how they will try to control the Internet?

#100 Asylum Aleikum

Kevin Sites is not one of us, indeed, he is one of them.

Yep, and that will not help him one iota if he gets kidnapped by "one of them".

148 Globular Cluster

Guilt, no. They're just peeved at being upstaged.

Oh boo-freakin'-hoo. I'm crying crocadile (lizardoid) tears for this POS.

Just another opportunist trying to make a career on the backs of honest, hard-working, dedicated, red white and blue American fighting men. He'll get his 15 minutes of fame; and then with any luck he'll get his just desserts.

I'm afraid I don't understand the venom directed at Sites by Lizardoids. I'm a big LGF fan and I think even if the inconclusive video is taken at its worst it is still just a necessary and real part of war. More likely from the marine's perspective it was more clear.

But when I read the words cited in this post (and the paragraphs before and after in the blog) I take the context entirely differently. Yes, Keven Sites is a bit flakey. But the point he was expressing was that he had to make a conscious effort to not grow an attachment to the marines he is working with, and that this was very hard.

He obviously believes in some form of journalist ethics, and gets a hard time from other journalists for being an "embed" which most of them see as immoral. I personally don't believe it is immoral, in fact it is a major journalistic advance. And while I agree with some that it is time to revisit conventional journalist norms of "objectivity", Sites is just working with what's out there now.

The fault with this incident is farther up the food chain, with the MSM directors and editorialists, both big and small. Let's direct our efforts to them.

God, I'm getting the same feeling of hysteria here I got from the BDS blogs. Any second I'm going to find a post calling him the Sites-Hitler.

Get a grip. Attempts at neutrality in reporting is not a sign a treason.

Before we lynch Sites, we need a rope. While we're getting the rope, would it be possible to wait and see what becomes of this before we actually lynch him? I'm all for siding with our military and this inclides the poor guy that pulled the trigger. I personally think from what I've seen so far, he was justified. Let's keep our objectivity on this. Just as we want the MSM to TRY to be objective.

"The three rules of journalism: make it juicy, make it brief, make it up."

(can't remember where I got the above from)

TO: Lyana
RE: The Problem Is...

"Can you just hear the seething if that body had been rigged and Sites had gotten killed?" -- Lyana

...that the Marines would have been hurt too.

There are advantages and disadvantages to every situation. I still think Sites on point, with our without Gordon would be the best technique to deal with the situation.

Sites, killed by an insurgent would be lionized by the MSM as a 'martyr', the irony being that he was martyred by the people he was lionizing himself.

I'd see it as poetic.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

This 5th column turd also gives an account of soldiers looking for "insurgents" and going into the "wrong house," where two men were making a pot of tea. He makes it seem so awful for the poor men (only two, no women, no children-why were these 2 still in Fallujah, A-H?) to have had the nasty soldiers invade their tea party.

#158 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

So, you think it's okay to empathyze with the enemy?

This violates every goddamn rule of military psychology.

It's counterproductive to effective military operations.

In essence, this reporter is aiding the enemy.

Kick. Him. Out.

Or arrest him. Whatever.

But the point he was expressing was that he had to make a conscious effort to not grow an attachment to the marines he is working with ...

Why the hell not?!

He's just an anti-American asshole. I find it difficult to accept that in order to do his job effectively a journalist cannot have positive feelings for the men who are fighting and dying for his freedom (to be an asshole).

#28 Gordon,

You incurable infidelophobe. That is your sick and twisted interpretation of #15's comments. Nowhere does he advocate violence, let alone killing anyone. He advocates justice. Gordon, I call for your apology to #15 for intentionlly smearing him with unfounded accusations. I demand this now!

My personal rendition of justice would be for the Marines to arrange for Mr. Sites to be embedded as a reporter in a Jihadi unit for six months or until that engagement is earlier terminated, whichever comes first. Mr. Sites is "one of them" so I have no doubt he'd be quite comfortable with his new assignment and would be warmly received by his new comrades.

#172

Yes, then maybe he could critique the insurgent's decapitation technique...

To claim that there is no such thing as objectivity in some sense plays into the hands of the post-modernist, moral relativist ideology that fuels the leftist's journalistic zeal.

The problem is not merely reporting the truth, the problem is which truth do you report. Maybe the marine, unlikely as it seems, committed some sort of crime. Suppose the camera accurately captured it. The question remains, why report this one incident only and not report the thousands of honorable things marines do every day in Iraq? Why not report the family which was saved from gangs of armed thugs, or the prisoner of Saddaam who is now free?

#149 TalkinKamel

Lately, however, he's just been screaming abuse at Charles, and ranting about smear tactics, and our lack of sympathy with the Moslem world.

TalkinKamel, That's my point. In the past, Gordon seemed quite harmless. But I have noticed the increase of attacks on Charles lately by Gordon. They are getting more disrespectful and hateful.

It really bothers me that Gordon supports and defends a reporter who has blood on his hands due to his participation of propaganda resulting in the killing of our soldiers. I can only conclude that Gordon is gleeful over the death of American soldiers.

I feel it is time for Gordon to go.

#14 Roark

It is a journalist's JOB to ask the tough questions.

#170 Lewis 11/17/2004 09:32AM PST

So, you think it's okay to empathyze with the enemy?

Last I checked, empathy wasn't a crime.

