Post #293,353
9/21/07 9:54:59 AM
9/21/07 9:55:53 AM
|
Let's hear from the professionals, beep, shall we?
If you don't care for "betray us," let me suggest "ass-kissing little chickenshit." And by the way, [link|http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235|whatever happened to "sticks and stones?"] In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.
The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".
Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.
The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress. So what say, beep? A "sense of the Senate" resolution top take Fallon out to the woodshed for besmirching the good name of Petraeus, the greatest military thinker since von Clausewitz, or maybe Sun Tzu? Or wouldn't that be, ah, politic for you and the other sock puppets? cordially, (edit: rogue homonym) Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
Edited by rcareaga
Sept. 21, 2007, 09:55:53 AM EDT
|
Post #293,354
9/21/07 10:20:16 AM
|
No problem with that at all
just a day in the life of the military.
If we apologize every time a military leader calls his subordinate a bad name...we won't have anything else to do.
Its simply a choice. You have someone who speaks on your behalf...you may not have control of their speech...but they are doing it for you...and they are attacking the work of the largest chunk of people you are fighting to lead. How well do you think they will accept that leadership if you don't have the spine to at least address it.
Its obvious she doesn't agree with his message. I'm ok with that. Also ok with her "willing suspense of disbelief" comment. No issue at all. She didn't call him a traitor. They did (in so many words). Those fighting for the job of highest military commander should be able to speak directly to that.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,355
9/21/07 1:34:42 PM
|
Re: No problem with that at all
Moveon.org doesn't speak for the democrats, they do support the democrats. That to me is a big difference than speaking for the democrats as you put it. There a lot of right wing organizations that speak for the republicans, actually the republicans just speak through them.
The military tends to support republicans and have for a long time because they republicans have been able to paint the democrats as anti-military. Just like they are doing now. The republican supported organizations have been better at this hardball politics. Moveon.org should have known better than to get into this type of fight with the hard core conservatives. It is not a type pf fight they will have the stomach to see through to the end.
The average member of the military could probably tell the difference between a attack on them and an attack on the political nature of the role Gen. Peatrus has taken on. The junior officers are even starting to speak out and criticize their senior leaders, and even the administration, for the lack of support they have gotten during this war.
Seamus
|
Post #293,370
9/21/07 9:39:36 PM
|
Re: No problem with that at all
The military tends to support republicans and have for a long time because they republicans have been able to paint the democrats as anti-military. And why do you think this is? Last term you had a guy who turned on the military in front of Congress (whether deserved or not is not the issue here) and this time the lead candidate can't bring herself to take a leading dem leaning org to task for calling a general a traitor. Can they make it any easier? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,372
9/21/07 10:02:32 PM
|
I'm beginning to think you read a different ad.
The MoveOn ad is [link|http://cdn.moveon.org/pac/content/pac/pdfs/PetraeusNYTad.pdf|here] (1 page .pdf).
There's a difference between [link|http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/iraq-and-the-betrayal-of-trust|betrayal of trust] and [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason|treason], if words have any meaning any more.
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #293,373
9/21/07 10:15:36 PM
|
Huh?
You don't think that they are telling him that he is being "disloyal to his nation" by calling him "betray us"?
Hrm.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,374
9/21/07 10:19:00 PM
|
Read the links...
|
Post #293,377
9/22/07 12:33:51 AM
|
Re: Read the links...
Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed I did. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,378
9/22/07 12:46:00 AM
|
We'll have to agree to disagree.
MoveOn wasn't accusing Petraeus of being a traitor. They were accusing him of playing a political role in support of Bush rather than giving an accurate assessment of the status of the "surge". They were accusing him of "Cooking the Books for the White House" - of betraying the public by becoming a political tool.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #293,379
9/22/07 1:00:47 AM
|
You linked to the definition
and now you don't like it. Hell, they even used "betray" to define it.
They accused him of betraying the American people. The specific charges may be what you describe...but they could have done that without "Betray Us". That is calling him a traitor by YOUR posted definition.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,381
9/22/07 1:28:31 AM
|
Please read me in my posts.
