Haha, what a complete moron. Who voted this guy in? You can be on neither side of the war, which is exactly what any news agency worth their salt is.
I guess this nicely shows the fundamental difference in mindset of those in favour of the war, and those critical of it... Hunter is a nice example that although most crap stays at the bottom of the brain pool, some of it manages to float to the top... where it can do some more damage.
I was reading from the wilds of Left Blogistan recently some comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, one of which was the administration blaming losing the war in SE Asia on media reports of the "secret" bombing of Cambodia and Laos. The more frightening part of the piece I was reading had to do with the Vietnam Vetrans memorial. Half of the names on the wall are those of service members who died after 1968 which is the yeah the administration realized Vietnam was a lost cause. Getting back to the article, this is especially worrisome when you realize how much of the media is owned by large corporations which could reasonably be said to be under Republican control.
No it doesn't. Wishing for unbiased news reporting telling the truth from both sides is not exlusive to those opposed to the war. This guy, however, is an idiot that will no doubt preach free speech so long as it is one sided propaganda.
I didn't say opposed, I said critical. You can support the war but still be critical of how it is being conducted. Critical examination of your actions ensures you do the best thing at all times. But I agree that I should have said: "of those unconditionally in favour of the war, and those who dare to critically examine it".