A little empathy is a requirement for clear thought, you know. You can't do ANYTHING very well if you don't understand the point of view of the people you deal with, enemies or no.

Kevin, my son,

Why must you keep writing down "not one of them"? Is your heart trying to tell you something your indoctrinated brain won't let you realize..........Kevin - remember, go back to Journalism school.........the professors who sucked your common sense from your soul....... it's in there Kevin.....your heart and soul......... break free from LLL..........

God, these LLL exorcism's are tough...... it's probably too late anyway. Kevin, you sorry ass fudder mucker....come around here and we'll knock some sense in you, if you don't get killed first........asshole

Journalism seems to be a profession for idealists. Not all of them are capable of, or willing to practice, rigorous logic. Some people seem to feel that just being idealistic makes them better people that the masses, but I would question that as well.
Face it, who controls the information has authority. By not taking Sites at his word we are questioning authority (cue Circle Jerks soundtrack). He should be proud of us.
/I partied with the Circle Jerks once...

Ah. Moral relativism, the bane of modern (west) thinking. The problem is the media has admitted to abandoning even trying to be objective.

There's no way we can be objective, so we won't try. That opens the way for POS like Rather to plat politics.

#177 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

I wish more hawks understood what you just said.

Kevin Sites Email: kevin@kevinsites.net

Joshua not a hamster (#50):

You write, "protestations that he's supposed to be detached and neutral are not declarations of war on western civilization."

Please understand that neutrality in a war against western civilization is tantamount to complicity in that war.

But Sikes goes beyond neutrality. He doesn't even say his goal is to be "neutral," he says it is to be "skeptical" of our government. In focusing on this one incident, he is giving aid and comfort (and propaganda galore) to the enemy. Actions have consequences, and these are the consequences of his.

It is for me, a strangely omniscient view of both the occupier and the occupied. In a way it is debilitating. I empathize with each, but sense no convictions for either, nodding with understanding at the explanation from both sides.

Good Lord. Listen to this guy. It is for me, a strangely omniscient view of both the occupier and the occupied. So you're God, huh? Well, typical LLL viewpoint.

In a way it is debilitating. Yeah, morally debilitating. When you are the center of the universe, it can be hard to see things very clearly.

I empathize with each, but sense no convictions for either, nodding with understanding at the explanation from both sides. Yo, dude, bit of advice: side with the guys who would take a bullet for you --the US Marines-- even though they probably think you are the scum of the earth by now.

What a blubbering, equivocating, self-absorbed Moron.

#83 Furious J

Regarding Gordon: You hit the nail on the head. He would benefit more from professional therapy than the amateur help offered on LGF.

Gordon, really you are wasting your own and others time here at LGF. That in itself validates Furious J 's comments. Get some help. Explain your obsession with the non sequitur

A

Joshua -

Empathy will get you every time. It is arrogance to think that you can possibly understand what is going on in anyone's else head because you think you "know" the whole picture.

How about this. How do you tell if the man who is fighting to kill you is from Iraq? What if he is from Al-Queda? What if he is a sociopath, or a psychopath who gets his kicks from killing and or beheading people? Too late, by the time you have tried to figure in empathy along with surviving a hostile encounter, you are dead, baby.

Con men and swindlers love those "empathic" people. They are the easiest marks.

Whoops--in post #183 I was referring to Joshua-not-a-hamster's post #150, not #50.

Haste. Makes. Waste.

#4 Furious J

Well put. My anger at this #$%^& knows no bounds.

TO: Joshua (not a hamster)
RE: Empathy?

"A little empathy is a requirement for clear thought, you know. You can't do ANYTHING very well if you don't understand the point of view of the people you deal with, enemies or no." -- Joshua

Empathy is not necessary. Understanding IS essential.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated. -- Sun Tzu, the Art of War]

#177 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

#170 Lewis 11/17/2004 09:32AM PST

So, you think it's okay to empathyze with the enemy?

Last I checked, empathy wasn't a crime.

You're not a very honest person, are you?

If you own Time Warner stock, or Viacom (parent company of CBS) stock, SELL IT.

Don't buy the products of companies that advertise on CBS and CNN. Write to those companies and tell them that you won't be their customer if their advertising dollars contiue to support biased war and political news coverage.

#183 blogaddict

Journalists should always be sceptical.

Look, I'm not saying that Sites is right in what he aired, only that what I read off of his blog is unobjectionable.

For all you making excuses for Kevin, Kevin seems to feel the need to everyday write down "I'm not one of them"

What he isn't doing is writing down "I need to be objective".

Big difference.

Kevin decided it more important to "not be one of them" than be objective.

Stop pretending otherwise.

TO: Thom
RE: Joshua (not a hamster)

"You're not a very honest person, are you?" -- Thom

It's either that or he could be the sort of guy who "feels the pain" of the jihadi about to cut his head off with a dull knife.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. Too bad the jihadi cannot or will not recipricate.

190 Thom

You're not a very honest person, are you?

Thom, suck my dick.

Chuck, you should know me better than that by now. We've bumped into each other hundreds of times on various blogs...

165 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

Attempts at neutrality in reporting is not a sign a treason.

Neutrality is a luxury of conflict were distinctions between good and evil are not apparent......

there is NO neutrality available in this conflict....

Sites could have reported the incident without his underlying assumptions:

So in some ways, embedded in this unit, I begin to feel I’ve betrayed the people that depend on me to be skeptical; to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens.

