Black Jack

The All Star game ...etc

I've been watching past All Star games from the 70's and 80's with my 14 year old this past week. He commented that all the outfielders could throw well back then.

Dwight Evans, Jimmy Wynn, Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Reggie Smith. And the list goes on and on.

Whatever happened to being a complete player? Some of the throws the outfielders make in today's game are ridiculous.

Then I remember back to my playing days and realize that they NEVER work on it. Not in spring training, not during the off season. And because our players are too lazy to take a pregame infield, that is gone as well.

Which brought me to the Futures game and watching Dayan Viciedo line a two run double and butcher a two hop candy ground ball!

Have Sox fans wondered why the team relies SO much on the home run yet doesn't have anyone in the home run hitting contest?

I feel sorry for Mark Buerhle. When I was an All Star I got to meet and shake the president's hand. George Bush was truly presidential and made me feel proud to be an American.

Our latest "reality show" winner president will probably just focus on the photo op as he bad mouths baseball for another American apology. Say hi for me Mark, and pass on my disdain! I hope he bounces the first pitch!

Recommended

[?]

Recent Posts

Subscribe

Leave a comment

39 Comments

vince said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Hey black jack - I like your column, but stick to baseball. I'm not interested in your uninformed political opinions, and do you really want to piss off the majority of Chicagoans who voted for Obama in your column? Keep your political opinions to yourself, and we'll all be much happier.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

If the majority of my readers voted for Obama, then I'll need to turn this political soon and straighten them out.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

Vince, both you and Ozzie have now called me uninformed. Ozzie has been proved wrong about his disagreement with me. How many soldiers in the U.S. military can you call friends?
I'll bet zero. Have you been overseas to Afghanistan to visit and speak with these people and see what really is going on over there? Have you spoken to Afghani locals about the reality of the situation and what our presence does for them? Well I have. I also know that a number of U.S. soldiers actually cried when Obama was elected, along with their families, because both entities are less safe than they were. Are you watching the economy and the deficit? Switch the channel and find reality. YOU my friend are uniformed.

NCSoxfan said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

What he said!

Nesta said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Hey Black Jack you go right on being yourself. Vince here a ras claat if I ever saw one. All Star games are no longer about baseball. About money and TV and photo opps for politicians.

SoxForever said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Jack:

Baseball to me (and obsessing about the White Sox in particular)is a distraction for me from the problems this country is in. I don't want to mix the two. I come to your blog for interesting analysis of the White Sox, and your baseball knowledge. I don't care about your political opinions, and they are unwelcome.

If you had the chance to shake Obama's hand, is that what you would truly say to him, or would you actually show some class, and keep your opinion to yourself? God help me, I hope I would have had that much grace in George Bush's presence.

Jimmy Greenfield said:

user-pic

You're telling the blogger that his opinions on his own blog are unwelcome? That's a new one.

I don't agree with Jack but if baseball didn't want baseball bloggers to express their thoughts when politics and baseball merge then they shouldn't invite politicians to ballgames.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

I met and interviewed Obama during the White Sox series run. I was very impressed with him, as most people are. It turns out that he is a complete sham. He campaigned as more of a softy left to middle candidate and it turns out he is a hard left pshycho who is SO far off reality, I hope this country will hold its own for four years until everyone pulls their heads out of their asses.

expatnyc said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Jack,
You have a good thing going here. Don't ruin it by wading into political waters too deep for you. When you call the president a psycho, you demean not only Obama but also yourself. I disagreed strongly with nearly all of President Bush's policies. He bequeathed a ruined foreign policy to a generation of Americans who will be paying for it for the rest of their lives. But I would never call him psychotic. I would call him ill informed. Insufficiently curious. Easily manipulated. Terribly, tragically wrong on so many issues. You prattle on about your RIGHTS (as distinct from rights?) but apparently had no problem with the massive invasion of privacy illegally foisted upon U.S. citizens by the previous administration. Tell me, what rights were protected when President Bush asserted that any U.S. citizen can be detained indefinitely without legal recourse--or even without being informed why he is detained--for suspicion of terrorist involvement? There have been mistakes made, Jack. Good intentions are not enough.