;-) The Wikipedia link for treason says at the start: In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. The MoveOn ad didn't accuse him of doing those things or being a traitor. They didn't say he's sold out to Osama or Muqtada. They didn't use the word traitor - you did. The fact that some people use the word traitor to mean betrayal of friends or one's race or whatever doesn't mean that that's what MoveOn meant by "betray us". I said before that I thought it was childish name calling to use "General Betray Us" in the ad. But it's not a big deal to me, and those who are trying to make it a big deal are doing the public a disservice, IMHO. I think you've fallen for the Republican spin machine on this "issue" and on Hillary in general. But it's a free country - for a little while yet. :-/ OBTW, have a look at [link|http://www.askarepublican.com/Welcome.html|Rep. Richard Martin's] comments on [link|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVMrbKiIyj4|Hillary and Torture] (Probably NSFW). I'm done. Have a nice night. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #293,382
9/22/07 2:01:18 AM
|
What has he NOT "fallen for the Republican spin machine" on?
|
Post #293,384
9/22/07 2:03:40 AM
|
Quite a bit. But what do you know.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,385
9/22/07 2:23:49 AM
|
Quite a bit - I've known you for over ten years now.
And unfortunately, it's quite obvious that you're not a "victim" of any spin; you're actively *putting* a Republican spin on pretty much fucking everything you say.
And that's pretty fucking sad, because, you know, there's a *reason* people call them "Repugnicans" these days.
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #293,388
9/22/07 2:43:01 AM
|
Thats funny
ask around.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,383
9/22/07 2:02:59 AM
|
You told me to read the link.
I did. And quoted from it. Treason (crime) and traitor are 2 different beasts. And maybe we must agree to disagree...because "betray us" pretty much word for word fits what you linked as the definition of traitor.
Unfortunately the Repo spin machine pretty much has this one right...unfortunately for her. Will it hurt her at this stage, no. Will it hurt her when she faces the rep candidate, it depends on which candidate that is.
It does, however, make it very easy to paint her as a weak supporter of the military. They don't even need Rove or the swift boaters for this one.
Interesting attempt by a congresscritter at stand up in that last link.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,386
9/22/07 2:34:45 AM
|
Oh, bullpucky!
This is a TYPICAL fucking example of your Repugnispin -- it only amazes me that you dare try to disclaim it, right next to where you so brazenly illustrate it.
You're conflating three different definitions (or four or maybe even five) of two (or three) different words, to arrive back at the word you WANT to have people think MoveOn used:
Just because someone who *betrayed* something not-his-country (e.g, his friends, a sacred trust, etc) can *also* be called "a traitor" (to *those* things), does NOT mean that if you say someone betrayed something (unspecified what) you have necessarily accused him of "TREASON" (*to his country*).
Frankly, that's so fucking transparent you should be ashamed to even have tried it.
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #293,390
9/22/07 2:47:50 AM
|
BS - straight up. (new thread)
Created as new thread #293389 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=293389|BS - straight up.]
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,400
9/22/07 11:01:41 AM
|
The definition you quoted from was used to explain
the use of the word traitor in phrases such race traitor - when there is explicit use of the word traitor. You are switching the contexts of the definitions to fit your argument. In my opinion, the use of the word betray in the ad is in the sense of letting down the country, not as a traitor to the country.
You sincerely believe that the military has no place in this type of discussion, I can understand that. What you don't seem to consider possible is that others, possibly even Sen. Clinton, make a distinction between Gen. Peatrus' political role and his military role. Nor do you seem to allow for that possibility that the republicans only support the military when it suits there political needs.
And therefore, the resolution you implied that Sen. Clinton only ignored because she didn't want to offend a group of donors, I see as nasty politics that is only furthering the us versus them, bunker mentality of the neocons.
Seamus
|
Post #293,403
9/22/07 11:41:54 AM
|
Go to the dictionary.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,404
9/22/07 11:49:20 AM
|
You are just playing with the context
Utterly ridiculous to imply that your impression of what they meant is the only interpretation.
Seamus
|
Post #293,408
9/22/07 11:55:47 AM
|
Give me a break
Its word for word from the definition. Its absurd for you to deny it.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,417
9/22/07 12:24:59 PM
|
It is absurd for you not to admit that there are different
definitions and uses of the word traitor. And it is absurd that the definition you used from Scott's link, the one used to explain the use of traitor in phrases such 'race traitor' can only mean That is calling him a traitor by YOUR posted definition. Seamus
|
Post #293,419
9/22/07 12:41:55 PM
|
Not worth it
Politics 101 - How to lose elections.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,421
9/22/07 12:52:01 PM
|
It just may do that
But the argument is about the intent of the ad, the meaning of the words, not what affect it will have on the election. Two separate arguments.
Seamus
|
Post #293,396
9/22/07 9:44:32 AM
|
"Betray" was necessary to make it rhyme.
It's an elementary schoolyard name calling thing. It's one of the counterproductive aspects of the ad. Anyone who was ever been subjected to name calling based on their last name, (and who hasn't?), will be repulsed by it and will not read the message.