If it is his belief that this brave marine was wrong or made a mistake he could say that with out the need of self serving macsinations about the political and military decisions of our nation or IT's actions.

One does not lead to the other.......

This is one situation involving one brave marine, who had been wounded, watched his brother marine die from a cadavor bomb that day, and who was tired beyond what most people understand that word to mean........

It is the SAME broad stroke painting of our military in general and national policy that the left engages in time and time again........

TO: Joshua (not a hamster) "Scholar"
RE: Very Scholastic....

"...suck my dick." -- Joshua (nah) 'Scholar'

...of you there.

Does he get extra credit?

Personally? I think he found his mark.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

#149 Kamel

I used to enjoy sparring with it. If you can call it that. He tried to call me a hypocrite based on a single post concerning judicial activism. When I held a consistent position he ignored my latter posts and never responded.

I'm in the middle of teaching a class so I don't have time to check but I was told the Marine has been charged with murder. Is that true?

#196 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

Ummm .... no thanks.

Now, maybe you can answer my question?

Lewis was asking about empathy with the enemy. In a dishonest maneuver intended to deflect his point, you launch into a speech about the virtues of empathy (full stop).

Trust me Kev. We would never mistake you for one of "them".

"They" are Americas finest. You are a piece of shit.

I've been reading about the Vietnam War lately, and how it was covered by the Press. Having just viewed Michael Moore's incredibly superficial (to be extremely charitable) account of this war, I have come to some conclusions.

The Vietnam war coverage, like the coverage of this war, usually does not exceed a Michael Mooronish level. It is clear the extraordinarily superficial/deliberately dishonest coverage of Vietnam ultimately caused that war to be "lost," notwithstanding the fact that the US decisively won every single battle. Incredibly, the TV footage of the North Vietnamese commandos attacking the US embassy in Saigon during the Tet Offensive was the turning point of the war. That it was given the credence to have that effect demonstrates the 2nd grade schoolchild level of the media's sophistication in matters of war. The Tet Offensive was an unmitigated disaster militarily for North Vietnam. The US media however turned it into a huge political victory for North Vietnam.

However, the media fastidiously and famously did NOT cover the genocidal aftermath of the US pullout in Vietnam. Nor has it covered the genocidal effect of the Oil for Fraud/UN scam, or compared the civilian casualty rate in Iraq prewar with post Iraqi Freedom.

Clearly it is much much lower since this "war" started.

Likewise, I have YET to see a news story comparing the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq with the Clinton Administration's policies. Whatever else Bush is, he is not an original thinker. Operation Iraqi Freedom is, at best, merely the logical culmination of Clinton Administration policies. (Al Gore famously ran on a platform that demonstrated his wholehearted support of ousting Saddam Hussein. Is it credible that he would have changed that position after 9-11?)

Quite frankly, what passes as "news coverage" in this war, given its superficialty, woefull ignorance of military things in general, its complete inability to give this operation any sort of historical context; means that the "media" is only involved in the deliberate delivery of simplistic anti-American propoganda.

Compare the effect of media coverage on the outcome of the 1968 elections with the media coverage of Bush in this election and it is clear that only the advent of the internet and widespread citizen bloggery prevented another media generated human catastrophe.

It is unfortunate that we can't truly appreciate the things that didn't happen because of the actions that we take. What would have happened had we not invaded iraq. What would have happened without the patriot act. Liberals like to pretend that had the other choice been made life would be perfect. Yes we have problems that are a direct consequence of our choices. We will never know the problems of the choices we didn't make, though liberals will pretend there wouldn't have been any.

Conservative Life

It is my understanding that Sites allowed/caused the footage to be released as a pool "journalist" footage and it somehow bypassed the military reviewer. The footage went immediately to every participating news organization, including all the Al's.

He has violated the embargo rules of his contract, rules placed on every reporter/journalist embedded.

That's enough to get his embed status revoked. It should be enough to remove him from the theater.

It will certainly endear him to his fellow Marxists. But we will remember him as a traitor. Always.

Next thing you know the ACLU will be standing behind the cameraman, and the reporter.

This is what happens when the PC police micro-manage a war. Not only did we give Fallujah lots of warning to get out, we are coming in, the Marines are going house to house. Instead of just flattening the place with bombs. And what did they find, while our soldiers were getting killed? Torture chambers, bombs, ammo, blood soaked chambers, explosives.........

Wow, now I can really empathize with the Iraqis, Fallujah's just like Mayberry.

TO: Joshua (nah) Scholar
RE: Really?

"Chuck, you should know me better than that by now. We've bumped into each other hundreds of times on various blogs..." -- Joshua (nah) Scholar

I can't quite place the moniker. And I think I'd remember someone who uses as long a one as you are using here. But I've slept since then.

RE: So Which Is It?

Are you as Thom says? Or are you the kind of person who would understand their cutting your head off with a dull knife, just because you're an American? If you ARE an American...

Regards,

Chuck(le)

#196 Joshua

Hey! No soliciting sexual favors in here! I don't care how bad you want it!!!

Does anybody here know what the ROE are for protecting the embeds? For example, if an embed is cut off from the main body of forces, are rescue missions mounted, or is their autonomy such that they (embeds) may stray from the main body, should they choose to do something that foolish and dangerous? I'm just wondering.