Your visits to Afghanistan (where, Bagram?) and elsewhere, along with your conversations and friendships with the men and women who serve in the military are of course admirable. But they are not dispositive. It would be a mistake for you to presume that those of us who tend to favor Obama's policies are not a monolithic entity. There are shades to such support.

expatnyc said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Edit: or, rather, it would be a mistake for you to presume that we ARE a monolithic entity.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

I have a question for you. Are you in favor of his policies he ran his election on or the policies that are now being shoved down our throats? Just wondering. As a citizen of the U.S., I've noticed that the liberals want the voters who are too weak to fight back and too uninformed to matter. I want the truth, and I want America back. I had no problem with Clinton although I think they dropped the ball militarily during his time in the White House. But his ideas and politics were nowhere close to the radical ideas that are being pursued by this administration. Why is it that you automatically think I am over my head in this arena? Because I was an athlete? i thought you liberals were against prejudice? Oh yeah that's right, until it goes against your politics. And, I have no problem if our government wants to delve into our privacy when they receive possible information about terrorism. I don't want this country to be attacked again. Why is it okay for your new darling to have the government attempt to take over industries, again illegally, and force CEO's out illegally? Why is it okay to have the government control health care to the point of deciding who gets to actually be treated by a doctor? If you are worried about government intervention and rights being taken away...good luck with the next four years. Their whole goal appears to run along these lines. And while I was stationed at Bagram as a home base, we were brought out to at least a dozen smaller bases, some actually in the mountains of Pakistan and spoke for hours with the soldiers about their daily lives, the battles and the realities that nobody in this country has any clue about unless you go over there, because the media won't report on them. As far as rights go, war is war and we are the only ones playing by the rules. When you tie our soldiers hands and attempt to belittle the efforts that our past administration made for the safety of this country, we are less safe. At least the rights that you refer to as being exploited by the Bush administration were for our country's safety, and not just for control of this country's population.

webegeek said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt


Cheer up Jack, in the 20th century they only had to kill 100,000,000 people to force it on Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Cuba. I'm sure, this time, it will be different.....

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

Ain't gonna happen here because we'll never allow them to take away our guns. We won't be throwing rocks like the Iranians, we'll be kicking ass!

expatnyc said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can on half a cup of coffee. I'm in favor of a lot of his policies, but not all--and my support is not unalloyed. For example, I disagree with his views of Roe v. Wade. At the same time, I appreciate the fact that he has convened a task force to examine ways to reduce abortions. I share your concern about pressuring a private company to oust its CEO, and if Obama had shown any desire to "take over" private companies en masse I'd be deeply worried about it. But this rhetoric about government takeovers is simply overblown. The GOP believes they can get their Reagan groove back by decrying big government. The trouble with that strategy is that we are in this financial mess because the powers that be (both Democrats and Republicans) were ideologically opposed to government regulation, and let the financial industry spin out of control.

Again, I admire your willingness to put your safety at risk to visit our troops. And I wouldn't dream of arguing with you about your experiences in Afghanistan. But if it resembled the visits of other well-known men and women, I would hesitate to call it dispositive. It's not really an argument to say that the only people who can argue with you are those who have "been there." No. I can't argue with you about what happened to you there. I can certainly argue with you about foreign policy. Did you discount Bush's arguments before he visited Iraq? Of course not. So let's move on from that.

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether good intentions are enough to exonerate Bush, Cheney, et al. from their disdain for the law, their willingness to torture, their violations of privacy, etc. The road to hell, and all that. While I think of myself as a political realist, I'm not comfortable with end-justifying-means arguments. That way leads to madness--or amorality. Or a seriously deformed one. It's also not particularly democratic.

Obama is proposing a government-run health-care option. It is an option. The idea is to whip the private insurers into shape because in many parts of the country they are essentially monopolies. They control the prices local hospitals can charge. They control the doctors local customers can see. I'm always puzzled when conservatives bash Obama's plan for "taking our choice away." Don't they know that HMOs do that every day? That they were in fact designed to limit choice of health-care providers? Health-care costs in this country have exploded. They are a drag on our economy. Offering a government option would force private insurers to become more efficient, to charge more realistically. That's the hope, anyway. The goal is not to take America away from you. I'm guessing you're experiencing a pretty sweet slice of Americana right now, actually. Just as many of us do. So let's not overdo it.