Alex
Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
|
Post #293,397
9/22/07 9:52:50 AM
|
*Ding* *Ding* *Ding*
|
Post #293,427
9/22/07 2:11:10 PM
|
schoolyard name-calling
Quite so, although that's a small enough nugget of actual mass to have been spun into this cumulonimbus-size volume of brouhaha. As to juvenile name-calling*, though, I seem to remember our brethren on the right just busting a gut, back in the day, over "Ellen Degenerate." Michael Kinsley has put it nicely: Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away. And when they came round, they demanded — as if with one voice (or at least as if with one list of talking points) — that every Democratic presidential candidate must "condemn" this shocking, shocking document.
The ad is pretty tough, and the pun on the general's name is pretty witless. You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism. But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical.
It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue. They wouldn't trade it for a week in Anbar province (a formerly troubled area of Iraq that is now, thanks to us, an Eden of peace and tranquillity where barely a car bomb disturbs the perfumed silence \ufffd or so they say). These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.
The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics. They're turning politics into a game of "Mother, May I?" Did you say "Here is my plan for health-care reform"? Uh-oh, you were supposed to say "I condemn MoveOn.org's comments on General Petraeus, and here is my plan for health-care reform."
All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness... [link|http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1663424,00.html|There's more]. Beep and his co-religionists are being disingenuous, as usual. cordially, *Reminds me of jocularly addressing a college acquaintance, Tim Arndt, with a hearty "Arndt you Tim?" He fixed me for a long moment with an obviously well-practiced icy stare and then said "Oh. I get it." (beat) "Think of that all by yourself, did you?" Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #293,430
9/22/07 3:56:40 PM
|
There you go again
inventing a position for me by assuming I am in lockstep with a group that I am not.
Again, it teeny short bursts for the reading challenged.
1) Moveon.org is with free speech rights to say whatever they want.
2) The candidates are free to respond in any way they see fit.
3) the play on his name, in all its cutesy rhymes, says BETRAY US.
4) the definition of traitor has been posted, containing the same words.
Now on to the WISDOM OF SILENCE among presidential candidates.
These are people aspiring to the job of CIC, they should dam well be able to take a position. As it turns out, most of them did.
2) It would do well for them to show support to these gentleman in face of >this type of attack. Take out the juvie name calling that easily translates to traitor and THERE IS NO ISSUE. To that point, I have stated I have NO ISSUE with >civil< disagreements such as those by Hillary stating that the facts presented are difficult to believe..putting me directly at odds with the posted article where Rudy uses this to slam her.
In other words, don't pretend that you know my position because you obviously do not.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,431
9/22/07 4:45:24 PM
|
Ok, so I lied.
I'm back in this thread - I hope you don't mind. Again, it teeny short bursts for the reading challenged.
1) Moveon.org is with free speech rights to say whatever they want.
2) The candidates are free to respond in any way they see fit.
3) the play on his name, in all its cutesy rhymes, says BETRAY US.
4) the definition of traitor has been posted, containing the same words. What about the 800 pound gorilla in the room? 5) Is it appropriate for [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01585:|HR 1585] to be changed with [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02934:|S.AMND.2934] or [link|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02947:|S.AMND.2947] at all? Why should the Senate be involved at all in commenting on MoveOn's newspaper ad? Given some of your [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=289548|earlier] [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=278682|comments] (as examples), I would think you wouldn't be all that enamored of the Congress wasting time and passing symbolic legislation. Why aren't you upset with Sen. Cornyn and his 6 co-sponsors (all Republicans, BTW) for wasting the Senate's time? Where's the indignation toward the "other" side? Your political "pessimism" seems to be highly directional. Maybe the Senate leadership or Rules Committee should have refused to let Cornyn bring his amendment to the floor, instead. I'm sure that would have gone over really well with the "conservatives", huh. Just curious. ;-) Cheers, Scott. (Who hopes to return to lurking on this thread.)
|
Post #293,439
9/22/07 8:00:41 PM
|
Short answer (and no biggie, welcome back)
No.
You need to go to even earlier statements where it is my express belief that items need to be legislated 1 at a time and that tacking things (especially bs items like this) on to bills is not in our best interest.
One only need to drive up the I78 corridor in WV to understand what pork can be attached by those in charge of appropriations. There is a reason why Bird will be elected even after he's embalmed.
And just so you are aware, my comments here have been directed at candidates for POTUS, not at Congress. I don't think we have nearly enough time to get into that. It is simply, imo, imperative to the democratic candidates to not allow themselves to painted as weak on defense. While the country may not like the current situation we are in, being viewed as weak and unsupportive of the military has in the past and will continue to cost them elections.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,440
9/22/07 8:08:06 PM
|
To me it is just as important a candidate support
free speech and fight the bullshit partisan politics of trying to tar the democratic candidates with the moveon.org ad as it is to be strong on defense.
