Post #293,317
9/20/07 5:37:18 PM
|
Just for Beep: Achenblog on the attacks on Hillary.
[link|http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/?hpid=opinionsbox1|Achenblog at the Washington Post]: Her egregious error, allegedly, is a failure to do what the Republicans declare that she should have done if she didn't have a cold and pitiless heart the size of a peanut. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #293,318
9/20/07 7:25:07 PM
|
She can't distance herself from her money
so she won't say anything against moveon.org.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,319
9/20/07 7:29:52 PM
|
I don't think she should
fundamentally, they were right.
|
Post #293,325
9/20/07 8:31:22 PM
|
I don't really care if they were right or not
that level of discourse has no place. Not for Republicans or Democrats.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,326
9/20/07 8:53:53 PM
|
*COUGH*
|
Post #293,328
9/20/07 10:00:11 PM
|
Maybe I should be more clear
Any current member of the government should not endorse a personal insult to a high ranking military officer doing his job.
moveon is free to say what they want. great country we live in. Doesn't mean it should be agreed with or endorsed.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,445
9/22/07 10:43:54 PM
9/22/07 10:44:45 PM
|
But its quite OK to endorse a personal insult
to a Senator when running for president, isn't it BeeP?
Even when the insult is shown to be a lie, isn't that correct, BeeP?
Just wanna make sure of your moral consistency compass...wouldn't want to get lead astray into the land of fundamentalist hypocrisy, now would I?
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)
Edited by jb4
Sept. 22, 2007, 10:44:45 PM EDT
|
Post #293,452
9/23/07 12:40:06 AM
|
I don't believe I've ever said that.
But you're welcome to pretend I did if it makes you feel better.
Seems to happen alot around here.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,455
9/23/07 4:47:57 AM
|
> Would that 11th Commandment include Colin Powell, then? <
Any current member of the government should not endorse a personal insult to a high ranking military officer doing his job. Is *he* guilty of serving as shill for selective data-taking; guilty of {willingly?} allowing his previous credence to be attached to a hysterical piece of propaganda, meant to [successfully] rush towards an illegal Invasion? Because.. by now - it has become apparent that his credibility, perhaps his entire reputation for honesty -- is irretrievably tanked -- though I haven't seen any polling organization yet willing to put such a question to the Vox Populi - so starkly. I mean.. if you saw it in spreadsheet form - then it would be True-ish, right? There is thus - precedent for this Admin actively seeking flaks (whose rep is better that their own) - an extremely easy bar to beat , all things considered - over six years' experience. As to doing his job - What Petraeus has just done: precisely is what is Not a military officer's job; not (even) in the US, by all previous carefully cultivated attitudes thus: precedence. They Do Not interpose themselves between polarized Politicians, 'promise' 'results' -- whose probability is already seen to be parlously Low: and call it simply, "military intelligence". cf. Douglas Mac Arthur VS Harry Truman. He Fired the sucker for political meddling. Shrub INVITES it == if it fits his plan. {sniff} and Shrub fancies he's 'like HST' (too). Delusional as usual. Oh - and - (There is a recent link in one of these threads to which you replied, disdainfully dismissing a Character Assessment of Petraeus by his *Superior Officer*; dismissed as ~~ "Oh, nobody should pay any attention to military squabbles, etc." ie 'a mere bagatelle,' to which dismissal I here reply: Oh. Really? - and accuse you of selective data taking. Once again. A superior officer's assessment is of considerable relevance to someone who knows-not the person in question - only.. 'not to You, merely.') Failing some miraculous occurrence, whereby suddenly -- 98% of all persons in Iraq, overnight suffer near total-amnesia -- Gen Petraeus shall join Gen. : Powell in well-earned obloquy. This, quite independently of anything MoveOn has said or will say. It is only a matter of, whenever it becomes apparent -?- that all that PowerPunt-aided palaver Was pure "string it along til Shrub leaves" BS, just as so many Vox Populi clearly suspect. So then, now that :'s UN speech has been limned by countless dissections - and its data been seen to be fabricated / a pure propaganda operation - is it OK to diss : publically, yet? Or does a uniform convey permanent unaccountability, in that customized ethics manual? Related matter for ethical pundits - What are your thoughts on War Crimes trials, in the aftermath of bogus invasions and the rendering of a once-functioning country into a state of near-total infrastructure ruination and accelerating - - - > towards Failed State Status? Hmm? Do you *Really* go with: "if we broke it we must fix it?" (: said that IIRC) And if We ..simply.. CANNOT 'fix' it - what does your ethics manual decree for our Just Punishment? ('Course we'd have to do it Ourselves; we have all those nukes.) Prosecutors are standing by for your Instructions, deacon.
|
Post #293,460
9/23/07 8:53:00 AM
|
Many good points. Thanks.