Actually, I'd like to know what you mean when you say that Obama has a radical agenda, what you're thinking of when you say you want America back. Those kinds of rhetorical flourishes make me wonder how widely you've read on the subjects you're opining on. Everyone knows dummies don't make good ball players, Jack. They especially don't make good pitchers. So this is not about prejudice--I'm judging your political-analytic acumen by what you've said here. I find most of it tracks with the far-right talking points of Glenn Beck and Limbaugh. Slogans, not analysis. Designed and deployed to piss people off. But unmoored from reality.

Yes, I happen to have some experience in politics. (No, I didn't watch a single minute of MJ's funeral or its surrounding coverage.) That doesn't mean I have all the answers. It may have something to do with the fact that I value not only military strength, but also a robust diplomacy. You should consider the possibility that the foreign-policy mess we're in now has something to do with Bush's allergy to diplomacy. I'm much more worried about Pakistan's nukes than North Korea's.

Anyway, I've gone on far too long. Really looking forward to more baseball analysis from you, Jack.

Tracy said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Mr. McDowell,

You are five years younger than me, so I feel I can ask - when did you become an old fart?

If you really don't think that Ichiro, Carlos Beltran, Curtis Granderson, Grady Sizemore (just to name four) aren't complete players, then I doubt we're watching the same game.

And your last paragraph is just sad. I take it you are one of the 30% who thought the past eight years of trampling on the Constitution was just dandy.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

Yes, there are A FEW players who have it all and actually work on it. What about the other 100 or so? Also, as far as trampling the constitution goes, at the end of this 4 year term you will see more trampling than we have ever seen. The trampling that you liberals refer to was done to protect our country, not mess with OUR RIGHTS. We are the only ones who play by the rules in this B.S. war on terror. We could absolutely obliterate all these people if we let our military loose, but we are fearful of "civilian deaths." Meanwhile, the only thing that our enemies engage in is CIVILIAN DEATHS!" TRAMPLE THE CONSTITUTION, MY ASS.

Noneck said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Jack,

I have been ripped elsewhere when I brought up practicing
fundamentals at the MLB level. I was told that by the time they make it to that level they don't need any more instruction and its not the job of the MLB manager or coaches to do that. Now you are saying that they aren't even given the instruction in the minors? I really don't understand how this can be accepted. Do you think this a problem with certain organizations or all?

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

Absolutely an organization problem. Look at the twins, they do things right from A-ball on up. And if you don't do it right, you're gone!

eriqjaffe said:

user-pic

Jack, you may disagree with Obama's politics, but you have to admit that he knows what team to root for. ;)

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

I was thoroughly impressed by Obama when I met him. I even commented on his worn in old White Sox hat. I don't trust anything anymore.

webegeek said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Jack,

I can't believe you ripped Obama like that. He promised "hope and change". And he is delivering.

I will lose my job at the end of this month (I've been on 'half a day, half a dollar for the last two months), and I'm already collecting change to take to the bank. And with real unemployment running around 18% now (they changed the formula in the 1990's), all I got is hope that I can sell my house in Palos in the next four months before I run out of change, take the equity, and start all over in Colorado or Utah with my 83 year old father that I care for and my dog. How's that for change!

And for those educated recently and graduated with a degrees in relativism and pluralism, that is called sarcasm.

Keep firing those fastballs, Blackjack.

Scam said:

user-pic

I like how SoxForever states that Jack's political opinions are unwelcome at his own blog and then goes about stating his own. Some of these responses are just too funny. You can't make any kind of political statement these days without a bunch of people jumping on you. I disagree with a lot of things Jack says on here, but I don't have a hissy fit about it in the comments section. I would also like to point out that Jack was referring to George H. W. Bush in his post.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

No, let us get to reality. You can ABSOLUTELY bash our country, our former president, our lifestyle etc. if you are a liberal. If you feel opposite and lean more toward the conservative side, then it's politically incorrect. This country is turning upside down.

Dennis Byrne said:

user-pic

Forget the snide political comments from readers, Jack. You're right on target with the observation about the Sox being overly dependent on the home run. I'm dating myself, but I remember the '59 Sox scratching out runs with singles, stolen bases, bunts and the rest. And good fielding on top of it. As a fan, it was a lot more fun to watch than some idiot whose performance has been enhanced by drugs, flick his bat with style, stand in a statuesque pose as the ball clears the fence and then lope around the bases in a victory trot. (Why do they have to touch all the bases anyway?) They should move the fences out at the Cell and sign some players who want to and can play both offense and defense. Or maybe it'll come to what they do in the NFL, with separate offensive and defensive teams.

