See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Heading Right » Blog Archive » BREAKING NEWS!
2. Bear Creek Ledger » Giving Tn National Guard a surprise send off
3. Bill's Bites
4. hillbillypolitics.com » Blog Archive » Questions for Oakland Airport
5. » ANDREA GETS EXCLUSIVE FROM FL CONG. JOHN MICA ON WDBO SHOW NoisyRoom.net: Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace. Amelia Earhart

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On October 8th, 2007 at 8:56 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   inside politics behind NBC’s decision to dub Iraq a “civil war.

   No surprise here. If you can’t report the news in an unbiased manner – make it up.

2. #2
   On October 8th, 2007 at 9:00 am, ajmontana said:

   Nothing
   But
   Crap

3. #3
   On October 8th, 2007 at 9:02 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   Nutballs

   Bashing

   Conservatives

4. #4
   On October 8th, 2007 at 9:02 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

   No accountability

   Naive and
   Boring
   Corporation

5. #5
   On October 8th, 2007 at 9:04 am, Boomer said:

   The MSM is desperately trying to relive their victory of misrepresenting the “Tet offensive” in Vietnam. It was a total defeat for the Viet Cong and North Vietnam, but thanks to the traitors in the MSM the American people were sold on it being a major US defeat and that the war could never be won.

   They will not be happy until they cause another US defeat/retreat in this war. Many people like me are going elsewhere for our news we no longer trust any of them. If only we had Bloggers in the 60s not one of their lies would have gone unnoticed. The MSM still wonders why they are losing viewer share. They have the blood of millions on their hands in Southeast Asia and now want to induce the same river of blood in Southwest Asia.

6. #6
   On October 8th, 2007 at 9:08 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

   We will not be duped!
   We will not be duped!
   We will not be duped!
   We will not be duped!
   We will not be duped!
   We will not be duped!
   We will not be duped!

   Read it and weep NBC…

7. #7
   On October 8th, 2007 at 9:20 am, Gothguy said:

   Ditto that, Boomer

8. #8
   On October 8th, 2007 at 9:22 am, On-my-soap-box said:

   It’s not often we score a victory over the anti-military, San Francisco Bay Area, but it looks like we have this time.

   Now if we could just put mufflers on the dern jets and make them use alternative fuels, then the Blue Angels could have a victory as well. Retreat, somehow, does not make me feel like we have a victory. Then again, I am an ultra-rightwing-radical-conservative-bigoted-Christian.

9. #9
   On October 8th, 2007 at 9:28 am, DesertLover said:

   Nutroot
   Biased
   Censorship

10. #10
    On October 8th, 2007 at 9:37 am, GISAP said:

    How is this a victory? They got what they wanted. They don’t have to look at all the trained baby-killers anymore.

    /sarc

11. #11
    On October 8th, 2007 at 9:47 am, Frank Siegler said:

    For #8:
    Military aircraft do not have mufflers. Mufflers rob power and decrease fuel efficiency. The extra power and longer flight time is needed for combat. Good for the aircraft. Bad for the human. You can always spot a former aviator by the hearing aids I now wear at my age. I have found them to be helpful. Conservatives look me in the eye and speak clearly and enunciate perfectly. Liberals look around for the camera and scream incoherent slogans.

12. #12
    On October 8th, 2007 at 9:52 am, JaHerer22 said:

    I love the way you cherry pick parts of Kurtz’s article to fit your agenda while conveniently ignoring those that don’t. You don’t find this part regarding Couric and her bosses at NBC at all relevant to the point you’re trying to make?

    Couric felt there was a subtle, insidious pressure to toe the party line, and you bucked that at your peril. She wanted to believe that her NBC colleagues were partners in the search for truth, and no longer felt that was the case. She knew that the corporate management viewed her as an out-and-out liberal. When she ran into Jack Welch, the General Electric chairman, he would sometimes say that they had never seen eye to eye politically. If you weren’t rah rah rah for the Bush administration, and the war, you were considered unpatriotic, even treasonous.

    So this section is pretty much completely contradictorily to what you quote, as Couric is basically being scolded for questioning Rice too aggressively and subtly pressured to stick to Welch and Bush’s pro-war line. It seems the politics at NBC are a little more complicated and nuanced than you would like to believe.

13. #13
    On October 8th, 2007 at 9:57 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

    I like the approach of ‘if you don’t know how to treat us we will take our business elsewhere’ but what about their accountability? The Oakland Airport officials get to issue an non apology “apology” and that’s it?

    I sure hope San Diego knows how to treat them.

