News-Record.com

I hope few agree with this letter writer.

Me belief is the Pres' is naive and misguided, but genuinely sincere.

One gifted in mind reading, an idiot, a professional at studying and knowing and recognizing human emotion, or just more whine and cry by an appeaser? You decide.
My gut says an idiot that failed to read, see or hear the interview with the parents of this fine young Marine.

Right on Mr. Smith, you hit the marks dead on. It's a shame that there are so many blind Republicans following the President and his government in creating a country of financial, foriegn alliance and domestic ruin. There is a fine line between sincerity and ignorance. It's time for Bush to cut his losses and start making strides of salvaging something in this country before he leaves behind a total legacy of being a President that did far greater harm to this country than good.

A recruting tool for Al Qaeda if ever I saw one.

I can not belive even the GNR printed this letter. I wonder how the family of this brave man feels.

First of all in my opinion all politicians past and current have used moments like this as photo ops and for political purposes BUT saying that and as a critic of Bush I do believe the man does feel real sympathy for the families who have suffered and though I have not seen what the writer refers to I would still assume the tears to be geniune.

The President is not smart enough to "fake" tears, as that would require some ability. The underlying problem is that the President has no credibility. Because of that, letters like this come out in frustration. He yells "Terror, Terror, Terror" whenever he would suffer a drop in the polls. That has been noted by most Americans and therefore we pay little attention to the "President who cried wolf".

I suspect Mr. Produce is correct about the letter writer. President Bush has done the same thing hundreds of times out of the presence of cameras and reporters, unlike Bill Clinton who was actually caught on on camera faking tears over the death of Ron Brown. Bite your lip " Slick ".

How very sad to see someone with such hatred. Mr. Smith, I very much pity you.

GNR, your choosing to publish this letter shows me your paper is no better than fish wrap.

If Bush had any genuine sympathy for our troops, then he would get them out of Iraq. If Bush valued American lives, for that matter, he would never have sent our fine soldiers into a violent place where they clearly didn’t belong.

I completely agree with Andrew Smith. If this was meant to be a genuine time for Bush and Russoli families to “openly griev[e]…in a hallway away from cameras and politics and flags,” then why is it being reported? Also, I can’t remember the last time I read something so disgustingly melodramatic that it was almost certainly staged.

Regardless of the emotional factor of the “interview with the parents of this fine young Marine,” I have no doubt Bush was back to smirking, stuttering, and running this country into the ground within minutes of that interview’s end.

And Bunny, I see no hatred here. I see a man stating the facts.

I continue to be amazed by the spinelessness of the current anti-war cult. New lows in mindless adherence to liberal dogma.

Here's a tip: America was built on war. America would be little more than a loose collection of agrarian communities without war and power, and its use by the state to achieve policy.

We would be no more than a stagnant, isolationist people at the mercy of realpolitik without the use of power to maintain our position in the world.

How can anyone know the president's most inner emotions and cast judgment about his supposed hypocrisy?

I am so tired of anti-war rhetoric.

20,000 men died at Antietam in a matter of hours. I can see the current anti-war crowd running out in the middle of the first clash in the cornfield to tell the soldiers "enough. we have lost 2,000 men. go home." or telling McClellan at noon "you have lost 6,000 men in this morass. pull the troops out now."

We lost a similar number of dead (20,000) in a month's worth of fighting on Iwo Jima. I can see the current purveyors of the anti-war crowd after two weeks of cave to cave battle, running to Macarthur "how mindless you are. you have lost 8,000 troops in this morass. Pull the troops out now."

I spent a cold night recently at a high-school football game. I had on two fleeces, a heavy jacket, long johns and three pairs of socks. After the game my feet were numb. I could barely walk to the car. I thought of the men at Valley Forge, with no socks, no blankets, in the snow day after day. For what? For liberty, for freedom, to oppose tyranny.

Now we have these gutless Americans who can't fathom sacrifice on any level for an ideal.