J said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Nice!!!

Hey, I'm all for political debate on a baseball blog. Why not? Baseball in and of itself is political. After I read your entry Jack I assumed correctly the responses you've received. Heaven forbid you should disagree with the policies of the hometown hero. And please people, if you're going to throw up percentages at least get them correct. Don't just dig around on one of your liberal sites pulling bullet points out to make you sound smart. Polls are subjective. If you really want to get into that I'll drop some knowledge on you that I'm most certain you'll only respond like a whiny kid in a sandbox who can't share. Wake up and pay attention as to what is happening to OUR country. You can only bury your heads so long before your asses get shot off.

Having said that, I love baseball, Americas game. A game despite all of it's flaws, needs NO apologies either here or abroad. There's some reality.

Chazz said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Hi Jack:

You have interesting insights about baseball (I feel your pain about the last of emphasis on fundamentals) but suggesting that the boob who spent eight years shredding the Constitution and who lied us into Iraq, thereby making all of us less safe, is more "presidential" than the current President is laughable.

President Obama was left a hell of a mess to clean up. It will take time but I think he'll get there.

On the other hand, history will not be kind to the man on whose watch the 9/11 attacks occurred; nor should it be.

You've very right to your opinion and we will respond accordingly.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

The attacks of 9/11 were successful because of a liberal president who spent eight years prior to 2001 taking his eyes off the reality of the threats to our people from around the world. They were planned over the course of years and had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush being in office. However, the fact that many further attempts to do similar damage have been thwarted because of the actions taken by that administration are indisputable. Ever since Obama has become president, our enemies have taken a much stronger stance and are laughing at our new weakness and "diplomatic" approach. Good luck talking with Iran, North Korea, Venezuela et al. I'll see you when World War 3 breaks out. It will be during Obama's term.

expatnyc said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Oh, I hadn't seen this comment from you about WWIII. I see now that I'm wasting my time. Looking forward to more baseball analysis from you, Jack.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

I guess that depends on what you would see as WW3. We are already, as a world, in two wars against terrorism and a world wide community. Do you really think that nothing will come of North Korea's spouting off and the mess in Iran? Sorry I speculate on the obvious. I hope it doesn't happen, but let me give you a hint, if we don't stop this in it's tracks militarily, then Isreal or Japan will, and guess what happens then? Yeah, but I'm so off base I'm to be shrugged off as a loon. Do you have any insights on these realities? This isn't my opinion, this stuff is actually happening. Oh yeah, you probably missed it while watching the Michael Jackson funeral.

nosret said:

user-pic

Jack:

Some of us leaning your way (or more) do read you and are huge Sox fans. Assuredly by now you know that for some reason liberals can say whatever they went (usually scream it), but those of us leaning right (often having gotten there via a long term, life experience, cognitive process) have to stay in the shadows. Seeing that your south-side democrat readers (ex-readers?) seem to think that the first amendment does not apply to anyone who does not agree with them, I urge you to continue to say what is on your mind!

Thanks!

Southside-Northside F

Brian said:

user-pic

Jack -

Why don't teams work on things like bunting or infield practice or hitting the cutoff guy during the season? I remember a couple of years ago when Ozzie was thinking of calling a mandatory bunting practice during the season and that was big news. How hard is it to call a team together or the infield together before a game to work on things. Especially with this year's Sox infield all being new to each other. Wouldn't you think that it would benefit Beckham, Lexi, Getz, and even Fields at 1B, if they would arrive at the park hours before a game to work on turning a double play or how to play certain batters? I ask this because I hear how Beckham is working with Cora on his infield work or that Quentin was working with Harold on playing the OF. It's never Beckham and Lexi were working on things together.

When Beckham first came up, I would hear Hawk talking about how it was Lexi's job to let Beckham know what pitch was coming so that he could know where to play, but Lexi wasn't doing that in Hawk's opinion. When do they work on this during the season? The Sox IF defense is brutal and the only way to get better is to practice. How hard is it to work on that rather than standing around the batting cages every day?