Seamus
|
Post #293,441
9/22/07 8:50:41 PM
|
That hasn't panned out historically
but hey, things could change.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,442
9/22/07 8:51:00 PM
|
2008 is not 1988.
Thanks. WV and NJ are examples of party politics that have gone too far. The present administration is another. ;-)
While history sometimes seems to repeat itself, it's more often the case that Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Dukakis isn't running. The Soviet Union isn't imploding with a Republican in office. Etc.
Comparing the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the turnout, it seems to me that much of the electorate is becoming less receptive to sloganeering. There are too many examples of disasters under Bush for people to take superficially appealing slogans at face value. The web is making it possible for small outfits like [link|http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/aboutus|Rockridge Institute] to have an [link|http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/07/at_a_loss_for_words.html|impact] on the debate and illustrate the importance of language in framing the issues (something that Rove and the late Lee Atwater have known for a while). IOW, the Republicans no longer have a monopoly on "Morning in America".
Of course it ultimately comes down to the candidates and the circumstances around the election, but I really don't think that much of anyone is going to care about who voted for the two amendments. Does anyone care that Hillary never really "apologized" for her Iraq AUMF vote, even though it was a talking-point for several weeks? By November 2008 the MoveOn ad will be ancient history.
I think people realize that being "strong on defense" is more than symbolism and empty slogans, and there's more than enough [link|http://the-filibuster.blogspot.com/2006/01/republicans-weak-on-defence.html|ammunition on the other side] if they want to play that game. Remember that even though Kerry was attacked mercilessly on his defense policies, he nearly won. The trends is even more in the Democrat's favor this time.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #293,446
9/22/07 11:08:52 PM
|
Well, by that definition, MoveOn.org is right
He is a traitor. Just like his commander in chimp chief.
There. Clear enough for you?
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #293,451
9/23/07 12:38:13 AM
|
Thanks for the affirmation
its not always that you agree with me.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,950
9/30/07 10:35:09 PM
|
NO...but it does happen
The Cubs are in the playoffs, after all...
;-)
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #293,392
9/22/07 7:38:49 AM
|
Re: No problem with that at all
The military supporting the republican goes back a long time. It seams to me at least back to the Viet Nam War. They support the republicans because it is easy to fall for this kind of BS. If they truly supported the troops they would have made an attempt to make sure to keep the military out of the fight. Instead of giving the democrats a chance to make the distinction between the politics of the war that Peatrus is a part of and the rest of the military. Instead they took the military and used it as a club to beat up the democrats and the 1st amendment. If they really supported the military and the 1st amendment they would have said something similar to: I find the moveon.org ad repugnant and I hope they aren't talking about the military in general because they help us protect the rights of groups like this to make these vile statements. But, the republicans are more interested in using the military to beat up the other political party and anything that gets in their way.
Moveon.org was stupid for walking into this briar patch.
Seamus
|
Post #293,405
9/22/07 11:53:32 AM
|
Re: No problem with that at all
Moveon.org was stupid for walking into this briar patch. Yes, and very much detrimental to their cause. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,412
9/22/07 12:04:41 PM
9/22/07 12:25:34 PM
|
Stupid, but they still, IMO, were not calling Gen. Peatrus
a traitor, just someone who let down the military and the country by helping the POTUS spin the numbers - someone whose actions betrayed his mission. The Gen. is helping the president delude the country into thinking the current strategy can change things in the Iraq, instead of telling the truth. In this context, I firmly believe, that they could only be calling him a traitor if they said he was helping the enemy. That they did not do.
Moveon.org won't be able to match the republicans when it comes to slime ball tactics. Nor should they try.
Seamus
Edited by Seamus
Sept. 22, 2007, 12:25:34 PM EDT
|
Post #293,413
9/22/07 12:13:13 PM
|
Well then petition Webster to change the definition
because without using the actual word, they pretty much got the rest of the definition into print.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,418
9/22/07 12:30:36 PM
|
I don't have to petition Websters
[link|http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/betray|http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/betray]:
definition 1) is 'to lead astray' is the most apt.
Seamus
|
Post #293,394
9/22/07 9:17:42 AM
|
You seem to be ignoring a major point.
The Repos keep smearing the Dems with media they or their supporters own, with "think tanks" that their supporters fund, and with ad hoc "swift boat" type orgs. And they piously say "that's just the freedom of speech of others... we didn't say that." The Dems NEED similar capability. This is not the "somebody else did it so this time it's ok" defense. The Dems need media weapons and the Reps have proved that this model works. Simply nasty tactics in a nasty place. How else can you undo lionization of a military figure by the opposition's noise machine? Think of this as an inept pussyfication* attempt. It could have been done better, but at least somebody tried.