You have the right to oppose the war. I have the right to say enough. You cast dispersion on the history of American sacrifice with your spineless rhetoric.

Mr. Smith writes:
"Bush's visit with the Russoli family was timed for the president's convenience and as a shot in his battle to win back the increasingly skeptical American populace." and "....should by now be clearly seen for the crocodile tears they are."

Muran writes: "And Bunny, I see no hatred here. I see a man stating the facts."

Until the Mr. Smith or Muran can PROVE these statements, I stand by my original post.

The real master of crocodile tears:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/TEARS/tears.html

Thanks Hugh,

I made reference to Slick's phony grief act after the still unsolved Ron Brown murder above but you done good..found it on video. Yes Clinton is the master of phony. President Bush is deeply sincere and these cranks need to cleanse their hearts, minds and souls of this bitter hatred for a decent man. Yeah,I kmow, this will really piss 'em off.

jeffery_sykes, my hat is off to you sir. Left up to the anti-war protesters to run the country,we would be another France. A socialist country that is incapable of defending itself.

What really concerns me is if this crowd ever convinces enough people to put them in the majority, our nation is doomed. It will not fail because of the deficit spending or the 'rape and pillage' by corporate america,or the neoCONS that the liberals love to hate,it will be brought down by the appeasers who will give it away to the dictator who has enough balls to walk in and take it. (Jimmie Carter comes to mind)

Here is a bit of an interview with a former north vietnam army col. on how we lost the war in vietnam. I have posted it in another thread a couple of days ago,but it bears repeating here,imo. It is very telling of what the spineless anti-war crowd can do.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

I know they will howl about how Iraq has no bearing on vietnam and this is irrelevant here,but it is they who are whining about "iraqnam".

I do not know whether the supposed tears shed by Bush are "fake." And honestly, I could care less. The context I see in this LTE author's letter is that he feels this "step" to be shallow in comparison to what is happening with the loss of life.

And honestly, would Bush have dropped in to see the Russouli's father & stepmother had he not been in that part of the world? I mean honestly, it was a media opportunity. Anyone that denys that is not in touch with the political system and the political numbers game. Bush needs to gain support at home for this currently unfavorable military fiasco.

And for a Viet Nam veteran to say that Iraqnam mirrors Viet Nam, speaks vollumes to me (in another LTE blog)! How many others have already said the same in varying ways? Yet, their words too have, for the most part, have fallen on deaf ears.

Furthermore, if the mission of the US was accomplished over two years ago, then why are troops still there? When the mission was accomplished in 1991, the troops were withdrawn in a relatively short time afterward. I do not call two years "relatively short."

End the violence!

War Is Not The Answer!

Shalom

The trouble with this country is that it just has no stomach for invading other countries. It's hard to tell if we don't like killing innocent people or don't like taking away their sovereignty. Either way, it's liberals who are afraid to shoot before asking questions that are weakening this society to the point where we look like France, now under assault from all sides and about to collapse under the weight of all its social programs. If our president cries, we should be there crying with him. If he tells us to stay the course, let's volunteer to fight onward. Victory is ours to claim. We don't need another Vietnam. Just look at Vietnam now. Hey, just ask our Congressmen who visit that Hell hole and...

“And honestly, would Bush have dropped in to see the Russouli's father & stepmother had he not been in that part of the world?”

No probably not, however the fact of the matter is that he was there and he did take the time to stop by correct?

“I mean honestly, it was a media opportunity. Anyone that denys that is not in touch with the political system and the political numbers game.”

Really Darryl? So you know all about media opportunity do you. Then I think maybe you might want to stop of at the Editor Blog and read about this story here is the link: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/archives/2005/11/this_story_by_a.html#comments
Oh don’t bother I will post it right here per John Robinson, Editor of the News and Record:
“Here's how it happened.
Allison received an e-mail that Russell Roland Russoli had sent to a long list of people detailing his meeting with the president. He had written to Allison before, thanking her for the coverage of his son's death. Allison knows a good story when one's sent to her so she asked him if we could write about the meeting. He responded: "The tributes to my son's bravery are an inspiration to others and in that inspiration he lives on. Use the story as you see fit."
The White House confirms that the meeting between Bushes and the Russolis occurred. It's not surprising that there are no photographs or other press reports of the meeting. The press is often cordoned off, particularly during overseas trips.”

