MoveOn.org's full-page ad in the NY Times has Republicans with their panties in a bunch fighting a grave new threat, mostly due to the ad's frankly childish and ill-advised pun on Gen. Petraeus' name: “Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Betray-Us?” Now our GOP patriotism brigade claims it calls his patriotism into question (it doesn't); and in a supreme irony, that it's “McCarthyist” (it isn't). Interesting — opposing the government's policies is now “McCarthyist.” Learning something?
In today's Globe, war advisor Peter Feaver grabs his ankles and ties himself into a pretzel over this:
The advertisement alleges, without evidence, that Petraeus is not going to give his honest, professional assessment of the situation in Iraq but instead will be “cooking the books” to curry favor with the Bush White House.
“Without evidence?” Really? Well, there's Petraeus's rosy Op-Ed from 2004, which doesn't exactly indicate an independence or clarity of vision (although I'd much prefer to have the world he describes).
Here's what the ad actually says (with my links):
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. [many more links here]
Nope, no evidence here, folks. The GOP really doesn't want to address those issues at all, so they take up their torches and pitchforks against a (lame-ass and unhelpful) pun.
Oh, and Feaver goes on to lecture the anti-war movement:
This is a defining moment for the antiwar faction. They can continue on the path on to which they have veered, repeating some of the worst mistakes in American history. Or they can make a clean break with the past, police their own ranks, and promote a healthy, critical, public debate about the best way forward in Iraq. [my emphasis]
Wow, drink deeply of that, my friends. It's the “anti-war faction”, not the warmongers who willfully, dishonestly and recklessly led us into and continue an unnecessary war, who have to answer for “some of the worst mistakes in American history.” You can't get better projection at a drive-in.
Once again, we find the Republican party — and indeed the war's architects themselves — being much more interested in defeating Democrats than in defeating the enemy, in securing peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've had 4 1/2 years to do the latter, and failed; it is not a coincidence that they'll fail at the former as well. Call this flurry of outrage what it is: Desperation.
A more accurate description of MoveOn's add. MoveOn has been effective in that they maintained a moral high ground by just holding the truth up to the light. To play into the hands of the opposition with such a cheap shot means they deserve all the ridicule this will engender. Make no mistake I marched against this ill advised war before it started but as the country gets more and more behind stopping it this is just the kind of rookie mistake that throws a speed bump into the road out of Iraq.
Charley,
Today's Wall Street Journal has its own take on the Moveon.org advertisement. While I don't question their right to express their opinion, I am afraid that the left is going to end up moving us back to the right, with their insufferable moralizing, especially if indeed another attack on our soil occurs. These are certainly agonizing times for all on the political spectrum. As you know, I am not a Bush fan (never was by the way) but let's not assume the worst of our military leaders.
Hey I'm glad someone finally mentioned something about Petraeus but I have a hard time swallowing this little piece of analysis:
Here are the possible interpretations of “Betray Us” that I can think of:
1. It is a play on words which is intended to carry no meaning whatsoever, or maybe just be cutesy but in any case the word betray is not meant to mean what the word betray means.
2. “us” is supposed to mean MoveOn, its supporters, or the left in general. A betrayal of this group would not necessarily be unpatriotic. (aside: lol!)
3. “us” means the United States in general and its citizens.
I'm going to make a leap of faith and say that 1 and 2 are ludicrously unrealistic and that the ad intends to mean #3.
Saying that a general will betray his country is basically calling him a traitor. So in a way you are right, the ad didnt so much directly attack his patriotism as it out and out called him a traitor to his country. Thats a bit worse. But it would be hard for a traitor to have much patriotism, wouldnt it?
Frankly I think moveon.org and the hard left is probably infested with traitors. People who hate our country and all it stands for. Plenty of them.
Oh, we just looooove to cry “they're questioning our patriotism” and then question someone else's, don't we?
You know what? I worked with Moveon on things in the past…they are neither “hard left” nor “traitorous.”
But you apparently hate freedom…at least the freedom of speech, and that of association.
If you hate liberals so much get the hell off our websites. Thanks.
(Sorry, I am just so sick of this bullshit, I'm not going to take it anymore.)
People are hypocritical creatures. Are republicans hypocritical? yes. Are democrats hypocritical? yes.
Petraeus isn't a traitor. MoveOn aren't traitors. Benedict Arnold was a traitor.
demolisher doesn't hate the freedom of speech. he can stay on this website.
I thought the MoveOn add was distasteful and juvenile. This does not make MoveOn traitors. Sometimes people get overzealous and make a mistake.
