If someone did that, I would see plenty wrong with it, but I was talking about moveon.org, not the hypothetical person you describe.

That's clear.

Good God.

B

I posted too quickly. I'm sure you will find my edited response much more enlightening.

That is precisely what MoveOn did.

I cannot be certain as to their motivation but I assume that they hoped to undermine Petraeus' assessment by denigrating the man. Since that event, time has passed with events essentially supporting Petraeus, description of events on the ground. So not only was the central thesis of MoveOn's thesis wrong as of this month, it increasingly appears that they are out of touch with the very lawmakers they hoped to influence. This is what I would characterize as a lunatic fringe group who uses hate speech to intimidate their "enemies."

If you feel that is acceptable behavior toward Petraeus then I wonder why you are so sensitive to what you perceive of as slights to your own character.

B

In your biased POV. Imagine you are a Iraqi and every other American you see has a Blackwater guy guarding them, distributing deadly force (fairly often if we are to believe testimony) here and there.

I can't see them making that much distinction between govt. soldiers and Blackwater. It's their hearts and minds we supposedly wanted to win, not yours.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

"In your biased POV..."... hahaha!

That's where you're dead wrong, me bucko. Limbaugh cheered the troops on from his "hospital bed," similar to Cheney and many other hawkish war boosters. My POV was to stop the damn thing now, and so I boycotted it. False modesty aside, my SAT type scores in math and sciences were what you call high and I had it on good authority that such testing acumen would net one a high tech track usually far removed from combat type danger.

And this talk of Bush's legitimate service, how can you guys say that with a straight face? He was trained to fly while in the Guard, highly unusual I understand -- at a taxpayer cost of around $1 mil, then got practice posing in a flight suit, practice that came in handy later, and then went AWOL, for all practical purposes.

Usually you learn to fly in the Air Force, do a tour, and they fly in the Guard, at least if I can believe actual Air Force pilots who have said such.

I did not scam my way out of the draft, I stood up and did it legally, and then I served my country and I'll take that service over Calley's, North's, etc.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

You get a kick out of the

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH"

"statements," don't you? Hate to tell you, that is unmistakeable code amongst workingmen for "I am an ivory tower wanker, my hands are as soft as my brain."

OK, back to the meat of the matter, don't you think it's self-serving to try to claim that Blackwater's behavior in Iraq doesn't reflect on the US just about as much as troop behavior? Certainly about 3,000 times more than Microsoft does.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Let's talk about hypocrisy. Rush is a sacred cow but Move-on.org are fair game? How many senators came out against Move-on??

And yes, I do suspect that Rush was referring to just the one soldier, the one actual phony soldier, in the first remark anyway. Last night on Abrams' MSNBC show, Lars Larson, the minor league Rush, remarked, when Abrams showed the footage of Kerry saying the "stuck in Iraq" remark and then the "botched joke" defense, that "it WAS NOT a botched joke!!"

Please. Kerry is a stumbling clod of a speaker but he's not a full on idiot. He is in no way going to get up and diss the troops like that. He meant to say Bush got us stuck in Iraq. He would be 1 million times more likely to try to diss Bush than the troops.

But ol' Lars wants us to understand what Rush was trying to say and in the same breath demonstrates that he is utterly unwilling to return the favor.

Lars Larson -- somehow manages to be a bigger horse's heine than Limbaugh, and that's saying something.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Mr. Botnst's attack on "mediamatters" seems weak, almost to the point I would surmise he has not even read the web work in question. Contrary to his assertion that they are braying editorialists, I offer this link. As one can see in reading it, there is much support for statements (much more than one finds in this thread, for sure) using factual documentation, and little editorial assertion:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009?f=h_top

It is hard to deny that Mr. Limbaugh doctored his own words in an attempt to jump from the firing pan, even for those who consider this web site the re-incarnation of Stalinist evil.

Defending perjury seems to be a staple of the modern right. It has reached the point we now have a Republican Senator claiming he was wronged by a common police officer in his arrest for public sodomy, who remains in the Senate, despite the fact this unending liar is a subject of national guffaws to the point one wonders if Caligula is about to enter the Senate and nominate his horse as the new Republican Senate leader. I do believe the man Craig, like Limbaugh, is simply testing the limits of their adherent's suspension of disbelief to the point of absurdity, hoping their desire to believe is so strong it trumps seeing obviousness. Shall Craig be defended as well?

I wish the average Republican would begin to desist from defending liars and perjurers, it detracts from the issues.

Please define attack. Instead of focusing on me, as you do above, why not focus on the argument?

Well, MediaMatters is a group that attacks the person and the policy, not just the policy. That you are okay with character assassination as just another line of argument is EXACTLY why the Congress is held in even less esteem than the president. It is that revolting methodology and the resultant inability to accomplish anything that has brought us to this juncture.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Bot

As I have stated, one must read Brock's book to understand the point of his website. It is his belief that there is indeed a vast right wing media conspiracy, which he claims he has knowledge of because he was in fact part of it. He has dedicated himself to exposing this conspiracy, which he says works by establishing falsehood as truth by a rather systematic dissemination of false information into the national media stream, of which Mr.Limbaugh is a decided kingpin. He has become so effective at this effort that the outcry on his very existence has become vitriolic on the right, an odd state against a man who was once one of their own, or perhaps because of it.

And aspersions on you, oh, I cast not. Au contraie! I am attempting to set the foundation of rational argument. The current discussion on Mr. Limbaugh's behavior is rather cut and dried. He has the unfortunate circumstance of going on public record, making him easy fodder for Brock's modus operandi. Rush did in fact offer an edited transcript as, in his words "the entire transcript" of what transpired, a statement that was quite frankly, false. He also claimed his remarks where "out of context". Now, out of context is when I say something like "If for instance, I beat my wife, well then, I would go to prison, so I suffer her nagging instead", from which you would claim I said "I beat my wife". In reading the entire transcript of his remarks, I find nothing of the sort, the context of the remarks was a comment on all soldiers who are guilty of disagreement with the war. Now, Mr. Brock has simply posted these transcriptions and quoted Mr. Limbaugh's shifting statements. He has in fact done us all a service, exposing a public hypocrite and purveyor of falsehood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock

You will get no argument from me concerning Mr Limbaugh. You might search through this thread for confirmation on that rather than assuming because I take exception to the character assassinations of MediaMatters, that I therefore am a Rush supporter. Far from it. I do not view the world in such stark terms.

To me, the world is "nuanced" and unpredictable. This prevents me from assuming that points of view of others are transitive. I see no indication of transitivity except among zealots.

Bot

I would say in this instance, Mr. Limbaugh assassinated his own character.

Whatever.

People who spend their lives worrying about Rush Limbaugh's latest observations need a hobby.

B