So if it wasn’t for the fact of Mr. Russoli sending an email to the reporter, nobody would have reported on this story. So now Darryl, explain to me how this was a “it was a media opportunity”. You know Darryl maybe if your group would put down your coffins and actually talk to military familes you might hear similar stories. I know before the elections I heard a similar story, never made it into the press. It was told first hand by the family members. So since you think it was a media opportunity, I challenge you to prove it. Please find me one link to one picture taken by the press showing Bush meeting with a deceased family member.

Mr. Smith is a horses' patoot.

Muran ask: "If this was meant to be a genuine time for Bush and Russoli families to “openly griev[e]…in a hallway away from cameras and politics and flags,” then why is it being reported? Also, I can’t remember the last time I read something so disgustingly melodramatic that it was almost certainly staged."

Could it be that a father who lost a son sent an email to family and friends to tell his story of meeting the President and his experince. Could it be that one of those friends was a reporter from the News and Record, who requested to do an article on said experinece. Could it be that the father responded: "The tributes to my son's bravery are an inspiration to others and in that inspiration he lives on. Use the story as you see fit."

Well according to the editor of this paper that is what happened. Read about this story here is the link: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/archives/2005/11/this_story_by_a.html#comments

Now what I would like to know is where are all those Cindy Sheenan supporters who frequent this blog. Where are ya'lls post defending this father. He is after all a father who lost a son. Come now stop being hyprocritical, you jumped on people who called into question Cindy's motives why the silence on this letter and the couple of posters who is calling into question this fathers?

As for Muran's letter. I will repeat my original:

One gifted in mind reading, an idiot, a professional at studying and knowing and recognizing human emotion, or just more whine and cry by an appeaser? You decide.

I think you know my answer.

Mr. P

Great!

First, let me state again, I do not know whether the tears are fake or not. That is not my issue. I still feel, regardless of what Mr. Russouli writes, that this is a media hype. And yes, the N & R is a part of it.

Trish, "my group" as it is called is not necessarily "my" group. While I may not agree with every single act that a peace groups engages, I support the overall cause...promoting PEACE. And remember, this is the season where birth of the Prince of Peace is celebrated. So, if my being a PEACE loving individual who works for and promotes same, what does that make the ONE who came to give us PEACE (in all forms/fashions)?

Trish, if there is a major problem with my peace activism, contact me directly, do not waste time slandering me here. I am more than willing to state my view in a private setting.

Shalom

Typical "Liberal" diatribe.

Most amusing, "the morass he created."

"The morass he created," title belongs to Bill Clinton and the policies on terrorism.

After Somalia (Black Hawk Down), OBL stated that the USA is a paper tiger, will cut and run.

Unfortunately, Clinton was more interested in becoming the new and improved Hugh Hefner, rather than focusing on terrorism.

On 9/11, three thousand innocent people were murdered by Islamo-Fascists. America paid the price for "the morass that Bill Clinton created."

"That is not my issue. I still feel, regardless of what Mr. Russouli writes, that this is a media hype. And yes, the N & R is a part of it."