I mean, he's conversing with traitors here, by his own admission, so why would he want to be associated with us? I'm inviting him to go and find people that he can be comfortable with.
I was making a point – he sits there and whines about how Moveon – which, I doubt, intended to name Petraeus a traitor, but point out his BEtrayal of our democratic ideals by shilling for this president with *propaganda*…and all the while, he's ready to call the left a bunch of traitors. I just wonder why his head doesn't explode with the cognative dissonance.
Lynne, lets not put words in my mouth huh. I stand by my belief that the hard left is infested with – ok I’ll mellow it out – if not traitors then serious anti-american forces. People who hate our country and believe all sorts of bad nonsense about us, engage in conspiracy theories aplenty, line up with a stunning variety of communist or socialist agitator networks, or pro-Islamist networks, or some or all of the above. Also I could probably dial back “infested” a bit but you know, any noticable amount of these cretins to me is an infestation. Obviously it does not mean that all people on the left are traitors, any more than all people on the right are religious nut jobs, (A frequent caricature among you hippies er I mean lefties! OK settle down I’m joking)
<
p>
Tblade gives a nice example next door in the thread:
<
p>
What, no outrage? That’s your country Lynne. It is the policy of your country to murder civilians, did you know?
<
p>
All I can think of is if it torture and murder are our policies then why do people keep going to jail for doing it? Makes a perp wish the torture/murder policies were available any place at all for review by the courts, I bet.
<
p>
I’m here to help. Bringing outside news, thoughts and perspectives (and yes, some reality) into the considerably large leftist bubble in which some of you live. I know, its painful sometimes – but just imagine what its like for me!
<
p>
The antithesis of “traitor” is, of course, “patriot.” Do you know what a patriot is?
<
p>
<
p>
–Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary
<
p>
Parse it carefully. It is perfectly correct.
Are you sure you have met any actual liberals? Or do you only read about us on right wing blogs?
There is nothing liberals have in common with pro-Islamist networks. The rest of your odd mythology about liberals is so unrooted in reality I don't know where anyone could begin. Psychotropics?
Hypersensitive, insecure people regard every criticism as a sign of hatred. I don't know you personally, but, geez, bombing kills civilians. It's unavoidable and our policy has involved too much bombing in Iraq. Can your sensitive soul not handle a discussion like that without getting all worried about liberals' fealty to our country?
Heck, a lot of Americans are liberals. Why aren't your comments signs that you hate America? Americans do not just come in three varieties: Dittohead, Bush Follower, and Wingnut.
http://zombietime.co…
<
p>
can you find your hero Cindy Sheehan in there?
It is sometimes said that conservatives view all conservatives as ipso facto good. That's why they think Scooter Libby deserved to be pardoned. He was conservative, hence good. Similarly, collections of pictures of crazy people, some of them nude, just have to be liberal. To our conservatives, they are liberal because — well, just because.
The fact that there are no political positions in common between Islamists and liberals makes no difference to such conservatives. They are both “bad”. Hence the same.
Shorter version: can you come up with examples that aren't stupid?
…George Bush’s America doesn’t stand for much that I’m proud of.
<
p>
Before all the good things about something can be tallied, all the bad things need to be subtracted. Let’s start with lying us into an occupation, raping and murdering of civilians, imprisoning and torturing innocent people, American Military Men raping American female soldiers.
<
p>
I hate what this country stands for right now.
I hate that…. people actually believe that what this country stands for right now is raping and murdering of civilians
Those GIs that raped and murdered are probably the type of people who would of down that to other people here even if we never went to war. They are some seriously evil people. Thats not Bush's fault.
The fact that we are in a quagmire right now is Bush's fault, and a lot of others too. However, we are there now. How do we fix this mess?
Do we up and leave and if so how do we minimize or stop a civil war, deaths on all sides, regional instability, and a training ground for terrorists?
Do we stay and if so how do we minimize or stop a civil war, deaths on all sides, regional instability, and a training ground for terrorists?
Hopefully there are people out there with better ideas than Bush and pretty much everyone else making decisions right now.
Wrong.
<
p>
It has long been US policy to murder civilians as a part of psychological & political warfare; the occupation in Iraq is no different.
<
p>
And it’s more than just the nutcases. The abuse and murder of Iraqi citizens are occurring at the hands of even those soldiers who are in earnest pursuit of there given mission. And that’s before we talk about the prison system there.
<
p>
http://en.wikipedia….
