What a load of horse apples, Anglo.

.

Oh, and 3242.

Because he's targeting the people trying to bring the soldiers *HOME* rather than the ones, who through their lies, "stop-loss" and enlistment extensions sent them into the wrong country, undertrained, underequipped and poorly led to fight in an impossible situation with no exit strategy and no clear vision of when their mission will be accomplished.

.

The Bush Administration has gone out of its way, again and again, to hide the true cost of this debaqle, going so far as to prohibit photos of the anonymous "transfer tubes" which replaced Vietnam's body bags.

He claims the media trumpets the death toll (which is why I posted it above) instead of the true measure of "victory," the enemy body count.  Apparently he doesn't separate out the women and children killed "collaterally" from that count.  Every one of those innocent victims is a loss for our side. 

The entire notion of a "body count" is an obscene lie in any case.  What was the "body count" in Vietnam?   Who "won" that one?  What was the "body count" in Hitler vs. Russia?  Who won *THAT* one?

.

There are three levels of...oh, let's say "apples" to be discreet.

Chicken(apples) is the officious, paperwork-and-petty rules applesauce we all grumble about and laugh at.

Bull(apples) are people like Bush trying to tell us the economy is "great" and up is down and left is right.  It's an intent to deceive, like those  Internet personal ads in which everyone looks like Brad Pitt crossed with a horse's equipment.  But nobody believes it, so it's also laughed at.

The final level is horse(apples.)   Horse(apples) are bad bull(apples.)  Precisely because they are believed at first glance, and repeated by the mindless twits who pass for media stars in this day and age, they do true damage to the country and society.  And the sooner someone blows a whistle and yells "Horse(apples)" on encountering it, the better.

You guys know that it's only Horse Apples because it's an opinion counter to their own.

But then again, I guess a black guy can't think for himself and have his own opinion. He's only allowed to think liberal thoughts and believe what he's told, or it makes him somehow, less black. Right???

HOGWASH!

Hey NEO, or Pan, (oh, sorry, I guess it's "redkernhero" now) isn't this right about the time that you pull out your book of nasty names and use the name "Oreo"?

Anglo1, thanks for finding that video. I'm going to send it to my buddy who is returning to Afghanistan in two days. He will take great comfort in Bob Parks' presentation.

Annon 42

Here 'ya Go...............

http://africanamericanopini...

I was first introduced to Bob Parks by a couple of good friends. They both like him because he's very vocal and nationally heard. Their opinion is basically the same as his. Several of us were having a Beer and frying Fish in the back yard one evening and these two guys told the rest of us about him...........We didn't know he was black until we checked him out later. Incidentally, the guys that told us about him are black too........................................

They're also the ones that said black people aren't allowed to have their own thoughts. They're only allowed to think what the rest of the black community allows them to think. They both ask why they should be told what to think by people less educated that they are. Yes, they're my friends, and have been for 7 and 12 years.

Sage..what trash are you talking about?  You lost me.

Anglo..thanks for posting that..I sent it out to my mailing list.

I haven't seen the media reporting a running tally on enemy killed as they do for U.S. soldier deaths (not all of which died by enemy action, by the way). The media portrays the 3200 figure as if it were a wholesale slaughter. When compared to previous wars and considering that we have been fighting an unconventional war for the past four years against a cunning, ruthless, and determined enemy, our casualty rate has been remarkably low. Our current kill ratio is 20 to 1 over the enemy. This is no accident. It is due to the excellent leadership by the command staff and the skill and bravery of the soldiers in the field. The coalition forces take great pains to avoid colateral damage, which regretably is a consequence of war, and they are constantly improving the accuracy of  weapons to near surgical precision. Contrary to sagefever's assessment of Bob Parks' presentation, I do not regard it as trash but as a breath of fresh air and I would like to see it receive mass media exposure. It would be a good morale booster.

Annon 42

I love Bob, he is our quintessential modern day houseboy, we should have more like him. I hope he never hears about Colin Powell, Colin too was our boy but unfortunately we had to throw him under the bus when he got uppity.

I will recommend him to my friends this week end when we get together for a few beers and chitlings.

Bob like me understands collateral damage we kill these guy 20-1 ratio, their country doesn’t need them anyway we will take care of their women.

The surgical precision with which we kill these guys who think their country belongs to them is the envy of every backroom abortionist

These guys never learn, even when it comes from the mouths of good guys like our Bob, we are the best killing machine on earth, and we have the statistics to prove it, it is not a sin, God is always with us.

I find it amusing that it's TonyH who's fixated on the guy's skin color. 

.

The Pentagon specifically rejected using body counts as a metric for victory until it became clear that body counts were the *ONLY* positive thing they could point to.  That, and shellac'ed turkey on a platter.

.