Incidentally, I believe the embeds can do some good if they choose; however I think that most Western journalists make an unbelievable leap in logic to make the statements that they make. (If there's any interest in that -- and only if there's interest in that -- I'll bother everybody with that some more.)

And thank you, Gordon, for stridently and completely missing the point of this thread.

I don't know why the people here go nuts over a sceptical little reporter... Look what the guy wrote in his blog was center center center stuff, not lefty or paranoid at all.

I'm reading posters misunderstand sentence after sentence that the guy wrote in his blog - and go nuts...

But you know what, I don't think this is about what he wrote in his blog. You're all pissed off that he reported what he filmed.

I wonder, if he hadn't filmed Al Jazeeras video of the day, how many of you could have read the man's blog without blowing gaskets like KOS on a bad day?

... read these posts,... people are posting more angry than DUers the day Kerry conceded. Know what I'm saying? Reality is down towards the floor. Keep your feet down there.

Krazy-con-seller

you are the pig that posted this:

Our Troops Are Like The Terrorists

FOAD

#164 m410

m410, Fill your belly because propaganda loves people like you.

I'm afraid I don't understand the venom directed at Sites by Lizardoids.

If you don't understand then maybe you will get more understanding and love at kos.

But the point he was expressing was that he had to make a conscious effort to not grow an attachment to the marines he is working with, and that this was very hard.

Sites knew exactly what he was doing when he produced that tape. He knew it would greatly bring condemnation down on our American fighting men, and America, resulting in additional calls for the killing of our soldiers. A 4th grader can understand that.

He obviously believes in some form of journalist ethics

Ethics? Sure he does. Those ethics are to produce propaganda for the purpose of defeat. Same thing Dan Rather and CBS tried to do with President Bush.

I personally don't believe it is immoral

After reading your post, I seriously doubt that anything is immoral to you.

Chuck, the hamster thing is an LGF after registration joke. But I've seen your posts various places for maybe three years.

Anyway you passed my threshold for the day. GAZE, fool.

The MSM is also not covering these wonderful articles from Iraqi newspapers re: the US election results.

The daily Al-Sabah said the proximity of the total number of votes of the two candidates, meaning Bush and Kerry, would have caused a civil war in many countries in the world. It concluded: "What happened in America represents a civilized lesson in the practice of democracy as it shines upon the world in its progressive and civilized fashion." [2]

What if Kevin were kidnapped by Al Jarkawi?

Kevin: I know you will not kill me, Mr. Al Jarkawi, because I have demonstrated empathy for you and your cause.......

AL: Yes, we saw how you ratted out your Marine who was rightfully protecting himself and his comrades........

Kevin: No, no, he wasn't protecting anyone, he was killing one of your unarmed men.......

AL: We are never unarmed, Infidel, you have spoken ill of one of our men, we never quit, never, he died for Allah....

Kevin: But that's not true, he....

AL: Anything else before we slice off your head?

Kevin: I am not one of them, I understand your plight, I, please, please, I am not the enemy here........

AL: Like we care.......... Mumar, your turn, my arm is tired.

I'm a fairly newby poster and I can not express myself as well as everybody else on here, but I just can't for the life of me understand people who live in this great country and are willing to tear down our military. "Not one of them", what does that mean exactly? Not a soldier? Not an American? This whole thing just makes me sick. I am going to email that Sites guy and tell him he should be ashamed of himself for giving the terrorists propaganda to use against us. And I agree, get rid of the embeds! (Except Ollie North of course)

Maybe I missed it, but did Sites run his video past military censors first? Did they say it was ok to show it? Or should he be charged himself with bypassing military censorship/security?

Could it be the USMC wants the jihadies to know they will get capped if they are not in uniform?

TO: Joshua (nah) Scholar
RE: Well...

"But I've seen your posts various places for maybe three years." -- Joshua (nah) Scholar

....your style does remind me of someone over on Vox Popoli going under the name of "Runner", yesterday. He claimed to be a professor of theology. Personally, I think he's a fraud.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The belief that enhanced understanding will necessarily stir a nation or an organization to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions. -- Hacker's Law]

217 hoorayforusa

He meant that he's a reporter not a soldier or member of the administration. You know, that objectivity thing.

No actually he meant that he's the Sites-Hitler and wants to kill all the Jews. /SDS (Sites Derangement Syndrome)

"You're all pissed off that he reported what he filmed."

I am pissed off because his "report" carries absolutely no informational value. This is NOT a newsworthy event. This has happened in every single war in history, millions and millions of times. It was not reported in World War 1 or World War 2 or the Korean War. This kind of "advocacy" "reporting" started in Vietnam. It is propoganda in service of the enemy, nothing more nothing less.

Do you see why this incident, dishonestly and one-sidedly reported with absolutely no historical context is such a superficial monstrocity?

I noticed that the media very quickly after 9-11 quit broadcasting scenes from that horror, many of them stating that such disturbing scenes had no informational value.

The same is true here, even more so. There is no informational value in those scenes. There is nothing to debate. This is not newsworthy. There is no information there. What makes it into the news is a mere freakish fluke: A newsman happened to be there with a camera rolling.

Chuck, google
Joshua Scholar

You could try googling this site too. I've been pushing the WOT and pro Bush for a while now... But of course it never occurs to you that an LGF regular could ever stray from the party line?

Go wash your head in a bucket.

I think Hamsterboy should be the next Gordon, in the event that Gordon is banned.