<
p>
And if they are seriously evil people, then it is ultimately the military’s fault for failing to screen such people out through psychological profiling, etc.
This is a correct statement:
This country does not stand for the raping and killing of civilians,
does it happen? yes. do we have a policy to promote it? of course not. Do you think ythat you are the only one horrified by the Mahmoudia incident? That a majority of Americans think that the rape and murder was a good thing? That our founding fathers wanted that? That any human being in their right mind would condone that?
This is not what the country stands for. One wouldn't say that cannabilism is what are country stands for because of Jeffrey Dahmer. Its that type of statement that makes an antiwar arguement fall on deaf ears.
however, I always enjoy the wikipedia link as backup!
What should I deduce from this statement? A.) You enjoyed reading about Americans murdering Iraqi civilians or B.) You deny the Haditha Killings ever happened. If you have issue with the Wikipedia article, take it up with the 80 references and sources at the bottom of the page.
<
p>
http://en.wikipedia….
<
p>
“do we have a policy to promote [killing of civilians]? of course not.” Of course not? You say it as if it should be obvious. Wrong again. Why should I believe the US does not? Based on the fact that it has been US policy in every other war it has engaged in and the fact that over 400,000, it’s clear that there is, at the least, a tacit endorsement of killing civilians in Iraq. At the very least, it is US policy to abuse, terrorize, and torture innocent citizens – look at Abu Gharib. You think everyone in that prison is/was a criminal or terrorist? No, that is not the case.
<
p>
It doesn’t matter what you or I think this country stands for; in this case, actions speak louder than words. And Americans don’t have the ability to decide what we stand for, it’s decided by public opinion in the rest of the world. And right now, America stands for ying us into an occupation, raping and murdering of civilians, imprisoning and torturing innocent people, American Military Men raping American female soldiers. As long as that stuff is happening (and it is), and as long as that is what is being seen by the rest of the world, that is what America stands for.
From this month’s GQ:
<
p>
if Gitmo is harmful to what we stand for, than obviously what we stand for is not torturing and murder and rape
which is exactly what I am saying. Our country does not stand for it. You obviously don't stand for it. I don't stand for it. Colin Powell doesn't stand for it. Pretty much everyone doesn't stand for it. Has there been incidents where members of our country have acted in a manner inconsistent to the values we stand for? yes. But you infer that murder and rape is what our country stands for when the exact opposite is true. I disagree with people who believe the war is in our best national safety interests, but I do not accuse them of standing for murder and rape. When this is your arguement you will lose everytime. The pro-war side will call you a left wing nutjob. I've seen it a hundred times.
This is the point I have been trying to say to you tblade, albeit in my roundabout meandering way.
And as long as America allows Guantanamo, Guantanamo is what America stands for.
I agree with that..but thats totally different than standing for the rape and murder of Iraqi civilians. Thats standing for a specific way of capturing and holding terrorists and enemy combatants.
However you treat them, whether following Geneva or not, there might be innocent people being held. The same happens in our justice system. I can understand why people might condone what others would call torture to get information. I can also understand that you must weigh it against case of doing it to someone who might be innocent, the reputaion of not being on a higher ground.
Its a tough call. Should we have prison exist outside of our laws? Some information extracted form torture methods might save lives. Is the inflicting of pain to an enemy worth the potential saving of lives? What if it turned out to be your life? The percentage of a terrorist attack killing us is very low, so it makes it easier to take a the ground that torture is not worth the reputational, ethical, and moral risk. One must look at the reasons why rational, intelligent people would support Guantanamo. I hope that I would hold my ethics and morals even if it risked my life. But I do not know. And can I make that decision for other americans?
For $72 million, Parsons, on a cost plus basis, built a Police College in Iraq. So bad was this building that human waste drips from the ceilings. It dripped a “brown liquid” on the visiting inspector. It is, in short, unusable. But it cost us $72 million.
Did Republicans or conservatives expose this? Did they investigate it? Do they care as they claim that they want to train Iraqi police? Do they care as they claim that they want to save tax payer money?
The answer to all the above questions is: no.
Or is this just a political football game with other people's lives? How, Sir, is that not a betrayal? How, Sir, is that not treasonous?
How, Sir, dare you make such accusations about the left, hard, soft, or medium? We did not do this. Those you supported did.
Shoddy plumbing. Very shoddy plumbing.
Please advise – how does human waste get ON to the roof of a building in order to drip?
<
p>
Some of us have heard of multi-story buildings. I guess they don’t have them there on the Cape, so you may not know of them.