But Powell was a civilian at the time he was serving as Secretary of State (though one can argue that 4 star generals are never really civilians after they retire). His reputation was built on his military career though. Also, MacArthur was fired for trying to go over Truman's head. Petraeus is getting flack for being Bush's poodle. While both are political roles, they're on opposite sides. I think you're right that Petraeus did himself a disservice in his testimony, but I'm sure he remembers what happened to [link|http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm|Shinseki] after his testimony to the Senate. (Frontline has a good interview with [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/fallows.html|James Fallows] which covers the battles over troop levels, Wolfowitz and Shinseki, etc.) Your Powell quote is a variation of the "Pottery Barn rule" (which he denied coining), but he [link|http://creatingspaces.blogspot.com/2007/05/harrison-owen-interview-and-more-colin.html|has written something similar] (from his autobiography, p.35-36): I learned that being in charge means making decisions, no matter how unpleasant. If it's broke, fix it. When you do, you win the gratitude of the people who have been suffering under the bad situation. I learned in a college drill competition that you cannot let the mission suffer, or make the majority pay to spare the feelings of an individual. . . . Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #293,466
9/23/07 10:42:55 AM
|
I don't understand you.
really. learn english. then put it in a spreadsheet for me.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,475
9/23/07 12:48:32 PM
|
I almost brought up the Truman-McDouglas issue
But does it really apply in this case.
McDouglas was fired - not a personal attack. Everyone would agree that the President is the CIC and has the right to fire Generals. So, <shrug>, it doesn't apply.
|
Post #293,327
9/20/07 9:59:38 PM
|
So the dems should bend over and take it
They finally grow a spine and now that upsets you.
How convenient.
They're wrong when they're right as far as your concerned
|
Post #293,330
9/20/07 10:02:16 PM
|
What?
Are you saying that moveon is the democratic party? Because the democratic party is trying not to say that.
Sitting on her hands and not saying anything is NOT growing a spine, its cowardice.
Growing a spine would be saying "damned right I agree" OR "they should shut up".
She's riding the fence.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,332
9/20/07 10:15:38 PM
|
Damn close
Moveon seems to represent the majority of democratic opinion out there.
On the other hand, Hillary got burned bad enough the 1st time around when she played health queen and thought she was above political compromise.
So, here's the deal.
This is primary season. Her goal is to coast through, pandering a BIT to the far left, but no too much, and gain the nomination. It is VERY important not to say too much to piss off the middle of the road undecided people who will have to make the swing vote in the final election.
If it pissed you off that she's straddling the fence, too damn bad. You weren't voting for her anyway no matter what she said. I don't mind at all.
|
Post #293,334
9/20/07 10:35:11 PM
|
Indeed.
Asking Hillary to play the game of denouncing an ad that she didn't place is even less meaningful than demanding that all Republicans denounce Congressman Goode's [link|http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/20/lawmaker.koran/|comments].
I expect that MoveOn.org got a lot more hits and more donations as a result of the ad than any other bit of print advertizing they've done. They should be giving their headline writer a bonus, even though it was childish IMO.
The right is trying to make Hillary is this generation's Ted Kennedy. She knows enough not to play the game by the Republican rules.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #293,346
9/21/07 7:48:09 AM
|
"Betray us", just quoting the troops.
-----------------------------------------
Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
|
Post #293,348
9/21/07 8:56:57 AM
|
2 completely different things.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,357
9/21/07 5:18:52 PM
9/21/07 5:23:50 PM
|
FWIW - Cindy Sheehan's response re MoveOn ad
[Ed. Belonged 'neath top post /crazy -from whence I clicked Reply. I do no make mistrakes.] Yes, yes I. Know. {sheesh} that she is deemed by the cognoscenti to be naively in search of an actual Authentic Reasessment (!!) of how the whole fucking US political establishment needs to be reinvented; nevertheless, she has often the most concise view of Naked Emperors and their bloviating Watchers (nor - as is evident here - is she without reservations on various MoveOn tactics, etc. etc.) That we Shall Not reinvent Anything which is counter to the sources of largest PAC$, the Top 0.1% -- goes as much without-saying as, ~ 'the US is a sick-sicko nest of blind historically-iggerant mass-consuming xenophobic narcissists'. Would that MORE, not fewer.. parents of these dis-honored dead (ARE there any others, yet ???) could muster some variety of focussed passion against the diseased troglodytes we elevate, simply because we are repeatedly too inept to observe the evident signs of their diseases - in advance. September 21, 2007
General Betray-Us and MoveOn.org
Cindy Sheehan
I have often been critical of MoveOn.org, basically because I feel, for the most part that they support Democrats to the detriment of democracy. However, MoveOn.org was a big help to me at Camp Casey in August \ufffd05 and organized the thousands of candlelight vigils that occurred across the country. I will always be grateful to them for that.