Some time ago he defended NPR and now he is defending Sites, using primarily the same argument. Terri Gross is conservative, Sites is "center-center", yada, yada.

#126 EW1(SG)

terminally obtuse

May I borrow this?:-)

#223 Globular Cluster

I think Hamsterboy should be the next Gordon, in the event that Gordon is banned.

He's Richard Gere......

Joshua -

Where is your empathy for the Marine?

Maybe this POS was just practicing in case his unit fell under an ambush. While the terrorists kill the troops, he could be on his sh*t-stained haunches pleading, "Don't kill me! I'm not one of them! I'm not one of them!".

#165 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

God, I'm getting the same feeling of hysteria here I got from the BDS blogs. Any second I'm going to find a post calling him the Sites-Hitler.

Hysteria? You call Americans defending their soldiers hysteria? I'll save you some time from looking for a post that states sites as hitler. "Sites-Hitler". Now you can have something else to cry about.

BTW Joshua, how much time in the US Military have you served? What combat area were you assigned?

Get a grip. Attempts at neutrality in reporting is not a sign a treason.

Perhaps it is you Joshua, who should get a grip and start supporting our troops instead joining the MSM band wagon to kill and defeat American Soldiers.

#200 JT_ Last of the Moheebans

Moheeban, you have a point.

When Gordon began driving me round the bend, I'd usually channel my "friendly ghost", King Baldwin IV, and let him talk to Nodrog. Baldwin was just amusing himself, and really didn't care whether Nodrog ever answered him or not.

Others, however, have actually tried to engage Gordon in debate, and found themselves either ignored, or involved in some witless back-and-forth (you can hardly call it conversation), liberally larded with insults, where Nodrog constantly moves the goalposts, making rational discussion impossible.

I still vote for banning.

221 bigger diggler

You know what, I'm sure that the media is blowing this up in their usual anti war hysteria. And that pisses me off a little - but ther problem that pisses me off is not what they report, but that they DON'T understand the war on terror. I think it's their job to understand, and they don't know why we're in Iraq - they really don't.

MY POINT was that what the man wrote on his blog was just fine.

Just to chime in about the embedded reporters question -- I can't for the life of me understand why we allow them. If you were a Marine would you want want of these fairies to babysit when you have your buddies to look out for?

I guess the rationale is, "keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer", or better yet, "better to have them on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in."

Still, it accomplishes nothing, since the reporters either stab the military in the back or at best, nobody takes them seriously because they are viewed as "propaganda agents" working for the evil powers.

Under no circumstances should the military compromise a unit just to please the TV-dinner crowd.

226 SisterLeoMarie
#228 Blackhorse

People do a google search
site:littlegreenfootballs.com Joshua Scholar

I'm on your side, I just don't think the man's blog says a single wrong thing. It's allowable for a reporter to be sceptical and it's allowable for him to attempt to stay neutral.

Sites isn't the best in the world, but what he wrote on his blog didn't seem so bad either.

TO: Joshua Scholar
RE: Strays

"...it never occurs to you that an LGF regular could ever stray from the party line?" -- Joshua Scholar

No. It's not that. Rather, it's back to my original question, which I'm still waiting for an answer.

RE: Empathy

Could you empathize with someone who was about to cut off your head with a dull knife?

You'll notice that I do not 'empathize' with you. But I would like to 'unferstand' you. Asking simple questions is a way of doing that.

I'm still waiting on an answer to the question.

RE: Clear Heads

"Go wash your head in a bucket." -- Joshua Scholar

Already did that this morning, after the workout.

Maybe more strong coffee.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

231 Globular Cluster

I think we allowed embedded reporters because the press was MORE hostile and much more paranoid when they didn't know what a soldier's job really was. Now at least they have some grounding in reality.

Oh, for the days of Ernie Pyle......

#143: Sorry Chuckie, I misunderstood you-- i thought you were implying a liason between gor-don and myself. Not an affinity between gor-don and Sites. :)
BTW, Kevin is an known troll at Belmont Club.

I think we allowed embedded reporters because the press was MORE hostile and much more paranoid when they didn't know what a soldier's job really was. Now at least they have some grounding in reality.

Did anybody else here notice how much more hostile the press was before we allowed embedded reporters? I can't believe the difference. It is simply night and day.

Thousands of reels of WWII footage somehow never got watched, but now the press is grounded in reality. I think we should go one better and embed UN observers and Kerry supporters within the units. That way the security council will finally understand....

#233 Chuck Pelto

Ok Chuck, I'll let you demand an answer to one rhetorical question, but one's my limit. After that, the usual rules of civilty apply. Rhetorical questions are assumed to contain their own obvious answers, and browbeating your opponent is considered rude.

"Could you empathize with someone who was about to cut off your head with a dull knife?"

Answer: no.

The question assumed all kinds of bull about my attitude. But you know, I actually DO want my reporters to attempt to be objective. I think objectivity has gone out of style, but it turned out that partisan reporters are even more sloppy than "objective" ones.

New journalism didn't make the journalists any smarter.

He's Richard Gere......

Richard Gere is really Sean Penn in drag.

#196 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

Thom, suck my dick.

Joshua, (who disgraces the biblical name). You just proved to everyone what kind of person you really are.

If you are going to talk like that to Thom, then at least be a real man and give him your name and address.