Ok I can respect your opinion of that, however you didn’t answer the question, how if not for Mr. Russouli emailing the reporter would this be a media hype. I further asked if you could provide one link to one picture taken by a family of one of these “media hypes”. Secondly since I had a little time on my hands today, I cruised through the achieves here at the LTTE and guess what I found. Why there was a bunch of you all claiming that a parent who lost a child in this war is entitled to do what they darn well please. As a matter of fact check these quotes out:
"Those of you bad mouthing his mother, give it a rest. If you haven't lost a son or daughter in a war, then you really have no perspective on which to base your OPINIONS!"
Brian Harper

"And please note, Ms. Sheehan has as much right to express her disapproval of this administration as you do to express otherwise. In fact, unless you have lost a child in this war, you have less of a right."
Yvonne

Just to show a few. Yet the one thing I didn’t find was you Darryl or Yvonne or Brian calling what Cindy was doing a “media hype”. Nor did you seem to have a issue with the New and Record reporting on her. Can you explain to me Darryl why you place a double standard? Also I would like to point out, as you can see by the above quotes you Darryl have no perspective on which to base your OPINIONS and you have less of a right to express them unless of course like Mr. Russoli you have lost a child in this war. So tell me Darryl where are Cindy’s supporters when it comes to Mr. Russoli and why the double standard? Why did you defend Cindy but call into question Mr. Russoli?

“While I may not agree with every single act that a peace groups engages, I support the overall cause...promoting PEACE. And remember, this is the season where birth of the Prince of Peace is celebrated. So, if my being a PEACE loving individual who works for and promotes same, what does that make the ONE who came to give us PEACE (in all forms/fashions)?”

Couple of thing Darryl, I asked before yet you never answered. How does carrying coffins in front of children and wives of deployed military members promote peace. Secondly I asked you once before and told you I was serious about learning. I am not a “religious-rightwing nut” as some claim republicans are. I do not know bible versus however I do remember reading and learning a story about the Prince of Peace, kicking the moneylenders out of the temple. I asked you how does your religious beliefs find this story fits into your pacifism?

Oh and Darryl you know what gets me about you, you claim to be peace loving individual. However you sure do post some less then peaceful stuff in these blogs. As a matter of fact at times I have seen you come pretty aggressive and not to mention disrespectful. So excuse me if I call into question your pacifism. However I do have that right do I not? If you have the right to call into question Mr. Russoli’s account then why aren’t others allowed to call into question your own assertions?

“Trish, if there is a major problem with my peace activism, contact me directly, do not waste time slandering me here. I am more than willing to state my view in a private setting.”

Where have I slander you Darryl. As a matter of fact I stated quite clearly that I saw it one way and you disagreed with me. So please point to the slander and I will give you a public apology.

Trish, by emailing the reporter, Mr. Russouli made it a "media hype." Apparently Bush was content to make it a private affair. Yet, Mr. Russouli sought out the media to report what was to happen/happened.

The previous quotes from LTE are not mine. How am I to be held accountable for the comments made by others regarding Cindy Sheehan when I did not make the commets? Furthermore, why would I have need to have called what Cindy Sheehand was doing a media when others were doing that, not neccessarily in those words, yet the intent was there.

Trish, I answered the question regarding coffins in previous blogs. However, since it seems that some are seeking to "pigeon hole" me, I will answer yet again. Carrying coffins in the manner that has been stated by you promotes peace in that it shows the needless and unncessry loss of life of military personnel as well as innocent peoples. In the case of the current military fiasco, there was no threat to the US and the senseless loss of life of the military personnel is even more abominable. Those coffins that are mentioned serve as a notice to the santicity of human lives that are lost unncessarily.

As for the story of the "money changers" being "whipped" from temple, those people were making the House of God nothing more than a store. A better translation reads that Jesus the Christ "chased" those people from the Temple. There is no violence in persuading one to move on to another place. That has no bearing on a military conflict. There are NO discernable connections whatsoever between what Jesus the Christ did there and a military conflict.

The core teachings of Jesus the Christ are for reconciliation through non-violent means. The Temple incident deals with the prostitution of worship. The moneychangers were price gouging the people regarding the purchase of doves as sacrifical animals. This is the ONLY incidenet of Jesus the Christ EVER seeking to put someone out.

