Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by ds52262, Jun 29, 2008.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that, yet...
Funny how any ex-military man who supports a Democrat gets attacked...I am thinking of Zinni, McCaffrey, Shinseki, Adm. Crowe, Wes Clark, etc. etc. I suppose Admiral Fallon will be the next guy you go after.
The right-wing nutz who go on Fox touting the war while on the Pentagon payroll get a free pass.
If he opens his mouth and says stupid stuff, you're damned right I'll go after him, and considering that casualties are down 80% in Iraq and that 15 of 18 milestones are now showing satisfactory progress, he will be hard-pressed to try and convince anyone that Iraq is the debacle the other clowns claim it is.
And who are they, considering it's illegal for active-duty military personnel to make political statements under the guise of representing the military?
Oh, and I'm STILL waiting for specific quotes from Rush trashing McCain's service...
Zinni endorsed W 2000. He went to work for the admin. --working in the middle east. He quit, because nobody listened to him in the white house. He said he would never endorse anyone again.
Spouse work for him at CENTCOM. One the smartest Generals my spouse work for, was always thinking 3 steps ahead of any actions. Franks was a bubba, once brought a BBQ brisket to the King of Jordan. It was a joke. Spouse worked some of it. Franks was not a deep thinker, very much rush in get it done then figure it out the plan.
McPeak was not a great General, but many of the endorsers are good people.
I believe the generals being referred to are the ones being given special briefings and tours in Iraq, so they give the pentagon's slant on things.
Thanks JAW for having my back so to speak.
These are retired generals who remained on a government payroll and posited themsleves as "analysts" on Fixed News and elsewhere.
Word to the Z
I never said that RUSH HIMSELF made these comments...rather the callers to his show. RUSH DID knock McCain on a variety of other issues and even urged people to vote for Hillary at one point
If they are retired, then they are not on the government payroll. If they are being hired as consultants, then they have no requirement to keep their opinions to themselves as they are no longer active duty. Besides, are THEY not entitld to THEIR opinion, or is it only leftist moonbat political hacks like Wesley Clark who are permitted to grace us with their wisdom?
I find it laughable that you, a self-confessed journalist, can be critical of people "positing themselves as analysts" when your entire profession has turned into nothing but one big (and almost entirely ONE-sided) analysis churn. It's no longer enough to report what happened; now you have to tell us what to think about it, too. I also find it interesting that you, a self-confessed journalist, can be so blatant about your bias ("Fixed News", et al). At least you're honest about it, although I'd be willing to bet that you consider your work product to be completely UNbiased.
But I'm not surprised by one thing you've indicated, which proves my earlier point: Liberals are all for free speech, provided they agree with it. Keith Olberman can foam at the mouth about how Bush is the Anti-Christ, but let a retired general appear on the competition of the Communist News Network and offer an opinion not in line with MoveOn.org, and suddenly the very foundations of democracy are in danger.
And HEAVEN FORBID that the Pentagon try to give its "slant" on things, eh? Oh, no! That's propaganda! Only the approved MSM line that America is evil, Iraqi Freedom was an illegal invasion, that our troops are murderers and rapists, and that the entire country is burning into ashes is allowed. Let the Pentagon point out that security is up, violence is down, progress is being made, and that the bulk of the Iraqi people actually want to live in freedom, and somehow that's putting a "slant" on things.
In all the time the debate over McCain has raged, a total of maybe TWO callers have ever said anything even remotely critical of McCain's service, and Rush smacked them down pretty quick (along with numerous subsequent callers). Nice try trying to pass the blame, though. As for the other criticisms of McCain, they were all spot-on.
As for urging people to vote for Hillary, he did that to help ensure that the Democrat primary battle would continue as long as possible, with Clinton and Obama beating the snot out of each other with racist, sexist, and America-hating comments galore. It worked like a charm. Heaven knows that McCain and company aren't going to do it. After all, they agree with a lot of the bilge the other side is spewing!
If you're going to beat up on Rush and his show, at least listen to the show and know what you're talking about.