<
p>
The waste doesn’t have to get onto the roof in order to drip. It is perfectly capable of dripping from, say, story 2 to story 1 if the plumbing isn’t designed properly.
I agree with most of what you’ve said. But that last paragraph is complete and utter garbage and, like MoveOn’s latest antic, completely ruins your whole point and everything else you’ve said.
I have a habit of doing that sort of thing (ruining the point to a certain audience by being incendiary). I'm just not passive enough to be entirely pleasant about things all the time. Anyway there is truth to what I say – there is plenty of active anti-Americanism among the left, not very hard to find if you look. (See my Zinn post as a tame example.) And the anti-American left is a nice place for traitors to live and work.
I'll give you examples if you'd like.
Lots of interesting things came out of the Soviet archives after the fall of communism in this regard, don't you think?
and you have to correct them with harsh words…
Does that make you anti-child?
that you are asking if it is possible to criticize your government harshly and still be pro-American, aka patriotic. Sure it is. I do it all the time.
<
p>
(e.g.: We have a bloated federal government which when it isnt ineptly wasting our hard earned money is most likely transferring people’s wealth to others based on a combination of godlike value judgements and plain old vote buying, essentially making half-slaves out of our country’s productive class.)
<
p>
Check out my Zinn post to see and example of something that is in fact anti-American and unpatriotic.
I fail to see how your quote is “Anti-American” or unpatriotic.
To quote: We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
No. It makes you “anti-child-playing-with-matches”…
So instead of the “Anti-American” left, they should really be called the “Anti-America-spiraling-into-fascism” left; or the “Anti-America-degrading-into-plutocracy” left; or the “Anti-America-revoking-habeas-corpus” left; or the “Anti-America-tapping-your-phone-and-reading-your-electronic-communication” left…
Drawing attention to the ad does not help the stay-in-Iraq-forever faction. Petreaus, as Greenwald (among others) has recently documented, functions largely as Administration flak. On 17 different days in August, Petreaus played host to some visiting dignitary or other. I quoted Matt Yglesisas in a prior comment who points out the Petreaus thinks of his role as influencing American public opinion.
Meanwhile, Atrios points us to this comment from CNN's Michael Ware in Iraq:
The falsity of Petreaus' claims, a falsity as Charley points out that is near habitual, is only publicized by having the Republicans get everyone to read MoveOn's ad.
Well put, as always, Charlie. MoveOn and this ad are not above criticism, but that doesn’t all of a sudden put warmongers and administration apologists in a position to pass judgment on their message or motivation, or distinguish this op-ed from any other component of the relentless “deny, disparage, dismiss” propaganda war they’ve been waging on America. Ratcheting up the outrage doesn’t increase their moral authority as much as testify to the depth of their (mostly delusional) convictions, and they’re clearly much more adept at generating heat than light.
<
p>
Why The Glob doesn’t know any better than to print rants like this is beyond comprehension.
If the General is willing to sacrifice honesty and accountability in favor of partisan spin, I certainly consider that a betrayal. I’m not saying he hates America. He just doesn’t have much respect for Americans.
Except that they're war criminals and traitors.
It is embarassing to agree with such people about anything.
I joined moveon during the impeachment fiasco, but long ago blacklisted their e-mails, once I realized just how batshit crazy they are.
Each of the major parties desparately needs to be rescued from their respective odious wings.
… Is that I don't think that's what they're saying. I think they chose a poor way to express themselves, for sure.
In any event, no full-page ad, however controversial, changes the reality of Iraq right now. And on that, MoveOn has its fact straight.
Do you realize all of this controversy could have been avoided by waiting 24 hours? WHAT did publishing in ADVANCE of the General's testimony accomplish?
It's like McCain attacking Romney at the last debate for saying that the surge was 'apparently' working. McCain said – NO! It IS working! Romney just looked at him adn said, yes, that's what he heard, too, but he'd prefer to wait and hear it from GENERAL PETREAUS before making an assertion, as we've already HAD bad results from making decisions from premature estimates.
Any valid criticism that MoveOn may have had has been invalidated by thier childish namecalling and Christmas-Eve-Present-Opening timing. And frankly, it does call the calibre of their analysis into question if they cannot comment like adults.
If you don't intend to make a splash, create some buzz, generate some controversy, and get a whole lot of people talking about your message, why bother placing an ad at all?
From a P.R. perspective, it looks like MoveOn pressed just the right buttons.
