|
Re: OpinionJournal Article: General Malaise
|
Connor-@aol.com
|
Jan 28, 2004 20:03 PST
|
--part1_1d2.18b30c6e.2d49de69_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mark,
In all fairness to LTC H. You have sent a number of articles that
paint the Bush administration in a rather unfavorable light. Maybe they aren't
political in the sense they aren't talking about his candidacy. However, they
still paint the administration as being somewhat dishonest, possibly corrupt,
and taking us in the wrong direction in the WOT. There are slants outside of
Op-Ed pieces. Personally, I get something from everything I have read on the
forum, and appreciate what you have sent. We are all smart enought to
understand the source, and make our own informed opinions. I am quite sure all know
Peggy Noonan is conservative, and are aware her piece will be slanted that
direction. Her Op-Ed pointed out the full context of Clark's comments about
rank, which has relevance to a thread of our discussions. Additionally, it
pointed out other factual pieces of information about Clark.
I guess the bottom line is that it is damn near impossible to send
anything "non-political", even when it is not Op-Ed, and deals strictly with
National Security. Who we choose as the next Commander in Chief will have a major
effect on National Security. Therefore, I would think any factual info about
the candidates would be important. I would agree that articles like the
piece on Kerry (clearly a smear job worthy of National Enquirer) has no
informative value. I also dislike the tabloid crap that delves into a candidate's past
for the "gotcha". However, surely you can see some value in Noonan's piece.
Just a few thoughts. Thought I'd piss you off before you ended the
forum on Saterday:)
Bill
--part1_1d2.18b30c6e.2d49de69_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10>Mark,
<BR>
<BR> In all fairness to LTC H. You have sent a number of articles that paint the Bush administration in a rather unfavorable light. Maybe they aren't political in the sense they aren't talking about his candidacy. However, they still paint the administration as being somewhat dishonest, possibly corrupt, and taking us in the wrong direction in the WOT. There are slants outside of Op-Ed pieces. Personally, I get something from everything I have read on the forum, and appreciate what you have sent. We are all smart enought to understand the source, and make our own informed opinions. I am quite sure all know Peggy Noonan is conservative, and are aware her piece will be slanted that direction. Her Op-Ed pointed out the full context of Clark's comments about rank, which has relevance to a thread of our discussions. Additionally, it pointed out other factual pieces of information about Clark.
<BR>
<BR> I guess the bottom line is that it is damn near impossible to send anything "non-political", even when it is not Op-Ed, and deals strictly with National Security. Who we choose as the next Commander in Chief will have a major effect on National Security. Therefore, I would think any factual info about the candidates would be important. I would agree that articles like the piece on Kerry (clearly a smear job worthy of National Enquirer) has no informative value. I also dislike the tabloid crap that delves into a candidate's past for the "gotcha". However, surely you can see some value in Noonan's piece.
<BR>
<BR> Just a few thoughts. Thought I'd piss you off before you ended the forum on Saterday:)
<BR>
<BR>Bill </FONT></HTML>
--part1_1d2.18b30c6e.2d49de69_boundary--
|
|
 |
|