I had a policy when my children were younger. I would always try to catch them doing something \ufffdright\ufffd (sharing, being kind, etc) and I would praise them and give them a treat. In that vein, I have to give my 100% support to MoveOn.org in regards to their right-on ad in the NYT that has become even the object of a Senate denouncement.
It must be hard for MoveOn.org to have 21 Democratic Senators vote to denounce the ad [sucking-up? Again?] when MoveOn.org has been so supportive of the party. However, I don\ufffdt think that it\ufffds appropriate for the Senate to be voting on newspaper ads, when it is a clear 1st Amendment right of anyone in our representative republic to place such ads, whether one agrees with them or not, and with almost half the Senate Dems voting to denounce MoveOn\ufffds freedom of speech and the Dem leadership taking impeachment \ufffdoff the table\ufffd and giving BushCo more latitude to spy on us, I wonder which part of our Constitution the Dems will defile next?
Today, George, in his unbridled and un-matched arrogance and just abject stupidity called the MoveOn ad \ufffddisgusting.\ufffd What I find more disgusting is a cowardly Commander in Chief and all of his supposed underlings lying to our country and the world and sending our young troops to fight, die, be wounded and kill innocent people when they were too \ufffdbusy\ufffd to do the same in their mistake of a war: Vietnam.
What I find disgusting is CNN (where I just saw Eli Parisier of MoveOn debate a pro-war person) rarely criticizes the occupation or shows the tragic consequences of this war and they are raising money so a poor Iraqi boy can have reconstructive surgery on his badly burned face. That is great, but what about examining the reasons little Youssif was burned in the first place and start calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops? What about the millions of other Iraqis who have been wounded or displaced? Who is telling their stories and raising money for them to be whole and have homes?
What I find disgusting is General Betray-Us allowing himself to be used as a political force field for the lying administration and lying himself. Sectarian violence is not down 80%, the General Accounting Office report and the fact that hundreds of Iraqis are killed every month 50,000 leave their homes on a monthly basis directly contradict those \ufffdfacts.\ufffd The only reason some places are safer in Iraq is because the neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and the sectarian militias are providing security to small geographic areas. In the very violent south; Shi\ufffda Mahdi are fighting Shi\ufffda Badr. It is a disaster that needs to be faced and solved now, not put away until the spring or prolonged so Dems can get the White House back in '08.
General Betray-Us has not only betrayed America and his oath of service, but he has betrayed the very troops he should care about more than being an \ufffdass-kissing little chicken-shit\ufffd to a Commander in Chief who has spent years betraying the troops. It is time to truly support our troops and start withdrawing them immediately. Not to \ufffdpre-surge\ufffd levels but to \ufffdpre-invasion\ufffd levels. It is time to listen to the people of Iraq and force the mercenary killers and other contractors to leave and give the people of Iraq back their jobs (50% unemployment rate in some areas, some areas higher) and their country.
The occupation of Iraq is a disaster and I applaud MoveOn for moving a little closer to the true \ufffdanti-war\ufffd movement and encourage them to come with us farther.
Anyone who is concerned with the rapid slide to fascism should be supporting MoveOn in this battle.
Anyone who cares about democracy over Democrats (or Rethugs) should join me in supporting MoveOn in this particular struggle and in bringing MoveOn more fully to the table with the peace movement.
Thanks MoveOn for speaking for the majority of Americans and please stick to your so-called guns. The struggle is worthwhile!
[link|http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7wi5n3zxB6fazA1H0seTAwm%2B7LrpYbM%2F| Donate to GSFP and the Camp Casey Peace Institute]
Subscribe to our Listserve]
Edited by Ashton
Sept. 21, 2007, 05:23:50 PM EDT
|
Post #293,358
9/21/07 5:33:40 PM
|
This reminds me of what Keith Olbermann had to say
[link|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20896378/|Olbermann to Bush: \ufffdYour hypocrisy is so vast\ufffd]
...
\ufffdAnd I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad.
\ufffdAnd that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like Moveon.org or more afraid of irritating them, than they are of irritating the United States military.\ufffd
\ufffdThat was a sorry deal.\ufffd
First off, it\ufffds \ufffdDemocrat-ic\ufffd party.
You keep pretending you\ufffdre not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect.
Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising/mugging of Senator Max Cleland? After the swift-boating of John Kerry?
But most importantly, making that the last question?
So that there was no chance at a follow-up?
So nobody could point out, as Chris Matthews so incisively did, a week ago tonight, that you were the one who inappropriately interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place!
Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, you shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman and now you\ufffdre complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone?
Seamus
|
Post #293,365
9/21/07 6:58:52 PM
|
I find it surprising that Olbermann is still on..
Given the Times. I get to see him occasionally / friend with cable. (I'd think he needs a better editor, given the length of some of his rants.. except that, unlike most of us -- even his filler digressions are so often al punte, too.) Hypocrisy -- if ever there were a Better Single Word summing up the Peeple, their Leader and the process by which they choose each other - I can't imagine that word. We have a whole fucking year to hear reiteration of the spineless defending the jellyfish VS the chicken hawks defending their, 'I'll-hold-your-coat: let's see you and him fight forever'. And I've seen two replays of exactly the same mindless button-pushing (proven to be just as effective, Each Time.) We appear incapable of memory. Now it is more grotesque, louder.. atop the utter boring refrain. Only.. this time around there's no Smothers Brothers or Laugh-in [General Bull Right] to be cancelled - so I'm waiting for wimpy-MSNBC's 'reasons' when Olbermann gets the axe. Hoped to be able to see this all as comedy, but the recent inundation of WW-II reminiscences (what.. with no 'anniversary' thing?) reminds what is at stake, now again: acquiescing to Brown Shirts. Wonder if PBS could do a dramatizarion of It Can't Happen Here -??- despite [link|http://www.saukherald.com/ftp/lewis/stories.html| this opinion] of problems with today's short attention span "The content and observations are still as fresh and crisp as they were in 1920, said Jim Umhoefer, writer and member of the Sinclair Lewis Foundation. Umhoefer said the writing style is harder to read for today's audience due to the wordiness."Main Street is the perception of one individual on small-town America," said Paul Theisen, mayor of Sauk Centre." I don't think his perception was correct. I don't think it ever did exist the way he portrayed it." That's re Main Street, but ~ for the other. Other problems - relating the pre-'30s milieu to people who have no idea who Father Coughlan, (the radio preacher model) was (nor G\ufffdbbels, nor..) Oh well. One Year in repetition purgatory: we are All sentenced to that, without trial and no appeal. Pics of lots of dead 21 yo's on Lehrer closing screen, too - like just now. We have no shame.
|
Post #293,367
9/21/07 7:27:05 PM
|
He is signed until 2011 according to Wikipedia
I don't have cable, but I watch his countdown clips on the [link|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/|Countdown] website.
Seamus
|
Post #293,369
9/21/07 8:28:40 PM
|
Hmm, there's a thought -
Even on dial-up - it can thrash away while doing chores, thought the ratio:visual minutes is laughable.
Hard to imagine *him* wanting to stay that long (?) but his contract could always be bought out ..if screaming evangels are at the studio HQ, with burning faggots. :-0
|
Post #293,329
9/20/07 10:00:45 PM
|
Petraeus is a big boy - I'm sure he's been called worse.
This episode reminds me of a story I heard in grad school: One of the profs was a B-52 pilot in Vietnam. He said that after surviving SAMs flying past his plane, one learns not to take university politics seriously.
Or, in other words, the quote attributed to Kissinger applies to the MoveOn ad - "There is no politics quite as vicious as academic politics . . . because in academia there is so little at stake."
Gen. Petraeus being called a name out of 2nd grade isn't worth 1% of the attention it's getting.
As some others have pointed out, MoveOn fell into the oldest play in the Republican playbook. They love nothing better than distracting people by creating brouhahas about images and style rather than addressing real issues of substance. The press eats this stuff up because they don't have to do any work, yet it sells papers and brings eyeballs.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #293,331
9/20/07 10:07:06 PM
|
I'm sure he is and I'm sure he doesn't care.
they chose their lot...and there's an expectation that they respond. All she had to do was her JOB. Be in the room and vote. Nope. Couldn't even do that.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,343
9/21/07 6:24:40 AM
|
1.5 minutes of Hannity, Rush et al == 50 of this
Move-On ad, which - compared to the adolescent level which is consistent with those 24/7 demagogues? - seems almost Homeric.
Yes, the level was juvenile. Think Oh Pun. Tell me again about the daily drumbeat of Clinton murdering his aide, the utterly beastly crap spread non-stop by Rovian-trained Dirty Tricks battalions, virtually from the day of [a real] election.