…and it's quite all right if their criticism is “invalidated” in your eyes. I'm pretty sure you are not the target audience for their ad.
Did their communication gaffe inadvertently make you a supporter of the Iraq occupation?
Petreaus has been mendacious. Sample this paragraph from the New York Times editorial page:
Our side of the political spectrum has gotten pretty accurate not only at telling when we are being lied to but at predicting when in the future we will be lied to.
Why are you not embarrassed by the huge pile of lying and mendacity here? Why isn't it far worse that Bush and Petraeus cannot comment like honest men?
Why this playing with statistics? this moving the goal posts? this incoherent, make-believe, sell-for-TV strategy like allying with opponents of the Iraqi central government and labeling it progress?
You can hand out 3s all you want PP, but this awful fiasco is on your very partisan hands. You have a big 3 to carry around for decades.
I can't believe anyone in their right mind would try to defend that despicable ad from Moveon.
Gen. Petraeus has served our country honorably for 35 years. The folks at Moveon aren't fit to polish his boots.
Claiming that the General “betrayed” his country is beyond the pale.
a military dictatorship perhaps? Then, there could be a lot more boot polishing.
Did I say that I would prefer a military dictatorship? How did you come to that conclusion?
As I mentioned, General Petraeus has served our country for 35 years. That is a commitment of honor, duty and service that Moveon obviously can't comprehend, or they wouldn't have tried to smear the man with that odious ad.
If you think that military leaders are above reproach and that they should feel free to lie to us as MoveOn has documented in the case of General Petraeus, then perhaps you might find a military dictatorship more comfortable. Usually, the messy liberals running very distasteful ads are under better control in military dictatorships.
There you can be ruled exclusively by those who have served our country militarily for 35 years. Eveything they do will be just perfect!
They didn’t “smear” him, they criticized him
<
p>
Do you recall…the GWBush supporters complain that any criticism of the GWBush malAdministration as being “hatred” of GWBush. After I get off the floor, having laughed my rear end of, I post a comment to that effect.
<
p>
They are attempting to change the lexicon, from “disagreement with” to “hatred of.” They had better watch themselves, because it can go both ways.
when the swift boaters went after John Kerry?
Good people can do bad things. That is why God wants us to love the sinners but hate the sin. 🙂 No amount of committment should grant immunity from criticism for all public action taken for the rest of your life.
All said and done, a Milirary career is a basically a job.
It seems a silly to suggest that your job makes you above reproach.
What am I missing?
a Military career is not basically a job, unless a job means police officer, firefighter,
A military career is a job. It is a choice. Each time you re-up, it is a choice. That is what I keep hearing when the subject of drafting young republicans comes up.
You get combat troops, you get peace keepers, but you also get latrine diggers, database administrators and cooks. This is true both in and out of the military.
I am open to any arguement that an individual is entitled to respect. But the fact that they did a job for a number of years is not enough to automatically earn reverence in my eyes. Our society has become conditioned to unquestioningly bestow honor on a title rather than a person; especially any title remotely military, and I think the reason for this is to inspire the services of more cannon fodder.
…and I don't like it.
Actually, I think BannedByTheSentinel has an even stronger point. The attack on Kerry was full of stories belied by the military record, from some men who had reported the opposite decades earlier and from some men who had could only pretend to have direct knowledge. It was an attack based on lies. That is a smear.
MoveOn did not lie when it attacked Petreaus. They made nothing up. Petreaus' rosy prediction about the Iraqi police force, with their smelly college, were similarly wrong. His substitution of propaganda for truth is poisonous to a democracy.
As a nation we have become
Yes, MoveOn's ad was rude to Petreaus. Yet, we have forgotten about the destruction of Falluja right after the election in 2004. Why are we more worried about upsetting General Petreaus than we ever were about the effect on Iraqi unity of demolishing a city approximately a third the size of Boston?
We're such sensitive souls.
Wasn't active duty and Petraeus isn't running for office.
Anyway, we're not going to change each other's opinions on this (obviously) so I'll bow out of this discussion.
It is my understanding that, as AG Gonzales, the general did not swear to the truth of his statements. Without the oath, could either of these men be liable for perjury?
