Reply #28: Oh the poor little snibbler, why isn't his gung ho but over there with...

[nolabels]

the boys in Baghdad, instead he and ilk of hanging out here stateside with bunnypants. This is the kind of stuff the makes me pissed to no end
Here check this; it appears to be something from what seems to be another corner of the box

http://www.hackworth.com/
http://sec-global.com/services/ctp/vsg/news/030426.html
(at the bottom) (snip)
Does anybody out there other than CNN need us to repeat that Robert Lee Hixson was NOT a Navy SEAL and therefore could not now be an "unemployed, ex-Navy SEAL"? Anybody? Associated Press? New York Post? FBI?

Well, of course the FBI needs it repeated. They were the ones who declared Hixson a "SEAL" based, allegedly, on "intel" from local Constables Goober and Fife.

Aside from the fact that Hixson's name was posted to the Hall of Shame within approximately 30-minutes of his arrest (could have been there sooner had anyone thought to ask) and we contacted CNN immediately thereafter -- twice -- is there any legitimate reason CNN has continued to identify Robert Lee Hixson as an "ex-SEAL" in light of the fact that he was not? Indeed, CNN updated the story with the same false information following our contact to their "editorial" department.

"High-ranking intelligence officials have confirmed". . . CNN is staffed by snot-nosed, twenty-something, trust-fund activists who "feel" no one other than CNN could possibly know anything, and certainly not before CNN has ordained it with "Breaking News" graphics and Ave Satani soundtrack. But while CNN was sexing up their Navy-SEAL-gone-bad report with FUBAR'd Fed facts, real reporters were picking up the phones or firing off short and sweet e-mails to VeriSEAL to check the "SEAL" angle before publication. Because if real reporters know one thing, they know it's good not to be last to know.
(snip)