Thanks, Brian

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

The one thing that pissed me off when I played was the fact that we never worked on pickoff plays during the season. Pickoffs are a timing thing that require constant repetition. We'd end up in August and see a guy at second base who we could get a free out from and the timing was screwed so we messed it up. Bunting has to be a personal thing. If a guy doesn't make a concerted effort to get better at it, there's not much a coach can do. Hitting the cutoff is personal as well. Either someone will take pride in it and be determined to do it correctly or they won't. But, they will take hundreds of groundballs everyday even without extra work. If you watch a normal pregame, you will see that. If they are doing extra work, then it's 5-fold.

Chazz said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Jack, you crazy old coot. I was hoping to read about baseball here. If I wanted a bunch of far right, fact-free BS, I would go to tednugent.com.

It's hilarious, yet sad, that you refuse to hold Bush accountable for 9/11 and the attacks on our liberties. The facts show that, until the attacks, Bush couldn't be bothered about terrorism.

Thank God the country is moving away from haters.

webegeek said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Chazz,

If you hold Bush accountable for 9/11, do you hold Clinton accountable for the first attack on the WTC or for OKC?

And if we are hit again before 2012, will you hold Obama accountable?

And what do you mean by accountable? Do you mean responsible?

expatnyc said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

webgeek: I'm not comfortable saying that 9/11 was Bush's fault. The religious fanatics who murdered 3,000 innocents, and their lunatic bosses, are responsible. In the months following 9/11 and our response in Afghanistan, am Al Qaeda video was recovered in a raid. It depicted Osama Bin Laden and a couple of his henchmen discussing the 9/11 plan. In translation, they said that not all the men who were executing the plan knew they were going to die. And the ones who did believed they would be rewarded in heaven. Then Bin Laden and his cronies laughed heartily, as if to say, "Can you believe they believe that crap?" That is an evil below evil, and it stays with me today.

But I do think that Bush and several other member of his administration failed to take the Al Qaeda threat seriously enough. Hell, Condi Rice had a report in hand whose title was very close to: "Osama Bin Laden Plans to Crash Planes into U.S. Buildings."

MarkPloch said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Jack,
I'm all for blogging about opinions. I've been doing it for 2 years solid at http://markploch.blogspot.com/.

I respect everyone who is respectful on my site. The past election really got people talking.

I supported Obama then and I still support him.

I can't say I agree with your whole "turn the military loose" attitude. Why should we sink to the level of a terrorist if we don't have too? What's wrong with trying to limit civilian deaths?

Obama is just trying to get our troops out of the Hell Bush sent them to. Bush wanted Saddam's ass to avenge the foiled assassination plot against his daddy. Has ANYBODY found a WMD yet?

Go Sox!

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

By no means will we EVER stoop to the level of killing civilians as a practice as the terrorists do. But, all of the negative and uninformed press clippings just reporting on "supposed civilian deaths" have been ridiculously overplayed. Our soldiers' hands are tied right now. I understand the overall strategy, but the reality of war does not allow for everyone to get a group hug. We're losing lives that we wouldn't if our guys were able to get after it a bit more. And weapons of mass destruction my ass. Believe whatever side you want, but for every theory that there NEVER WERE weapons of mass destruction are countered with the reality that they used them on their own people in the past and just transferred them elsewhere upon the realization that we were coming after them. Recently, the news has broken that Iraq also directly misled the world and the U.S. as to their destructive capabilities. So was it a lie to avenge some personal vendetta, or a war to dismantle a regime who had harbored and trained the very people who continue to attack us abroad and got to our mainland as well? You'll find that Obama has no interest in our troops safety. That is not what this is about. The people who voted for him are the same people who have the ridiculous co-exist stickers on their cars and cannot seem to recognize the way the world actually works and what our role has been and is in it. He moved to hurry and get the troops out of Iraq to appease them...knowing full well that they would just be transferred to Afghanistan. Much like his comment during the All Star game that he's not a "Cubs hater." He will do whatever the polls, and his teleprompter tell him to do. Oh, and if they wanted just to get Saddam, they would have sent a single special forces unit in to assassinate him. It would have been very easy, it happens every day...and Obama is aware of it.