That you extremist folks who ruined the Democratic Party are now eating your own… None of you were or have been there, and your stand on issues are the same stands that would/will have you beheaded.. Moveon is financed by a proud to admit socialist. And their ad was disgusting, tasteless and wrong on almost every point..Not going to debate each point with progressives who think we attacked ourselves as ”the hole in the Pentagon was not big enough for a plane”, or as the A-Holes in Hollywood claim “Steel in the World trade center could not have melted”, or you buffoons who hate BUSH so much that “HE PLANNED it all” America is great in spite of you, not because of you.(a Slight twist on the idiot from NY’S anti military rant on the floor of the Senate) anyone who supports that ad, will see what it will result in, the other side will win back the house and senate and the oval office.. You party killers don’t understand that you have taken this state and some other east coast states and own la-la land. It is the “Fly over” country that will recoil from this, and just like you people use foolishness from the right, the right will shove moveon right down the throats of you folks…The resulting election in November will make Custers problem seem small! You folks insulting each other.. This is the BEST laugh I’ve enjoyed since I watched Eldridge, a fellow progressive come in third and not get 9K in votes…kind of a movement killer I’d say. Some of you “level headed” progressives will use profane words and tell me to get off “YOUR” site, I’ll do that as soon as Dave bans me or you people get out of MY Democratic party, form your own party, move to Vermont and listen to Howard Deans sing songs, oh and when you leave take Eldridge with ya! Being 20K in debt and moving back in with mommy he can’t afford to relocate on his own! Take Cindy, Coupe Deval, most of Hollywood,.. Vt. Can legally break away from the U.S., start your own country and come to us for aid… Not that you’d ever want education to get in your way…read the 29 (TWENTY NINE) reasons the U.N. (you Remember them, your idols) authorized us to do what we are doing…You arm chair generals and conspiracy theorists no nothing of the General but attack anyway, which is your foolish right…Either Stand behind the military or STAND IN FRONT OF THEM! Not that you “people” would.. I did! You have no idea what goes on, who is doing what and what is being accomplished, you watch CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC as they tell you what you want to believe, or you get it right from the web “A solid documented 100% valid source” Get concerned over illegal aliens in this country, they are killing 25 Americans a day, that’s 9125 per year, three times more than the brave soldiers we lost since this began! Oh yea I forgot, they “have the right to be here” Rambling yes sir it is…so what, gives you more to fire away at. Maybe I’ll check back on this site to see what drooling nonsense is written in response…BUT MAYBE I won’t review this thread…as I know as soon as you eat, and go back into your basement you’ll be looking for my response to your response…sorry gotta talk with someone more intelligent, my Chihuahua!
I use paragraphs. 🙂 I learned that in grammar school.
You should try it. First have something of substance to contribute though, rather than all that regurgitated right wing drek.
Why you were “banned from the Sentinel” as you very proudly proclaim,. They normally reserve their limited copy space for comments showing a glimmer of intellect, sadly I don’t think that was the case.
You don’t like my style, oh greatly educated one, don’t read my comments! Right wing, could not be further from the truth, wait you wuld not know what that is! why do you assume such, because your huge brain can only attack rather than respond?
Get back in your basement until mommy calls you to be spoon feed your next meal!
…If you want to have your comments read you might consider making them readable. That means paragraphing (double carriage-returns).
<
p>
A comment that fills an entire screen at what appears to be 8-point type (I wonder how you managed that–most comments are at what appears to be 12-point type) will probably be avoided by most people. I didn’t even bother trying to read beyond the first sentence of your previous comment.
Though I suspect that banned's comment was intended to be more snide than helpful, the underlying critique of your writing style is valid.
Failure to observe conventional writng standards will often result in your words, and therefor your opinions being ignored by those of us who haven't the time or the visual stamina to wade into a 500 word block of text.
…The GWBush malAdministration, got rid of all of the professional military personnel who contradicted their political viewpoint. I’ll cite merely Gen Shinseki, but there were others. They were the nay-sayers.
<
p>
What they ere let with were the yeah-sayers, and Petruas was one of them. So were the cheerleaders: Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and many others–probably including Rummy’s replacement Gates. The yeah-sayers were shown to be wrong, but they are continuing to pursue the yeah-sayers’ strategy in Iraq.
<
p>
Einstein was once quoted as saying something to the effect that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different result. Enough said?
<
p>
I’ll make one final comment. It has been noted elsewhere that politicians arguing for war consume themselves in issues of strategy and tactics. Professional military people are–or should be–concerned with logistics. How do we get people from here to there, how do we supply them, and how do we protect them. It is quite clear that the US government isn’t concerned so much with logistics. They are merely blathering on about, not even strategy, but tactics.
Military tactician is born…I’m sure the folks on high are reading this and insuring they do it to your specifications next time around
It's incredible that the Boston Globe didn't make that fact clear.
For more, see this.