Quote:
Originally Posted by peragro
See post #137
|
I suppose you mean this part of post #137:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peragro
...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....
|
For one thing, "treason" is your word, but that's a picky point. More important, your claim that moveon's evidence had nothing to do with their charge against General Patraeus seems incorrect to me. They cited previous statements by the General that they believed painted a false picture of the surge. Believing that he had mislead once, they had a good faith basis to say that Congress should be on the lookout for him to do it again.
Quote:
|
Even the paper that published the ad admits that it was wrong to do and violated their policies.
|
I'm not sure what you are referring to there, but what does that have to do with the difference you are drawing between moveon and Limbaugh?
Quote:
|
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? ...
|
I don't see how that reconciles Kingston's comment about Limbaugh with his vote condemning moveon.