Quote:
Originally Posted by tankdriver
I understand what they meant, but I'm not sure I could ever admire someone for being really good at killing other people. I can acknowledge our soldiers capabilities, but I don't know about admire it.
BTW, MoveOn = the left's Rush Limbaugh. If one was out of line, then so was the other. One of them, Congressmen voted to censure for their free speech.
|
I think there's a lot more to soldiering than just plain killing. Especially in Iraq. But stories and books about that aren't that hard to find if you do some searching.
And yes, I can see why you'd want to equate the two statements.
My thoughts are that they are not. While both the General and Limbaugh are in a sense public figures; one was a direct attack on a person meant to defame and discredit with the only evidence offered having nothing to do with supporting any claim of treason. Even the paper that published the ad admits that it was wrong to do and violated their policies.
The other can be looked at two ways. The first in that a public figure's comments were taken out of context and in opposition to many years of previous statement. That seems to be the response of the "publisher" in this case. The second way of looking at it involves suspension of basic reading comprehension skills and common sense in some kind of bizarre partisan game of "gotcha back". It involves a public figure vaguely stating something repugnant about a general group of peoples with no specific target. Then a mental game of Twister ensues in which the vague statement is acribed meaning by an organization specializing in character assasination. I wonder if MediaMatters has an Ombudsman?
They are equal I suppose in that both parties are free to say what they want because of the First Amendment. That is; as long as you think that the word "people" actually means people like in the Second Amendment.