14. #14
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:03 am, ACHefty said:

    Of course San Diego knows how to treat them. Two cases in point: It’s a Navy town and the Naval Academy has already accepted their bowl bid to San Diego. Now all they need to do is secede from the Planet California and become a 51st state — just to stick it to the “DC Statehood” crowd. HeeHeeHeeHeeHee…

15. #15
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:06 am, Tennessee Dave said:

    It’s not often we score a victory over the anti-military, San Francisco Bay Area, but it looks like we have this time.

    Now if Fleet Week can be changed to a couple of rowboats and a Piper Cub doing a flyby we’d have it made.

16. #16
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:08 am, ThackerAgency said:

    I’m glad that the military will not allow the people of the SF bay area to continue to be anti-American while they enjoy the fruits of this country.

    I’m sure this decision will cost the airport a pretty penny. It won’t change their minds, but at least the military won’t be lining their pockets anymore with these landing fees.

17. #17
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:08 am, Romeo13 said:

    Ummm… and the person who wanted to keep the Military out of Oakland Airport just WON!

    I now expect the same type of treatment for our military at SFO… so they won’t have to put up with those evil baby killers either…

    Whoever made this decision is a dolt. He just surrendered to the nuts instead of fighting for our Militarys rights and honor…

    At Bastogne in WWII one of our Generals famously told the enemy “Nuts” when asked to surrender…. here they seemed to have said “uhhh… OK…”.

    Bah.

18. #18
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am, pressto said:

    Sacramento International, according to Mica, will likely be the airport to receive our troop layover flights from now on.

    This is great and now I can come cheer them when then come back to the US.

19. #19
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am, opus said:

    It’s not often we score a victory over the anti-military, San Francisco Bay Area, but it looks like we have this time.

    I don’t see how this is a victory either.
    Because SF is so anti-US and or anti-military the government should pull on funding from the city and community, along with all the money that goes towards the area colleges.
    That is the only way I could see of making this whole thing a victory.

20. #20
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am, 30 pcs of silver said:

    That’s great ACHefty, I needed to hear some good news.

    Check this out.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/06/video-vigilantism-leftist-style/

21. #21
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    On October 8th, 2007 at 9:47 am, Frank Siegler said:

    The muffler comment was over the noise complaint and the alternative fuel was over the complaint about how much fuel they burn and the damage it causes the environment.

    If they are so concerned over the noise and environment, they should shut their yaps. That would serve two purposes:

    It would help their global warming cause by releasing fewer poisonous fumes into the atmosphere.

    It would cut down on noise pollution.

22. #22
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am, cpodug said:

    Unfortunately, I have friends in San Francisco, one of which is a veteran. I do feel sorry for them, but they have no choice as to where to live. I was through there back in the days when TI was the major staging point for the Navy.

    While I agree that the Bay Area is a raging hotbed of “politically correctism” and socialism, it bothers me that many contributors would like nothing more than to see the Bay Area disappear completely. That means there are a lot of us who would disappear, too. Please keep that in mind when you wish that San Francisco would just disintegrate.

    Besides, for those of you in the East, just keep this in mind: when the “big one” hits, everything east of the Sierras will slide into the Atlantic.

23. #23
    On October 8th, 2007 at 10:50 am, Tennessee Dave said:

    the alternative fuel was over the complaint about how much fuel they burn and the damage it causes the environment.

    Maybe we can get the jets to fly on a combination of biodiesel and lard made from crackins. That way when used in Iraq the pork smell would keep all the insurgents inside!!

24. #24
    On October 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am, Gil Maness said:

    Does the fighting in Darfur qualify as a “civil war” also? Why does NBC not call that a civil war?

25. #25
    On October 8th, 2007 at 11:23 am, Alphonse said:

    And now, for some non-agenda-driven reporting, please read Michael J. Totten latest dispatch from Iraq on the best police force in the country and Bill Ardolino’s latest report from Iraq on the Fallujah police department.

    I’m so glad we no longer have any crime in the United States and so much surplus money that we can do all these lib nation building projects in Iraq. Any idea of the cost to the U.S. for just these two police units?

26. #26
    On October 8th, 2007 at 11:36 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    Alphonse - on topic as usual.

    /sarc

27. #27
    On October 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm, puhiawa said:

    How is giving Oakland what it wants a victory? I mean Oakland has made it clear they want the troops out of the city.

28. #28
    On October 8th, 2007 at 12:39 pm, The Raging Republican said:

    MSM Bush-bashers

    Bullseye!