Interesting article that casts some new light on Wesly Clark. I have only posted the first half of the article because the remainder deals exclusively with Obama, who is not the subject of this thread. I find the part in red to be of particular import to the original topic.
As the Commish said, Clark's comments said more about Clark than about McCain.
Z believe it or not I am a fairly regular listener of El Rushbo's(see I listen, ha ha). I enjoy some of his commentary and laugh at most of the rest. I may be wrong but he along with Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and other darlings of the far right at various times stated that they would sooner vote for Hillary than McCain...the thought being that if HRC was elected, the country would go to hell in a handbasket and the "real" Republicans would once again take over. Or did I dream this? Mr. Snerdly? Are you there? HA HA
No, you didn't. I cannot speak for Laura Ingraham, but Ann Coulter has definitely said that she would rather vote for Hillary than McCain, presumably because if you're going to vote for a Liberal, you may as well vote for a REAL liberal as opposed to a part-time one.
Whether that strategy has any merit can definitely be debated, and believe you me it IS HOTLY debated on the other website I frequent which is chock full of both McCain supporters AND detractors.
Some may believe that Ann was exercising some measure of hyperbole. Maybe she was and maybe she wasn't. It doesn't change the fact that her point was clear: McCain is NOT a Conservative. Neither is Bush, for that matter. They are Republicans, with McCain being a part-timer at that.
OK Z thanks I was hoping I wasn't having a sixties acid flashback(Just kidding folks).
I first want to say that I'm an Independent. I look at both sides.
The Generals are on the payroll in a indirect way. They own or are presidents of companys that have contracts with the pentagon. Some feel that "they go with the party line" to protect their $ interest/contracts.
That's right JAW...it's a conflict of interest...very common in D.C. On both sides of the aisle...they should not hold themselves out there as being "objective" if they are feeding from the government trough.
LOL. Nah. Facts are facts.
Just in case it needs to be said, I have zero issue with anyone evaluating both sides of an argument. In fact, to do otherwise is to make decisions without all the facts, which is foolish.
That said, I have found one side to be almost always wrong, and the other side to be almost always right. I make no apologies for thinking so.
It may surprise you that I used to be QUITE liberal in my views.
Well, that's business, for you. Were I they, I would keep my mouth shut and offer the services for which I am being paid rather than trying to get my name out there. Companies that mix business and politics (especially those whose business itself has nothing to do with politics) are simply practicing bad business. If I were a restaurant owner, for example, I would cater to anyone who liked my food and paid me for it. I wouldn't be out making political statements and thus alienating X% of my customer base. Not smart!
Sig line potential right there.
I tend to believe that are grains of truth in most peoples arguments-- Both sides.
People spin so much that the facts get lost.
McCain has stated tha Obama's tax plan will raise taxes, but a non partisan group did an analysis of both of their tax plans and found that +85% would pay less with Obama. Even though we are very upper middle class, I would receive a larger tax cut under Obama's plan. That surprised me.
So yes he will raise taxes but a majority of people would not see it. The grain of truth is there.
Obama says that McCain will offer tax cuts to the rich. In the Analysis it showed that lower incomes will receive a tax cut, but the amount of money upper tax brackets is much higher.
McCain's tax plan will give tax cuts to the rich, the grain of truth is there.
Unfortunately, the people who would see it are the ones who use their money to create jobs through spending and investments.
Suits me. They already pay an ungodly disproportionate percentage of taxes, especially in relation to the benefits they reap from them. The same can't be said for the bottom of the ladder.
I don't know that "Obama's tax plan" will raise taxes. But the proposals in his campaign speeches, which sound like a letter to Santa Claus from every liberal special interest constituency out there, will cost a lot money if implemented. The amount of non-entitlement 'discretionary' dollars available, as a percent of total tax revenues, is likely to decrease now that the baby boomers are starting to retire and the economy is slowing down. Where Obama plans on getting the money doesn't give much comfort to this Dad whose son is heading down the road of a military career. Let's hope the 'peace dividend' that Obama will have to tap is won by the military, not by liberals in Congress.
No society has ever taxed its way into prosperity.
Separate names with a comma.