No, Tony, it's horse apples because if Saddam *HAD* WMD's and moved them to Syria as this clown claims, the Bush Administration would've had photos--hell, movies--of the move.  The inrushing troops would've found support site after support site, laboratories, development centers, and the like.  There were none.  And you know *WHY* there were none?  Because Clinton's tactic worked--as he said--by doing everything necessary to keep him from getting WMD's.   One of those important steps--ignored by the Reagan and Bush I administrations--consisted in *NOT SELLING HIM ANY.*

.

Sometimes the simple solutions are the best...

Nancy, I accept your serious question.

.

We should never have gone into Iraq.  We *SHOULD* have gone into Afghanistan and finished the job there, with properly-equipped troops and firm goals.  I support our efforts in Afghanistan and decry the fact that Bush has abandoned them.  Maybe the natural gas finds there will attract his attention, the way the shiny Iraqi oil wells did five years ago.

"Why this person should have more media exposure instead of less is beyond me." Mattloch

Your post seems to advocate that Mr. Parks' is less worthy of being heard. This is very disappointing to read after you have written volumes bemoaning the fact that Sam Heath deleted your posts from his blogs. It is a very totalitarian stance to suggest that one viewpoint should have a monopoly over another. This smacks of censorship. I should think that you of all people would support diversity of opinion.

Annon 42

I would agree with him on that, Anonymous. Parks is simply carrying water for the Bush Administration.  Where is the opposing viewpoint?  Why should 99 percent of the "news media" smile and nod when Bush says silly things, when Cheney lies to the public, when Abu Gonzales scrambles to hide his misdeeds?  

You are right that one viewpoint should not carry the day--so why is it happening?  Thank Zeus for the Internets, where bushels of horseapples like these can be dissected and refuted. 

I invite Weathervane McCain to take that stroll. 

http://tinyurl.com/yrasx2

(Apologies for the headline of the piece.  I sanitized it for your protection, but suffice to say it contains the word "bull(apples)."  Sometimes, as I observe above,  you've got to call a spade a spade--instead of "a conservative of color.")

Just another commentator equating dissent with disloyalty.  These people like to keep up the illusion that democrats don't support the troops. 

The fact that he's former military and black would appear to lend substance and credibilty to his argument that democrats are undermining the "war effort".   What a crock.   Anyone, including blacks, can be WRONG!

Mattloch, you don't know me, yet you attack my morality and ethics? You attack one who is not your enemy.  Who's the @sshat now?  I expected better of you.

Annon 42

RF, is Mr. Parks a journalist or a commentator? As a commentator does he have to provide an opposing viewpoint other than what he has already provided as a juxtaposition to his viewpoint? I don't see where you get 99% of the media kowtowing to Pres. Bush. From my perspective it is just the opposite. By the way, thanks for the civil discourse. Personal attacks only diminish the messenger.

Annon 42

You're welcome.  I believe he's a "commentator."  Does *HE* have to provide an opposting viewpoint?  No.  Neither, since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, does any broadcast station carrying his "viewpoint."  (I presume he's on cable, where it's even worse.)

.

The American media have gone almost completely right-wing in the past 20 years, to the great detriment of the nation.     How many liberal voices are on the cable news networks? 

1.2. 

(Olbermann and colmes.)

"How many liberal voices are on the cable news networks?  ..  1.2.     (Olbermann and colmes.)"

You mean one liberal voice and one liberal peep, don't you?

Even the liberal voice of Olbermann is a pretty small bone, when you realize that Olbermann isn't very liberal in some of the ways that I am most liberal.

But I'll put up with, for the time being, his mild case of prudishness and sex-phobia, if that's what I must tolerate to enjoy that one voice on cable or TV that hits the Bush Administration and the GOP as hard as they need to be hit.

I rate colmes about one-fifth of a voice, since he's not even allowed to criticise Sean "I'm *REALLY* Not Gay" Hannity. 

RF, it seems to me that the media has gone predominantly left since the mid '70s. CNN, MSNBC, the networks news channels, not to mention Rosie O'Donnel's rants on The View. I suppose its a matter of perception. I didn't realize that liberals perceive the media as leaning to the right.

Mattloch, thanks for the explaination. I wasn't making an accusation or pasting you with "censorship" though, in retrospect, I can see how it may have seemed that way. I made an observation that the tone of your post seemed to be inconsistent  with what I perceived to be your views regarding diversity of opinion by your response to having your posts deleted by another blogger. My post was an opportunity for you to rehabilitate yourself and thus prove my observation wrong.

It is true that I have offered no counterpoint to your accusations because they are too general. It would be helpful if you would perhaps give examples of what you believe to be Mr. Parks' use of strawman arguments, logical fallacies, oversimplification, etc. instead of simply asserting that he has done these things.

Annon 42