29. #29
    On October 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm, Miss Ladybug said:

    Oakland longer gets the $$$ the military pays for the airport services. I would like to see Fleet Week move, too. That pumps a lot of money into that economy, and it would make a financial impact to not have all those people coming to SF for Fleet Week anymore. There’s more than one way to “win”, ya know…

30. #30
    On October 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm, bit_boy said:

    Richard Engel (wapo): the Arab media had regarded the conflict as a civil war for some time

    The surge was intended to save Bush’s ass and give the Iraqi government time to bring about political power reconciliation. The surge achieved part one but part two is not going to happen no matter how dangerous the U.S. not spending and dyeing in Iraq might be.

    Think Sharia and Muslim as democratic components, then think of three different versions of Islam, then you have Bush believing that the majority of Iraq want a democracy when they pray five times a day for their version of Islam, Sunni, Shiet, or Kurdish. Which version of Islam will prevail. Ask the last man standing.

31. #31
    On October 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    AHHH a troll with BDS exposes himself.

    Question troll.

    How long did it take for the good ol’ USA to form a viable government? Seems we have a “civil war” at home - again. Conservatives vs liberals. People who believe in freedom and how great it is to have those freedoms to say stupid stuff vs people who have the mentality that we have ours - to hell with everyone else.

32. #32
    On October 8th, 2007 at 2:17 pm, Regulus said:

    I’m with those questioning how this can be perceived as a “win.”

    This isn’t like a customer in the market choosing one competitor’s product over another; it’s letting the military effectively get run out of town and then using a sour-grapes rationaliztion: “We didn’t want to use your crummy old airport, anyway!” Come again on how that’s supposed to show the Oakland Airport people the error of their ways?

33. #33
    On October 8th, 2007 at 2:40 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    I’m a huge believer in taking your money to where it’s wanted. Sacramento is just fine.

34. #34
    On October 8th, 2007 at 4:01 pm, DesertLover said:

    Landing fees are not a drop in the bucket folks … the fees are based on the capacity of the plane, the weight of the plane, plus all the other facility fees, refueling fees and other myriad fees and taxes … everything they hit the airlines with all apply to charters as well … (it even includes the “TSA” 9/11 fees) … take that amount times what I am sure is hundreds of military flights that were going through there annually and I am sure the government just pulled many hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions from the expected income of the airport authority in Oakland …

    Step 1 in pulling all the military revenue out of the bay area completed.

    Let them fend for themselves when the stuff hits the fan again …

35. #35
    On October 8th, 2007 at 4:35 pm, georgej said:

    Not only should Oakland be made ineligible for military layovers, but ALL FEDERAL FUNDING for the airport should cut off. Federal flight controllers serving Oakland should be reassigned elsewhere, and the FAA should formally revoke certification and close the airport down.

36. #36
    On October 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm, TruthToBeTold said:

    Katy Couric is currently on CBS, not NBC so that quotation is, at least, more than a year old.

    No one
    But
    Communists

    The charter jets that were landing at Oakland Airport are civilian planes that are chartered from various US airlines and they meet all the requirements for noise and whatever else they have to do to comply with all the red tape. They were also screened much more carefully than any passengers who get onto regular airline flights. All the pretexts that Oakland had were just so much BS to try to cover up their anti-military attitude.

37. #37
    On October 10th, 2007 at 10:21 am, terrig said:

    Well, if we could just get the Navy to move their fleet week to San Diego and out of San Fran, it would be great. They are screened more heavily than regular civilian flights and Oakland’s sorry excuse does not wash. Let’s hope this is true.

38. #38
    On October 14th, 2007 at 9:16 pm, Ombre Rose said:

    It’s a victory to abandon them to themselves and also to get eh FUNDING cut from them, so they are no longer being PAID to cut us down, and undermine the Military.

    Without that Military, they would NEVER have the “FREEDOM” to undercut America. Now, they’ll BEGIN to learn a smidgeon of the fact that actions have consequences, and even if it is “FREE”, they should count the cost, first.

    A real victory would be if they ever were faced with an emergency, and the m ilitary is too busy to come to their rescue.

    If I had family and friends there, whether they feel they have a “choice or not” I’d remind them of Lot and his family, and tell them it will never be a BETTER time to leave, whether they want to go or not.

    They need to find a way, anyway.

39. #39
    On October 20th, 2007 at 3:01 am, puhiawa said:

    This is not a victory, it is capitulation. What airport is next, Ronald Reagan? Victory is when Chertoff and his ilk are fired for incompetence.

40. #40
    On October 24th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, josetheguerilla said:

    test