It won't be long until you are banned from LGF.

gharst rhymi (#236),

BTW, Kevin is an known troll at Belmont Club.

Kevin Sites?

237 Globular Cluster

You'd do better comparing back 2 years or 15 years instead of 50.

THough you know, people keep turning up these NYTimes articles from 49 talking about how we've "lost the peace" in Europe etc. etc.

But anyway I DO remember that the press was more hostile before being embedded.

But I guess the improvement didn't last. I think the problem is that the Press doesn't understand the REASON for the war, and I think THAT'S what caught up with us, eventually.

Joshua, (who disgraces the biblical name). You just proved to everyone what kind of person you really are.

As Gordon's protege, he still needs some time to mature into a full-flowered irritant. He has yet to complete light-saber training so give him break.

TO: Joshua Scholar
RE: Answers

"Answer: no." -- Joshua Scholar regarding whether he'd emphatize with a jihadi about to cut off his head

Thanks.

"The question assumed all kinds of bull about my attitude." -- Joshua Scholar

Not really. I do believe you had mentioned how important empathy with other people, including one's enemies was. I disagree. Understanding one's enemies is important, indeed, essential.

RE: The Reporters

"But you know, I actually DO want my reporters to attempt to be objective." -- Joshua Scholar

I want them objective as well.

However, the impression I'm getting of Sites is that he is not being 'ojbective'. Rather, he is 'empathizing' with the enemy. And this will not make him 'objective'. I think it will make him 'sympathetic'. He certainly comes across that way at his web-site.

And, I suspect that he'd stop empathizing with them if he were about to have HIS head cut off, with a VERY dull knife, too.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

240 Blackhorse

You forgot to quote what Thom said. He called me a liar.

I'm ALWAYS honest in my discussions, no matter how painful it gets. It's the ignorant cheap shot that pissed me off.

I've been posting here a couple of years longer than you have.

Joshua -

I'm not referring to Site's blog. I am asking you, do you have any empathy for the Marine?

"ther problem that pisses me off is not what they report, but that they DON'T understand the war on terror. I think it's their job to understand, and they don't know why we're in Iraq - they really don't."

Oh, I disagree that they "don't understand the war on terror." I think they understand it all too well, which is why they are reacting, as per their historical usual selves - at least since the Vietnam war - with reflexive, instinctive anti-Americanism. The media always has, and always will side with nascent dictators as long as they are opposed to the US. They did in Iran. They did in Nicaragua. They did in Vietnam.

I know what kind of education they get in journalism school. I have a degree in journalism. I used to be a journalist.

I do not, for one instance, believe that reporter was so ignorant that he had no idea the effect broadcasting that non-newsworthy film clip completely out of historical context. He knew exactly what he was doing and his comments on his blog reflect that he was doing so out of an explicit ideological standpoint. It was done out of pure malice.

I noticed that there was absolutely no news coverage, video or otherwise, about the huge numbers of people standing in line to vote in Afghanistan. There is NEVER any news coverage showing all the roads being built there, all the buildings being built, all of the "reverse refugees" coming back to Afghanistan now that it is being a halfway decent place to live.

I predict cofidently soon after the elections in January, the media will utterly and completely cease coverage of events in Iraq, like turning off a faucet. What am I basing this on? I have history on my side: the utter and complete lack of any coverage, of any real analysis of the effect of the Oil for Fraud program on the mortality rates of Iraqi civilians compared with the rate in the war now.

The media ought to be ashamed of itself.

Joshua Scholar,

I think the problem is that the Press doesn't understand the REASON for the war, and I think THAT'S what caught up with us, eventually.

Do you think the press understood the REASON for the second world war?

Or do you think maybe, just maybe that the "Press" is just a little more interested in pushing their own agenda rather than being objective?

Aprill 22, 1942

#245 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

You forgot to quote what Thom said. He called me a liar.

LOL. You're doing it again ...

I did not call you a liar. I suggested that you are not an honest debater. A contention further supported by your mistaken (intentionally?) claim that I called you a liar.

I guess another possibility is that you don't read very carefully what people are actually saying, but that's not particularly commendable either ...

#144 Beagle

I hate spin. I know it's impossible to report anything without bias, but this need to turn everything around so it smears someone...

It's the difference between "Higher than average Hurricane season" and "More hurricanes because Bush wouldn't sign Kyoto treaty". It's not reporting, it's editorializing, and passing the editorial off as fact.

#168 Chuck Pelto

The Problem Is...
Marines would be hurt in either scenario.

Sites would not be lauded as a martyr, but mourned as yet another unnecessary casualty of our macho military. They would find some way claim that the Marines weren't doing their job.

TO: bigger diggler
RE: Ashamed

"The media ought to be ashamed of itself." -- bigger diggler

As should be anybody who is still watching them.

See my post at position #59.

Those of you still watching them have only yourselves to blame.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Television is educational. Anytime someone turns one on, I go read a good book. -- Groucho Marx]

Sorry, guys. You missed the ball on this one badly.

Did anyone even bother to read Sites' blog before jumping on the bandwagon? I did.

Charles does a great job and this is my first post becuase I normally agree with what he says and don't tend to chime in just to say "me too." But you are wrong to villify this guy, Charles.

He isn't perfect, but he isn't a liberal shill either.

If anyone cares, I expound upon that here.

[Link: confederateyankee.blogspot.com...]

