Are they really the snivelling little cowards that they appear to be?
Are they really this afraid of the truth?
Will they swing by Wal-Mart this afternoon to pick up more magnetic ribbons for their car as a true sign of their deep concern and commitment to the troops?
Will any of them have the spine to address the issues brought up in this link?
http://www.theittlist.com/site/ittlist/ind/3872/
NAH, IT DIDN'T THINK SO.
2007-03-01 04:37:03 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
P.S. Sorry that I linked to a secondary source. HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE LINK!
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/TNSreedinspect070227/
2007-03-01 04:41:52 · update #1
Is THE AIR FORCE TIMES legitimate enough for you Cons?
2007-03-01 04:42:32 · update #2
The vet hospitals have always been some of the sorriest facilities around. This isn't a Bush problem, its called "bureaucracy". whenever I hear the Dem's pushing for more Government control of my health care, I visit my local Vet. to remind me of how it will be if they ever succeed in foisting their sinister plans on us all.
2007-03-01 04:55:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Oh please spare me. We're not afraid of no Liberals, they just never have anything substantial or that makes an ounce of coherent common sense to waste our time on. The pathetic article you refer to is nothing but a desperate grasp by Liberals at painting yet again the administration in a negative light. The article is what it is, vets are not being allowed to talk to blabber mouth media, so what?? You obviously know nothing about the military, and military secrets. If the Liberal drive by media would stop for 1 minute and think before they blabbed all over the globe every move we make or intend to make, maybe more of their missions would be successful and a lot fewer deaths would be on the tally. There are your real murders. Each time they reveal a national security secret we are all placed in danger. Learn to keep your pie hole shut because every time a Liberal opens their big mouth, they weaken the nation. Go back to sleep, come back when you have something substantial.
2007-03-01 12:55:29 · answer #2 · answered by Sane 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
What "harassment"? Anyway, the Army is now doing something about it, because it was the Army's screw-up to begin with. Not Bush, not Republicans, the Army. For those of us that have served, it is not all that surprising a thing from a bureaucracy. Sad, tragic even, but not surprising.
As for talking with media, it's not something the military likes to happen without heavy involvement with the PR guys. Never has been.
2007-03-01 12:56:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
what is a con, a convict? Get real as if it is a party issue. I'm willing to bet in any event that most employees of the government institution where this is happening is most likely union, are democrats anyway.
2007-03-01 12:45:50 · answer #4 · answered by Jedi 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I'd remind you that as a military persons (which these soldiers still are), they would not be allowed to go to the media to talk about their favorite CDs without their COs' permission. Their rights are not being violated by limiting their media access -- they are still under contract to the military. When their contracts expire, they can get bullhorns and vent their concerns on the sidewalk outside the White House if they want.
So now your question is. . . . . ?
2007-03-01 12:44:43 · answer #5 · answered by Who Knew? 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
This link is questionable, the author of that story didn't even post their name :) And all of the other stories are anti-Bush, so don't you think your wonderful little piece of evidence is just a little biased?
2007-03-01 12:52:18 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Arcticchick and others seem to have missed that your link is to the Air Force Times.
I look forward to hearing what they say the problems with that particular media outlet are....
Isn't that the same leftist rag that said that Donald Rumsfeld had to go?
2007-03-01 12:46:52 · answer #7 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Why don't YOU give us a few facts instead of positng a questionable link. A little less snotty attitude might get you a reasonable reply. Or maybe that's not what you want anyhow is it, troll.
2007-03-01 12:42:46 · answer #8 · answered by John H 6 · 7⤊ 4⤋
Thanks, but as soon as I seen it was a Liberal blog, I clicked off of it.
Why aren't Liberals answering questions about the ACLU President being caught with kid porn?
2007-03-01 19:39:07 · answer #9 · answered by BAARAAACK 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The sooner Bush's presidency is over, the better. These idiots are still capable of even more disastrous screw-ups.
2007-03-01 12:45:35 · answer #10 · answered by Truth 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