Comments Posted By Thom
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 12 Comments
ABOUT MY DECISION TO LEAVE THE RIGHT
RE: The one where Obama saved your tail by stopping the global meltdown George Bush skipped town on.
Richard, poor Richard, do you mean Barney Frank still has you in a state of confusion about who built the house of cards that collapsed? I feel sorry for you but America shouldn't have to pay for your continued state of gullibility so we will throw the insane-spending Democrats out in 2010.
Comment Posted By Thom On 18.12.2009 @ 21:15
A RESPONSE TO CRITICS OF MY LAST POST
Enlightened
Well, since you won't answer my questions, I guess you may as well go chew on something.
Oh, and how touching - you're just working to protect the unsuspecting public. How safe they must feel.
And nothing - nothing - about your credentials. Enightened - are you always this easy?
Holdfast:
No blogger has done? You're joking, right?
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 17:09
Yes, Arabs eat baked boys. Jews too.
God.
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 16:29
Enlightened
I'd be interested to know your reading, writing, and comprehension credentials.
And nothing to say about blood libel?
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 16:28
Enlightened
Wrong. You parroted exactly what Yon said, but you're both wrong. Here's what he wrote in the first post to mention the "baked boys":
"At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?†Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. *And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.*"
This could to people without a grasp of the language seem picky, but Yon works in words. He exactly backs up the veracity by the language he uses. He writes "And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family" and thereby takes the words out of Wallach's mouth and states it as fact. If you dont' understand that - it's your problem. Taking language out of someone's mouth is exactly how reporters confirm parts of their stories. If he had added an "he said" to finish it - that would at least have followed those very basic standards of reporting.
But it still wouldn't have been okay. Serious reporting would not have touched that claim. Not in a million years. It is blood libel. Anybody with any sense of fair repoorting, and Yon claims to have that, would have known that.
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 16:12
Enlightened
You'd be a lot more believable about the RW blogs if something like Michael Yon's "Al Qaeada bakes boys and feeds them to their families!!!" story was treated with the same disdain. Even Yon backtracked. But rather than go after Yon - RW blogs spread the story around.
WTF?
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 15:50
Another commenter brings up another false reason for the importance of the story: where it wasd published. How many times does it have to be said: The TNR supported the war, and the surge, and treated the Left with the same contempt that the RW blogosphere has.
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 15:48
There's so much I could say about Bryan's post. Just a few:
It’s up to the rest of us to protect that honor, keep its value high and keep the traditions of the service worthy of honor.
Given what we know about the horrors of the rape and murder story, and other stories, how is going after the comparatively paltry claims of Beauchamp "protecting the honor" of the military? Really, how? It seems more like a diversion. Y'know? And the sheer volume of text given to the subject certainly did make it seem like it was of vital importance to the RW blogosphere.
And his entire premise relies on a smear - that we on the Left don't respect members of the military. The response to that has been made.
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 15:42
BLOGS MISSING THE REAL STORY AS USUAL
Neo
The WH and the Pentagon put out the first reports about Lynch "fighting until she was out of bullets." There was susequent hyping by the press, but good God, don't give the Pentagon a pass. They waited weeks to refute the hero story officially - just like with Tillman, only uglier becauser they lied to his family - and the WaPo was one of the papers questioning the story before they came clean.
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 17:46
Rick
Shouldn't the question be, rather than *has* the Left damaged morale (a question I'd pose differently), *was the Left correct* to question the legitimacy of the war in the first place.
It seems even you'd say "Yes" to that.
Comment Posted By Thom On 7.08.2007 @ 14:41