You also seem to be hung up on the poor general. If he rose to that rank in Rumsfeld's army, he's a political yes man. Rumsfeld ran off most of the decent leadership in the last six years. He's in front of congress to pimp Bush's latest fantasy and if he doesn't do it to Bush's expectations, he's fired. A political shill is a fair target. The good general gave up his honor to be Bush's butt boy. He has nothing left but the lecture circuit once he's out. His choice. As you say, he's been around long enough to know how the game is played. And conflating picking on a political stooge with disrespecting the troops is a blatant strawman. But you knew that...
*CRC: I made the word up. Please don't spell check it.
|
Post #293,407
9/22/07 11:54:44 AM
|
No I'm not
I have no problems with the printing of the ad. They can do that all they want. It is a free country. Its their money.
Its the reaction (or lack thereof)by the candidates that aspire to be CIC and the impression that that reaction should leave on 1)the people that will be in their charge and 2) the people that will do the voting.
Yes, this is alot of media crap about a legal act by an org that skirts the campaign finance laws. What I see this as is another Democratic candidate making it EASY on the opposition to leave a bad impression in the mouths of the voters. Here we go, self destructing again. If you >really< want to get Republicans out of office then you really DON'T want help like this.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,420
9/22/07 12:48:49 PM
|
But you also said that
Sen. Clinton couldn't be bother to vote, was on the fence. But, she did vote for the democratic version of the censure, just not the republican version.
You also said the repo spin machine had it right. If they had it right they would have said that they vehemently disagree with the message, but they and the military defend the right of group's like moveon.org to make those statements.
It was a gamble on the part of moveon.org to go with the ad. I am not sure if it is going to hurt the democrats more than help them.
Seamus
|
Post #293,422
9/22/07 1:03:40 PM
|
What I'd seen
was that she did not vote on the Boxer and voted NO on the other.
[link|http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00343|That appears to be incorrect]. In which case all she needs to do to get rid of this, and I'm sure she will, is to say she voted yes to the Boxer resolution.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,424
9/22/07 1:31:20 PM
|
Just curious, where did you see that?
Seamus
|
Post #293,425
9/22/07 1:47:10 PM
|
Gonna have to get my laptop back
from my daughter and check the history. I was trying to stay with fairly reputable sites. The one I saw the most conflicting reports on was Obama.
Ah well. It was fun anyway.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,474
9/23/07 12:31:40 PM
|
Are you KIDDING me?
In which case all she needs to do to get rid of this, and I'm sure she will, is to say she voted yes to the Boxer resolution. We've got an ENTIRE thread here because someone stated "Clinton stood silently by when MoveOn.org ran this venomous ad in the New York Times"....(3 guess who that person was). You think anyone is going to point out the entire thing was a lie? (I'm sure FOX news will jump on it any time now).
|
Post #293,480
9/23/07 4:20:49 PM
9/23/07 4:21:36 PM
|
She hasn't yet.
and I wouldn't put faith in the party machine to get it right. They haven't done too well the past couple of tries.
Post edit...my 2 main sources of online news are cnn and msnbc.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
Edited by bepatient
Sept. 23, 2007, 04:21:36 PM EDT
|
Post #293,409
9/22/07 12:01:35 PM
|
Actually he's not
He's saying that Hillary (and Obama) should've denounced "political advertising by outside groups", just like Bush did (regarding the Swiftboat ads).
Doesn't mean the ads stop. Doesn't mean the politicans don't give it down thumb with a secret smirk. The ads continue (and get worse...but they're not 'backed' by the politicans....honest).
|
Post #293,416
9/22/07 12:21:00 PM
|
All right. Difference of opinion is all.
Bush denouncing political advertising by outside groups is about as truthful as any other statement he's made. He's either lying out his ass or ignorant from living in a bubble. I, personally would prefer that my representatives would do a bit better. The moveon ploy was stupid and self defeating. They (Clinton and Obama) could have distanced themselves by saying that the outside guys were not speaking on their behalf, but I still think that condemning somebody else's first amendment rights is over the top. As filthy as this race is going to get, I can't muster much outrage over this simple stupidity. Sorry.
|
Post #293,473
9/23/07 12:19:55 PM
|
Nor can I
politically speaking, it probably would've been smart for them to denounce it like Bush did. (All wink and nod) -- but then they would've just been playing at the Republican level.
I'm not sure they can win if they don't play at the Republican level, but at least they didn't decide to stoop to that level. <Shrug>
|