Yes, you have a right to question my pacifism. However, because I speak/write aggressive does not mean that I am not a pacifist. That means that I will take a firm stand in working for peace. Words are not acts of violence. Violence happens when physical force is taken against another. My words are not physical force. In that regard, my pacifism is not in question whatsoever.

Trish are we calling into accout my assertions or my pacifism?

Trish, the slander comes when comments such as, "You know Darryl maybe if your group would put down your coffins and actually talk to military familes you might hear similar stories." It is spoken/written as if one has a photo of me doing what this comment states. However, there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER to support such a comment. Because those people are peace activists and I am a pacifist, I am considered equal to them. As noted, I may not agree with every act engaged by other peace people, I support the basic context of what they are seeking because we each desire the same thing, PEACE!

Trish, the previous may be difficult to comprehend and disagreeable. With the knowledge that I have of what has been posted, I do not even expect an apology. I never even asked for one matter-of-facly. So, in that regard, I am not seeking any. I can only wonder why one was even remotely suggested.

Shalom

“Yet, Mr. Russouli sought out the media to report what was to happen/happened.”

Actually he didn’t, he only emailed her the story because they had a relationship and he wanted to share his experience. She was the one that requested to use it. He thought it was a way to honor his son and so I don't understand how you can think that is a media hype.

“The previous quotes from LTE are not mine.”

True, however I haven’t had time to go through all the achieves yet. I should have more time tomorrow.

“Furthermore, why would I have need to have called what Cindy Sheehand was doing a media when others were doing that, not neccessarily in those words, yet the intent was there.”

True Darryl, but the funny part is, I seem to remember you didn’t agree with those people. You felt that Cindy was entitled to a media hype and you had no problem with it. And before I go any further I will wait and see if I have time tomorrow to post some of those quotes by you.

“Those coffins that are mentioned serve as a notice to the santicity of human lives that are lost unncessarily.”

Yes Darryl you did say that before but then I remember asking you why military families and in their neighborhoods. They do not make policy. Correct? So why there.

“There are NO discernable connections whatsoever between what Jesus the Christ did there and a military conflict.”

But you see I wasn’t trying to compare that to a military conflict. What I was wanting to know is how it relates to your teachings that Christ is the Prince of Peace. You have stated before Christ was a pacifist. Ok what about the story with the sword. Sorry I am not trying to browbeat you. I really am wanting to understand and learn. Also do you believe in Revelations? Because as someone explained it to me, Christ is to come back and “war” with the evildoers. What is your take on this?

“My words are not physical force. In that regard, my pacifism is not in question whatsoever.”

That is probably true. I guess I just have the typical stereotype of a pacifist and meek and mild. Sorry about that.

“Trish are we calling into accout my assertions or my pacifism?”

Your pacifism. Sorry my English is terrible and I didn’t get the wording right.

“However, there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER to support such a comment.”

Actually Darryl you are wrong there. Because I remember you stating that it was the Quakers (and from what I can remember, now I could be wrong but I will be sure to pull it from the achieves but you stated a group from Greensboro went) at the Quaker house and you said that you wished you could have went but for some reason you were unable to. So yes, I took that to mean that you would have been right down there with them had you been able.

“I can only wonder why one was even remotely suggested.”

Because Darryl, no matter what certain people here think of me I do not intentional attack or slander people. If I have wronged somebody or have made an error I have no problem apologizing for it. To be honest I think one person here has left the wrong impression of who I am to others. So everyone immediately reads anything I write as an attack, when in all honesty it is curiosity, a way from me to learn new things, learn about how others think and exchange ideas. This is why I post here.
Thanks for the discussion
Trish

Trish,

You are spanking Darryl W. pretty good but you are wasting time and energy on someone who is invincibly "ignorant"( a word he throws around a lot )

Why the NR printed this letter is beyond me. I will say this it is the most discuss letter,I have every seen. A local preacher, that people say has never said a word about politics, read this Sunday. If the NR was looking for press they got it. ALL BAD