246 SisterLeoMarie

Yes I do have empathy for the soldier. And I think in Site's place I might not have released the film. Because my first thought when I heard the radio report was, "maybe the soldier was just doing his job - and he may even be charged now" My second thought was "I don't like the idea that the press is deciding what risks the Marines should take" Third thought "What if the Marine really DID shoot some he should not have?"

Of course we don't know what happened - maybe Sites doesn't even have the choice of what to hold back, maybe that's someone else's decision.

You know, I haven't even seen this film. Did Sites have a voiceover or was it someone else? What did the guy say?

TO: Lyana
RE: Quibbles and Bits

"...but mourned as yet another unnecessary casualty of our macho military." -- Lyana

If you want to get into a p------ contest, go argue on something a bit more significant than the particular technique the MSM would use the death of Sites had that Marine turned over the jihadi to find a grenade under the body.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

#211 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

I'm reading posters misunderstand sentence after sentence that the guy wrote in his blog - and go nuts...

Yes Jushua, we are ALL wrong, and you are the righteous one who has complete understanding.

Just put your wonderful words (especially, "suck my d***") in a book and we will call it the religion of Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

I know islam will support it, and you will be blessed with many followers. Oh yes, Sites will be your disciple.

#252 Confederate Yankee

All you need to know about him is that picture of him wearing a keffiyeh. That sez it all.

249 Thom

You only wrote a single sentence. It read "You're not a very honest person, are you?"

I read that as a rhetorical flourish on a simple accusation "Liar."

".....and he seems much more like a later day Ernie Pyle trying to accurately explain life in a combat zone to his readers than a left-wing apologist bent on fabricating the news. "

Bullshit.

That film clip absolutely does NOT "explain" life in a combat zone. It is taken completely out of context. There is absolutely no historical comparison or analysis. There is no information there.

So when IS he going to produce a film that explains, in sufficient detail with more than the usual tedious superficial substitute for analysis, the historical context of that incident.

I'm waiting.

TO: Confederate Yankee
RE: Sites & Empathy & Marines

"He [Sites] isn't perfect, but he isn't a liberal shill either." -- Confederate Yankee

Did you happen to see any comments on his empathizing with the Marines as much as he does the jihadis?

I didn't. Admittedly, I did not read the whole thing. I got turned off by the time I got to the metaphor about sea anemonies.

If there are indications of his being as sympathetic to the Marines as he is to the jihadis, I'd appreciate your pointing them out to me.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I hope I won't piss anyone off, but, dear kevin has not been trained in combat operations, and is on the sidelines looking in, finally an incident took place that hit deep down within him, and he realized just what combat was, and he didn't like it.

1. He's a sissy.
2. He wasn't ready for it'
3.I've got to tell someone about this.

Someone posted somewhere that all embedded should be put through basic training before they are assigned to a combat unit, just so they understand what mindset the soldiers and marines are operating under, and given an explanation just what their boundaries are, if they can't abide by those DoD boundaries, then they are out. Just MHO!

Joshua nah, can you come down from your own ivory tower of "objectivity" about Sikes, and understand that the skepticism a reporter might need to display when talking to a city councilor about graft is not what is needed here.

Once again, Sikes himself has said that his skepticism is towards our own nation and institutions. This is not an OK stance for an embedded reporter in a war against Islamofascist enemies sworn to destroy us. Get it? Actions have consequences. Understand? The consequence of Mr. Sikes' little skeptical ego trip is to aid the enemy.

Do you think that reporters should have been skeptical in WWII, and should have reported every possible infraction of the letter of the law that our troops might have committed (remember that, in the present case, it's only "might have," and a pretty weak case at that) against an enemy of incredible vileness and dangerousness? Would you have had them nitpick our troops while allowing Goebbels to spread the word of how awful we were all around the globe, while said war was still going on?

Are you willfully obtuse, or just enjoying your ability to become the center of attention on this thread?

#217 hoorayforusa

I'm a fairly newby poster and I can not express myself as well as everybody else on here, but I just can't for the life of me understand people who live in this great country and are willing to tear down our military. "Not one of them", what does that mean exactly? Not a soldier? Not an American? This whole thing just makes me sick.

hoorayforsua, you expressed yourself just fine. Thank you for the post, and welcome to LGF.

Blackhorse

252 CY
if he's not a shill, then why hasn't he spoken out...on the record...condemning NBC's spin of his purported objective journalism?...

I'll tell you why. It's either

A) He sold out his objectivity and his moral fibre to the MSM and he knows it, and he's afraid to face the nation (pun?), or

B) you are mistaken and he actually is a closet anti-war, anti-military hippy, and to afraid to face the nation.

Either way, a detect a great degree of cowardice here. He's gone under the radar! Why haven't we heard from him? If my work was twisted into what NBC did I would be livid!!! Maybe he's not livid...maybe he's pleased. Or maybe he just isn't finished balancing his checkbook.

No Confederate yankee, the only mistake here my friend, is that you thought Sites was a man of good character, when the facts prove otherwise. In that case, it is you who have missed the ball, I'm sorry to say...

#257 Joshua (not a hamster) Scholar

{sigh}

That was in response to your speech on empathy (full stop) in reply to Lewis' question about empathizing with the enemy.

You employed an underhanded rhetorical trick. Call it "misdirection". The concept of "lying" is completely inapplicable in this situation since you weren't making deliberate mis-statements of fact, you were simply expressing your opinion.