expatnyc said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Jack,

You don't make it easy for readers to take you seriously when you drop rhetorical bombs like "Obama has no interests in our troops' safety" and "the people who voted for hi are the same people who have the ridiculous co-exist stickers on their cars and cannot seem to recognize the way the world actually works." Apart from the fact that you cannot verify those assertions--and that at least one of them is easily falsifiable--they come across as fueled by angry paranoia. Do you actually believe the president does not care how many troops die on his watch? That would make him a moral monster. Perhaps you do believe that. In which case I would urge therapy. And do you realize that the president won by large margins--and in states that have been trending Republican in recent elections? You think Indiania, where the Klan thrived for decades, is full of pussy co-existers? Take a few moments and read the exit polls. Or are those controlled by the newly Obama-friendly Fox executives too?

Likewise, your suggestion that Obama pulled a fast one by reducing troop levels in Iraq in order to increase them in Afghanistan (you disagree with putting more boots on the ground there?--if not, where the hell do we get the troops from?) is thoroughly confused. You realize he campaigned on that, right? That he has been arguing for over a year that the United States "took its eye off the ball" in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Are you aware that the president has ordered the most devastating air strikes in Pakistan in the history of this conflict?

Everyone knows Iraq had WMD. That fact does not excuse the lies told to justify the invasion. Iraq did not pose an immanent threat. That is an undeniable fact. We invaded them anyway. No excuse for that.

What press clippings about civilian deaths are you referring too? The reports on the Lancet study? The Red Cross? Should those be ignored? Why should civilian deaths not be reported on? Shouldn't the public know what is done in their name--and with their money?

How are our soldiers' hands tied, exactly? I want you to provide examples. Do you disagree with the Army Field Manual? Should U.S. troops not be bound by it? Do you disagree with the raft of military leaders who came out against torture? Do you disagree with the ban on torture Obama reinstated after Bush abrogated it?

No more meaningless slogans, Jack. Let's start dealing with facts.

Jack McDowell said:

user-pic

As I said before, when I met Obama and first watched his political rise, I was impressed and thought positively about him. As I now have watched how he has handled himself around the world and seen whom he has surrounded himself with both politically and personally, I believe he is anti-American... as I see America. I don't think that requires therapy to fix. It is an opinion that I have formed after watching the man's actions and policies. If you disagree with that opinion, that's fine. You also probably don't share the same vision of America as I do, which is fine as well. As far as putting more boots on the ground in Afghanistan, I agree. When we began this war in Iraq, it was a big base for training and harboring Al Queda and other anti-American terrorist groups. They were basically chased away into the Afghanistan mountains during the conflict knowing full well we wouldn't "be allowed" to enter Pakistan to go after them. But we also needed to complete what was started in Iraq before moving on or just play a game of cat and mouse with these guys. so, I would argue that we didn't "take our eye off the ball" but rather did the job of freeing Iraq and dismantling the large Al Queda forces their while they in turn retreated/relocated to Afghanistan. That doesn't change the fact that we would have been wrong to leave before we settled as much of Iraq and trained their own people to protect themselves. So, how then can you say that Iraq posed NO imminent threat? But now Afghanistan does? They are / were similar situations in the fact that these terrorists groups are exploiting those countries to plan attacks against us. I don't see how you can feel they are different? The reports of civilian deaths I am frustrated about are the knee jerk numbers that come out immediately after any conflict that are given by local press in the areas. I've seen a number of times where there are reports / claims of "numbers of civilian deaths" after a mission or an airstrike only to be followed days later by our military telling the truth which is nowhere near these initial reports. These follow-ups get nowhere NEAR the media attention that the initial stories do which to me is very frustrating. As a military, we have nothing to hide. The press is so far up their ass over there that any mistake that is made is reported on which is fine although our enemies know this and use it to build up anti-American sentiment while they ONLY kill civilians. Lastly, once again, waterboarding as torture is debatable and an opinion. I feel like a captured terrorists has no rights. I guess I'm a monster. But when our Navy Seals blew the heads off of the Somalia pirates, I celebrated. I'm tired of the shit we receive around the world and the lack of acknowledgement for all the good we've done. And Obama is now at the forefront of propagating that misconception...which to me is anti-American...in my America

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:

said:

what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now

ChicagoNow.com on Facebook