Jhn 2:15 And when he had made a scourge (greek word = phragellion = a whip) of small cords ( greek word = schoinion = rope or cord), he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

darryl you seem to kind of brush aside that fact that scripture states that Jesus made this whip and physically chased them out of the temple. now do i think this proves Jesus is not a pacifist...no...but i believe it certainly demonstrated that Jesus was pretty ticked that these people had dishonored His Father's house and He took it upon himself to pour out their money, overturn their tables and take his whip and chase from the temple. i would call it righteous indignation ! what i see in this temple incident is the 'humanity' of Jesus Christ. what we often tend to forget is that Jesus was made flesh and He had to deal with His flesh just like every other person who ever lived. your 'better translation' seems to brush aside what the original text stated in its entirety. but i pretty much agree with your explaination as to why He chased them out.

marionwormer, thank you for the kind words, "....you are wasting time and energy on someone who is invincibly "ignorant"( a word he throws around a lot)." However, I do not recall EVER calling ANY ONE PERSON ignorant.

Would you please provide this blog with the evidence of me doing so (in full context)? Otherwise, I await an apology for this lack of courteousy.

Shalom

Trish, I appreciate the responses. However, I am perplexed at how so much was made of one sentence taken from a paragraph. That can often be totally and completely make the context become skewed. Anyone reading just that posting may not have a good idea of what is happening. That is if that person does not read the entire postings of each of us.

Please try to address context rather than just sentences.

Shalom

darryl i believe you misread marionwormer. she accused you of being invincibly "ignorant" but she didn't say you were "calling" anyone ignorant....she said you "threw the word (ignorant)" around alot.... i see a difference, but that's just me and that is only my intepretation of what she said.

Daryll,

Sorry for the confusion. I did address contexts. I only quoted a sentence or two because you see when I first started posting here, I received a lecture from someone about the size of my post. In an effort to cut down on the size, I only qoute a sentence to let you know where in your original I am responding to. However the response is in context to the entire paragraph.

Trish, let those who do not like long posts move on and not read them. If I have something to say, I am going to say it. I strive to be concise and to the point. Sometimes that is not always possible.

My comment regarding sentences reminds me of how some use "parts" of the Christian Bible to supposedly prove something. That is my concern here, that someone may not take the time to comprehend. Which could possibly be the case here.

Buz, I beg to disagree, I feel that the word "ignorant" was used to describe me. I do take offense at that and the lack of character of someone who would do this to anyone. Especially since "marionwormer" only knows me from my postings here. That is very little evidence to use to call someone ignorant.

I reference the "calling anyone ignorant" because of the context in which it was used in that specific post made by marionwormer. Reread that.

" Buz, I beg to disagree, I feel that the word "ignorant" was used to describe me. I do take offense at that and the lack of character of someone who would do this to anyone. Especially since "marionwormer" only knows me from my postings here. That is very little evidence to use to call someone ignorant.

I reference the "calling anyone ignorant" because of the context in which it was used in that specific post made by marionwormer. Reread that."....
sorry darryl i can't see your point. but as an observation, being ignorant is curable (imo) however stupidity is another thing (imo). i've admitted to being ignorant many times and i am certain i will admit to it again (and probably real soon !).

Please try to address context rather than just sentences (Darryl)

Uh Darryl perhaps she learned that from you. It seems to be one of your specialities with letters of mine.

Hey, Buz, your are right on, ignorance can be overcome, stupidity is terminal in most cases.
In case some don't understand the difference: Ignorance is when you are in do not know something,make a mistake, realize it , learn from it, and move forward.
Stupidity is when you do not know something and keep repeating the same mistake over an over and over because you have failed to learn or refuse to learn or to understand that which you do not know.

mrp, I do not recall addressing very many of the posts that you have made. I could be wrong in this. However, I do not recall addressing you very much.

Plus, this issue was between Trish and I. I belive that we came to some conclusions with our blog conversation. If I have done this with you mrp, please give me the blog so that I can review for my own remberence.

Shalom