But cleaned up and put forth in that academese which has Never been a part of Chicken-hawk level character assassinations, from 54-40 or Fight onwards --> through Swift Boats -
Clearly the General has been handed {{whew}} the Hottest Potato since Napoleon's return from Moscow (so eloquently diagrammed as to body-count/mile, by our Friend Tufte.) Since he is not a fool {benefit-of-doubt..} - he assuredly realizes that he can promise NOTHING to which the Neoconmen could attach that chimera, er Victory!! - even if wearing a radiation-proof suit and an 11 meter pole.
ie By Now, virtually every person who Wants to review the Slapstick-grade series of utterly Stupid Decidering that got Baghdad to now ONE HOUR of electricity.. most days - has reviewed.
So the 'betrayal' word (of the Trust of Honest People) is, while a tad premature when it came out: given what was next limned to us all - it was not at all hyperbole. In flacking for the Berk, so is his/our fate attached to his Leader's madness - apparently for just long enough to run out his term without being run out on a rail
(unless ... unless, say, Petraeus were to receive a Vietnam era 'fragging', say ??)
Potato-holder GONE - What. To. Do. :-0
(Hell even the [link|http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/20/texas_iraq/index.html?source=newsletter| Texans!] are tired of seeing 3rd Tours + the pile of heaped detached limbs - on their {very high percentage of} that Overall Maimed List.)
You can accuse of dissembling, sugar-coating, obfuscating ... flacking!
Nicely Nicely or -?- you can do it the standard Murican Way.
Which Move-On chose. It seems that you are throwing in your lot with the folks who think that Move-On should now Go Away == read that: "..if only we could Kill all them filthy Comsymps Right Now - why.. them fuckers Don't Agree with our Fantasy!!"
Well, ARE YA? Tell us where you Stand. So we can mark where you Fall.
It Could Come in the Form of a Mushroom Cloud LLC
|
Post #293,347
9/21/07 8:33:41 AM
|
Why should she say anything?
moveon.org has first amendment rights to make political statements. They put forth the proposition that Petraeus is a political officer rather than an objective commander, and did so in a childish manner. The statement was not put out by the Democratic party or the Clinton campaign. It is not Clinton's job to endorse or condemn political statements made by others, particularly if the statement can be used against her by opponents. If she felt the need to make a statement, it should have been on the order of "Why do you hate the Bill of Rights so much?"
I haven't much nice to say about Clinton and I won't vote for her, but she's not required to throw her head at every grandstanding Repo that bleats a challenge.
What we need is a "none of the above" selection that could force another vote with other candidates. We have to do better than this crop. They all suck.
|
Post #293,349
9/21/07 9:02:05 AM
|
Someone here put forth
that this was "growing a spine".
Her chosen organization gave her a very simple way of stating agreement or disagreement. A yes or no vote on the floor.
She couldn't even do that. Neither could Obama. This is disappointing from the 2 lead D candidates for Commander in Chief.
What kind of support can the military expect from these guys if they can't even place a vote in support of one of the highest ranking officers of the military?
(We're for the troops...but against the war? This kind of supports the first half of that statement being utter BS...does it not?)
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #293,350
9/21/07 9:15:44 AM
|
She voted no to this strawman.
-----------------------------------------
Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
|
Post #293,351
9/21/07 9:27:02 AM
|
Re: Someone here put forth
I should probably stay out this, but here goes. Clinton and Obama both voted on the democratic version of the resolution. The republican version was too political and the democratic version was too generic. The republicans are equating criticisms of Peatrus in his political role with the military as a whole. If they were really standing up for the rest of the military, they would have the guts to keep them out the fight.
Given the choice, Clinton might choose to side with moveon.org, but that is not the choice the republicans gave with that resolution.
Seamus
|
Post #293,352
9/21/07 9:46:09 AM
|
I was thinking more in terms olf Another Scott's post
and I may have misunderstood the situation. It was my understanding that the moveon guys did their thing, the Reps responded with a resolution to condemn it, and the Dems jumped on board to save their useless skins. As Silverlock pointed out, it was a strawman and I consider that it should have been ignored or spun back on the sponsors. Keep in mind that the guy saying that it was "growing a spine" signs himself "crazy" and he should probably know... What kind of support can the military expect from these guys if they can't even place a vote in support of one of the highest ranking officers of the military? That highest ranking officer was in Dizzy City to present Bush's delusions as military fact. I would say that not taking him at his word without reservation is in a large way supporting the troops. Better support would be to get their asses home. Suppressing the bill of rights because somebody else suggested that he was a political hack has nothing to do with the troops. That said, almost everybody running would sacrifice any number of troops if it would get them elected. Of course troop support is bullshit, but that's what you get out of bulls and politicians.
|
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>
|