You are free to "take it" any you want, but, logically speaking, there is only one correct way to "take it".

I think we(me included) sometimes jump to conclusions way to early at times. Joshua was putting in his 2 cents worth, just as we all do. I try to understand his point of view just as I try to understand everyone elses, trolls notwithstanding. This exchange usually, is very helpful in forming opinions and views. Trashing Joshua doesn't solve much. Now, before I incur some of this trashing, I don't always agree with him and that's why I debate him, instead of trashing him. Granted, that sucking comment didn't help your case dude. A little civility wouldn't hurt us either, if you still can't agree, at least agree to disagree. Same with Gordon, I agree little with his posts, but sometimes a different point of view helps solidify or liquify our positions on things.

Chuck Pelto

I'm not sure why I'm doing this, but what's your point? My point in that post was that I hate the fact that the media seems to be able to turn everything into a way to bash whatever they don't like at the moment.

#217 hoorayforusa,

I like you was skeptical about making my first post here as well, not having a degree or going to college, (my sons 1 has a degree, 2 is working on his), anyway I was accepted and have made good friends here, little advice, speak from your heart and you will never be wrong, if you are then you will be corrected, welcome to LGF.

#261 blogaddict

Q:Am I enjoying this?
A: no

Q: Do I think Sites strikes the right balance?
A: No

But I supported this war for lots of deep reasons. I think a reporter should support it because of all of those reasons (space too short to list them in any detail)...

And if he doesn't believe the war is a good idea, then
1. It's right for his reporting to reflect his honest thinking
2. If he's smart enough to recognize what the best arguements for the war are and attack them honestly - then that's all I ask. That he address the relevent issues.
3. If he can't or doesn't want to address (what I consider) the issues, then maybe he's too stupid to be reporting on this.

Q: Do I agree that reporters should support our troops.
A: In my lifetime I've seen reporters support wars that they obviously didn't understand at all, and I've seen reporters reject wars and policies that they obviously didn't understand at all. Neither is acceptable to me.

My opinion is that they should support our country by making sure that they have a deep and well thought out understanding of the issues and that they present these understandings honestly and without spin.

#258 bigger diggler said:
That film clip absolutely does NOT "explain" life in a combat zone. It is taken completely out of context. There is absolutely no historical comparison or analysis. There is no information there.

So when IS he going to produce a film that explains, in sufficient detail with more than the usual tedious superficial substitute for analysis, the historical context of that incident.

I'm waiting.

Good question.

Why don't you ask him?

I never said that these particular few seconds of video explained anything did I?

But if you actually read his web site, he does take great care to present images and text in a way to provide context, which beats the hell out of what most journalists do. There is your historical cmparison. There is your information. He leaves you to provide the analysis, if you can handle it.

Hey, I back the Marine's decision to shoot, and if you read my blog you'll see I've said it from the beginning. But Charles is wrong on this one. Sites was doing his job, and even gave some justification for the shooting in his original story by mention the booby-trapped body the had killed a Marine and wounded five others previously.

Not the kind of detail a biased-against-the-military liberal would have included in his report, is it?

To be fair to this reporter, now that I have finished venting, he is operating in a media that is by nature inherently superficial, sloppy, operates out of historical context, and dishonest. For instance, you can get much much further with an on-camera interview if you have an interesting face and haircut, charismatic voice inflection, and are well-practiced and trained with you facial expressions.

To say that this kind of media could ever "explain" combat is to be facetious, at best.

For instance, in Farenheit 9-11, Michael Moore made a great deal of fuss about all the black congressman who were vainly trying to get a hearing on supposed mass disenfranchisement of Florida blacks in 2000. Hilariously, Al Gore, of all people is up there refusing to hear their pleas withough a Senator who will endorse their request for a hearing. According to Moore, this demostrates how Bush hijacked the 2000 elections.

Does those shots explain the elaborate infrastructure of Senate rules? And why is Bush, of all people, savaged in this video, when he operates in a different Constitutional branch of government?

Similarly, TV news reporters know almost nothing about military tactics, the role of the Geneva convention, how strategic goals are effectuated by armed conflict. They are painfully ignorant about the abysmal history of Arab warmaking, and have no ability to explain why now Arabs resort to attacking unarmed female aid workers from their Mosque safe havens.

The media's coverage of Iraq would be laughable if it didn't have such deadly consequences.

for those of you who think that Sites is "just a poor objective reporter, trying to to his job" check out Charles latest post

NBC News now reports that Kevin Sites is accusing The marines of up to four unjustified killings:

Which one is it folks?? Is it the GREED of sensationalism and money?? Or is it the seethe of an anti-military closet liberal?? There is nothing to gain by kicking this dead horse (pardon the pun) unless you are Sites or NBC. It's either agenda or $$$$!!!

Sites is far from objective!!!

Do you think that if the "victim" had blown himself and the marines around him up, Sites would have been killed? Wounded? Would he complain that the marine didn't strike first in order to stop the suicide/homicide?

I think Sites is a complete jackass and this so called controversy is ridiculous.

If we'd had reporters like Sites in WWII I think we'd be speaking German or Japanese...because of course it wouldn't have been nice to flame throw the Japanese or carpet bomb the Germans.

#38 Gordon

paraphrasing, "Well, actually, I did change the subject, after I didn't change the subject." --sigh--