Is this hypocrisy or is it just me.

[STAGE 2]

Key democratic leaders either won't show up or voted against the resolution condeming the acts of moveon.org calling the leading general a traitor during wartime but they will take the time and put pen to paper to condem Rush Limbaugh for excercising his freedom of speech when in fact what they are alleging was not what was said.

Whether any of you think Rush is a blowhard is beside the point. What is the issue is that these people who so desparately want your vote for president can't be bothered to defend a member of the armed forces who has served honorably, but they will drop everything to scurry back to washington when a couple of cheap political points are on the line.

 

[Bruxley]

I heard about his and did a bit of research to check out the story.

Rush AND ABC news refereed to false statements made by people that were later found to have never been enlisted in the military or never been deployed. Both called these impersonators 'phoney soldiers' as they were impersonating actual combat soldiers.

The term was taken out of context and shaped into a statement that 'besmirched' our military combat veterans. Only someone unable or unwilling to do even a minimal amount of background would be fooled by this.

It's probably an effort to counter or distract from the MoveOn ad. Big difference is the MoveOn ad actually said the things it was condemned for, Rush didn't call ANY combat veterans Phoney Soldiers was is alleged. Trying to put words in Rush's mouth and misrepresenting his statements speaks more on those making false allegations then it does to the accused.

Again we see the pattern to that vote tally of the MoveOn ad. Same folks at it again.

 

[Redneckrepairs]

IMHO " moveon'd " will be the " swiftboated " of this election .

 

[rampage841512]

Hypocrisy? I thought they called it politics....

But I know what you mean. It's nothing more that political BS, getting in good with their own pundits so that they look 'tough' to their voting base. It would be nice if they stopped worrying about getting re-elected and just do their jobs.

 

[Pat H]

I thought the MoveOn.org ad was over the top, but also knew full well that those in Congress that took vote about it were just as bad if not worse. Grandstanding at its finest.

A more accurate picture of Petraeus is on the cover of the latest issue of The American Conservative magazine, and the article inside, Sycophant Savior. A very cogent analysis of the general and his report.

 

[Bruxley]

Not so much 'Cogent' as pointed and editorialized. Pat (Buchanan) seems to be losing touch. He's been a bit 'odd' for a lack of a better term since his Presidential bid. I don't know if bitterness or age are the cause but he hasn't been cogent in quite a while.

But back on topic, I wonder how they expect this to float? And using Media Matters seems very risky. They will be outed on a widespread level as the Clinton version of Soros's MoveOn and then the cat's out of the bag. Why risk that on a smoke and mirrors fabricated issue?

The closer on this one has to be somewhere post event. This is looking like a rope-a-dope. What is the real goal here? Re-enactment of the "Fairness" Doctrine? Use this event as the catalyst for re-enactment of equal time?
Trying to make the conservative talk radio 'hate speech' case again? Air America couldn't get enough listeners to stay around and bring competition (odd since there is an alleged 'majority' of the left) to the likes of Rush. Maybe this is a means to bringing about an Imus type result.

Hard to pin it down yet. But I suspect the real aim is in the after effect. If not then this has been much ado about nothing. Or more accurately, much ado about something invented.

 

[Pat H]

Not so much 'Cogent' as pointed and editorialized. Pat (Buchanan) seems to be losing touch. He's been a bit 'odd' for a lack of a better term since his Presidential bid. I don't know if bitterness or age are the cause but he hasn't been cogent in quite a while.

Pat Buchanan didn't write the referenced article, which begs another obvious question.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I know this thread is not about Patraeus,but after reading Pat's link I wonder if their has been a leader in history that did not have his share of little yap yap dogs at his heals saying that if only they were in command they would have all the right answers and fix everything straight away.

 

[Bruxley]

Good point ZeroJunk, it is not possible to relate the challenge of building and leading to those that haven't borne that responsibility. That very perspective may explain much of the lack of understanding when it comes to leaders. The 'what is leadership' question and the 'you can't lead till you can follow' axiom can't be comprehended by those outside the process.

Leaders are natural targets because the critics have the great advantage of hindsight and lack the requisite grasp of coupling vision, planning, logistics, implementation and human nature into a manifest organization with viability and purpose. Many think it is a simple matter of mixing the ingredients and poof it's there. The coupling described above requires ability in managing the empirical and the nuanced.

It's easy to snipe and easier still to slander, the real mark of leadership is influence. Is the influence productive or not. The lazy, but temporary effective, influence of slander and misrepresentation, will in short order get the practitioner of such tactics pushed to the rear on that matter. Repeated use will result in being discounted out of hand before one is even heard and permanently undermined any ability to gain further influence.

The General has proven repeatedly over and over throughout his career that he gets the job done. He is doing that in Iraq but, as he said, he has much more to go.

The Democrat leadership is moving more and more toward lacking influence as evidenced by this futile misrepresentation of Rush and the MoveOn ad. The antics are being repeated. The 'Blue Dog' brand of Democrat are the one's asserting real influence and those folks are the one actually leading despite not having the titles next to their names. Leadership is influence and those Democrats that resemble the pre-leftist Democrat will be the ones that eventually win Republican votes and therefore leadership positions.

The concept of the coupling described before can't be grasped if bitterness, hate, depression, greed, etc. have a hold on someone. It narrows vision and that is step one in leadership. Only those that share that issue will pay one any heed. Nothing built off this kind of narrow vision can stand as they are all very shallow albeit strong emotions.

This latest effort by Senator Reid is not leadership and is another example of repeated behavior that will (if not already) render them unable to gain any influence in the future.

Thank you ZeroJunk. Often people (myself included) live in a realm so long that we count our knowledge and experience as common and forget that the principles and ideals that are everyday and have become automatic aren't common and aren't everyone's everyday experience. It was a good reminder that most people aren't responsible for the future of an organization or for the livelihoods of more people than just themselves.

 

[Pat H]

Good point ZeroJunk, it is not possible to relate the challenge of building and leading to those that haven't borne that responsibility.

Of the people running the Bush II administration directly responsible for the failed invasion and occupation of Iraq, only one had any military experience of any kind, and that was Donald Rumsfeld. Sadly, his experience did not prevent him being a collosal failure at his job. The rest were, to a man, limp-wristed draft and service dodgers.

Want to hear good, solid information about the situation in Iraq and the mideast? General John P. Abizaid, who served in Iraq recently and actually speaks Arabic, has said much the same thing as Andrew J. Bacevich did in the referenced article above.

I guess that brings me to another point. When we Americans decide we want a war stopped, and we have, there's no good excuse for the executive branch to continue to wage that war, and certainly no rational or lawful reason to begin another one. The notion that we Americans are "yap dogs" is little more than a teenagerish ad hominem, and reflects directly on those that say those words.

 

[Bruxley]

Want to hear good, solid information about the situation in Iraq and the Mideast? General John P. Abizaid, who served in Iraq recently and actually speaks Arabic, has said much the same thing as Andrew J. Bacevich did in the referenced article above.

Abizaid did more then serve in Iraq. He is the FORMER Commander for U.S. Central Command for Iraq. His ability to influence the Iraq situation has resulted in his now wearing civilian clothes. The situation Petraeus inherited is Abizaid's. Abizaid a solid source for the situation in Iraq and the Mideast, not as far as how to proceed that's for certain. He had ample opportunity to assert his influence and, as mentioned, he wears civilian clothes today.

Any comments related to the thread topic or is this becoming an Iraq thread? There is an open thread on the topic of Petraeus and Iraq here:http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261432&highlight=war+we+are+winning