A few days ago Rudi gets mad at Kerry and accuses him of dissing the American troops and not giving them the support they deserve. You can read this type of story on the drudge report and/or worldnet daily. Jump over to buzzflash and/or the New York Times and you will read the story of how a few days after this incident Giuliani blames the troops that were stationed near the explosives for their sudden disappearance. You will not read this on the drudge report and/or worldnet daily. To get the full picture of what is actually happening you need to read both sides. In reality Kerry did not diss the troops and Giuliani placed the blame squarely on the troops, but you would never know this unless you opened yourself up to all sides. This exact same thing happens when liberals are wrong and conservatives are right.
Jonathan, you can save yourself some time and hear both sides by watching Fox News Channel. :-) What you are saying was the real story was actually just another liberal spin on the issue.
I heard both sides of this particular disagreement on a Fox News program called, Hannity and Colmes. Alan Colmes argues the liberal view and Sean Hannity argues the conservative view. The show comes on week nights at 9:00 pm EST. In my opinion, this particular disagreement you bring up was interesting because it is partly caused by some liberals not being able to "connect the dots." Colmes argued exactly what you are arguing here, that the real accusation against the troops originated with Giuliani. I think he misunderstood what was happening in this situation, just as I think you have failed to comprehend the real picture here.
The liberal slant here is to try and make it appear that conservatives confused what Giuliani said with what Kerry actually said. In other words, they were reacting to rumor and hearsay rather than to what Kerry said. This is not true. What was really happening here was that conservatives were "connecting dots" (perceiving necessary logical inferences) which the liberals were not seeing. It seems quite obvious to many conservatives that criticizing Bush for a foul-up in Iraq is actually a criticism of the American troops. Why? Because Bush does not micro-manage the war from Washington. He has generals which make decisions, and this filters down ulimate to the troops who carry out the war. Confiscating weapons was a particularly important job that we know was ordered by Bush to be done. Therefore, it seems very intuitive to many of us conservatives that when someone criticizes Bush for not succeeding in the safeguarding of a particular cache of explosives, he also is criticizing the Military. In this particular case, it would be impossible to criticize Bush for this alledged mistake and not criticize the Military. It would be like trying to blame a parent for his child playing hooky from school, while at the same time trying to praise the truant child as a great and responsible student. Ascribing blame to Giuliani for the criticism of the troops appears to most conservatives as a debate tactic to create more of a smoke screen concerning the issue. To us, it is very clear that to blame the commander-in-chief is to blame the troops themselves.
Many within the military felt the same way, and as they themselves investigated what happened, it was found that this entire story was fabricated, much like the Rathergate story. After having played the story for a few days, Kerry and the democrats removed references of the story from their websites.
Peace be with you. David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
