I thought you were leaving the argument to lay?

betray,

deliver to an enemy by treachery; "Judas sold Jesus"; "The spy betrayed his country"

Treachery, a synonym for treason. I didn't pick the word. MoveOn.org did.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Different arguments, or so I thought.If you say so.

I already said that was a picky point. The more important point is the one you didn't mention, which is that nobody has offered a single fact to refute the claim that moveon had a good faith basis for questioning General Patraeus's credibility when testifying in support of the surge. Doesn't that bother you at all? Don't facts matter?

Whether or not one consider's MoveOn's point a good one is not important: It was their right to question Petraeus' actions, motives, etc. As I have said many times, reasonable people can disagree, and I certainly don't dispute that.

What I object to is MoveOn's reckless, unconscionable assault on the man's honor through the use of the phrase, "Betray Us". By choosing that path, they do their own argument a disservice and for precisely the point you bring-up and nobody cares to comment on: The meat of MoveOn's complaint. See, by choosing ad hominem argument MoveOn shifted the focus from their complaint to Gen Petraeus' honor.

Now let's say you are a senior Democrat, Senator Culkin, who has just this year gone on record as approving Petraeus for lord and master of our armed forces in Iraq. Here's MoveOn's piece which essentially undermines Senator Culkin's judgment concerning Petraeus. Sen. Culkin is now in a difficult position of wanting to shoot the message but having MoveOn place the general right in your line of fire. Instead of the media asking about all of the reasons to greet the report with skepticism, they want to hear what you think of MoveOn's character asssassination attempt on a general with an unblemished military record, whom Sen Culkin and colleagues (in the majority party) have recently approved for this mission.

B

Can't argue with any of that.That is probably correct, but we will never know how the public discussion would have gone without their ad. Last I heard, a large percentage of the public doubt what Patraeus had to say. Would that have been true without movon's offensive ad?And lets further say that it is snowing in hell, but I digress.That doesn't strike me as a particularly difficult position for a politician, but I've never understood how all that works anyway. I am constantly surprised by what the public and the media find persuasive and important.

And Limbaugh implied that soldiers who oppose the war are liars and phony, propped up by liberal anti-war activists.

__________________
1984 300TD

Also,
MoveOn did that? 'Cause it seems to me, conservatives did by getting all hot and bothered about two words.

__________________
1984 300TD

Yes and you also state that Hillary Clinton "called DP a liar."

Incorrect, not accurate, faulty, prevaricate (noun; the end result of prevarication).

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

Who is DP?

You seem to be heading out to left field...

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

That would be David Petraeus. Try to keep up.

How about Gen.DP in future?

You do recall stating that HC called someone a liar? Think pergo-pergs, think.

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

Oh, that. Is this the quote you're looking for:

"The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,"

Do you think that the reports in question would contain truth if one suspended disbelief?

Calling someone a liar nicely is still calling someone a liar.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Botnst, Are you going to jump in here with your definition of "lie"? For consistency's sake, I think you should.

Taken alone, Hillary's statement seems to imply dishonesty on GP's part, but it is ambiguous enough to make the context of her statement worth reading, assuming, of course, that that particular dead horse needs to be beaten some more.

That's the spin you wish to jump to. I've said it before, see if you can get your mind around this one:

A person could be utterly convinced they were telling the truth even though they were speaking delusional nonsense. Truth is relative. You and Botnst believe (I think I have this right) that the war in Vietnam could have been won if we hadn't stopped funding the South in what, '74 or '75? Or could have been won if not for the cowardly left at home.

I don't call you liars for saying this but I'd have to suspend disbelief to accept it as fact.

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