Wash. Post again suggested Murtha's call for troop redeployment is not "pro-military"
SUMMARY: The Washington Post again identified Rep. John P. Murtha as "pro-military," just as it repeatedly did following his call in November 2005 for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. In doing so, the Post suggests that other Democrats are not "pro-military" and that Murtha's views on troop withdrawal are inconsistent with his "pro-military" reputation and record in Congress.
In a June 10 article, The Washington Post continued to identify Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) as "pro-military," just as it repeatedly did following his call in November 2005 for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq. But as Media Matters for America has noted, labeling Murtha this way suggests 1) that other Democrats with whom he is compared -- including House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi -- are not "pro-military" and 2) that his views on troop withdrawal are inconsistent with his "pro-military" reputation and record in Congress.
In the June 10 article, focused on Murtha's recent announcement that he intends to run for House majority leader if Democrats retake control of the House of Representatives in November, Post staff writer Shailagh Murray wrote:
One theory is that Murtha's candidacy could provide midterm voters with a tougher, more conservative contrast to the liberal minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). A decorated Marine combat veteran, Murtha is strongly pro-military. But his call last year for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was a pivotal moment in the war debate, emboldening many Democrats to speak out forcefully against the conflict.
In this excerpt, Murray equates conservatism with being pro-military. She also suggests that Murtha's call for withdrawal of U.S. troops conflicts with his "pro-military" record. Murray does not explain how a concern for the number of U.S. troop casualties, among other reasons Murtha and others have given for advocating troop redeployment, is not "pro-military." Nor does she square the votes of liberals in favor of veterans' benefits with her suggestion that they are not "pro-military." As Media Matters noted in response to the Post's previous descriptions of Murtha as "pro-military":
The Post's and the others' labeling of Murtha as "pro-military" or a "pro-military Democrat" raises several questions. First, would these news organizations characterize any of the 184 Democrats in the House who voted to compensate for a $1 billion shortfall in spending for veterans caused by the federal deficit -- but many of whom also voted against the Iraq war resolution -- "anti-military"? What about those 216 Republicans who voted against increasing veterans' benefits, the vast majority of whom voted for the war resolution? Are they pro or anti-military? And what about the 44 Senate Democrats who voted for Sen. John F. Kerry's (D-MA) amendment increasing death benefits to military families -- many of whom also voted against the Iraq war resolution? And the 25 Republicans who voted against the Kerry amendment?
In this excerpt, Murray equates conservatism with being pro-military.
Where, precisely, exactly and literally did Murray say this? I did not see where this connection was made 100% explicit. Oh...we are supposed to infer? Ah...we are supposed to do that when that is beneficial to your point of view right? Hmmm...but why do so many posters at MMFA dodge issue by saying that "someone did not say specifically that." (And before someone attempts to suggest that that was not an exact quote and accuse me of a smear - it is a hypothetical regarding MMFA posters based on much recent observation.)
In this excerpt, Murray equates conservatism with being pro-military. Where, precisely, exactly and literally did Murray say this?
You're correct that Ms Murray didn't say this literally. However, it's clear here that the second sentence is meant to clarify what is meant by "conservative" as it relates to Mr Murtha. There are two other unlikely possibilities:
(1) The first sentence is completely unrelated to the others. That would be awful writing.
(2) Ms Murray is simply listing qualities of Mr Murtha. I considered that possibility until I noted that the 3rd stands in contrast to the second. Therefore, the paragraph is likely addressing a single quality, not multiple.
Hmmm...but why do so many posters at MMFA dodge issue by saying that "someone did not say specifically that." (And before someone attempts to suggest that that was not an exact quote and accuse me of a smear - it is a hypothetical regarding MMFA posters based on much recent observation.)
Interesting non-sequitor...or are you suggesting that, since you assert that others have used this argument that it's ok to assert the same argument on this specific issue? If so, that's fallacious.
and once again he cites unsubstantiated 'but they said this', never once detailing who the 'they' he is refering to. he cannot cite specific people or their posts so he smears as he has no clue what debate is, or the willingness to engage in it.
I specifically state that that is not a specific quote and based on interpretation and you still try to make a similar point. You are partially illustrating my point wanting, specific, precise, exact evidence to draw a conclusion. Zero, when we are writing research papers, fine, but to state an impression on a message board...sorry, I am not going to spend an hour making citations.
which made the rest of your CYA statement moot. And it is just too dammed bad that you have made these kinds of remarks over and over and have not once backed them up. So yes, you are still being obtuse.
Purely satirical.
I love that rationale. "It's just a joke". One of the easiest ways to get away with being callous, misinformed, hateful, etc... you name it. Satire? Please.
So called 'conservatives' hate the notion of PC... to be honest, I believe being overly cautious about hurting feelings or saying the right thing CAN get out of hand... However, by the same token, one cannot simply make outlandish claims, inflammatory remarks, or hateful comments and then hide behind the idea of being satirical...or trying to be funny. If so, then expect a backlash... and then the vicious cycle continues ...
What do you think the addition of the word "but" means. How would you interpret that passage? Personally I think it is constructed on an incorrect premis. Murtha is pro-military there is no need for the "but". However it would be accurate to say he is not for a continuing of this war--but what does that have to do with being pro-military? Pro-military means you are for what is in the best interest of the military not that you are pro-war (Iraq War or any other). At least I hope that is not what people mean when they say they are pro-military--that would be a bit worrisome.
"A decorated Marine combat veteran, Murtha is strongly pro-military. BUT his call last year for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was a pivotal moment in the war debate...."
The subtle use of the word "but" by the Washington Post implies that Murtha is pro-military except for the fact that he called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, in essence proclaiming that anyone who advocates for a withdrawal is somehow "anti-military." S
uch a description of Murtha's position is EXACTLY how the right-wing has come to describe it, and the lemmings at the Post dutifully echo that spin.
Yeah...that Washington Post...strong reputation for being a conservative mouthpiece. BWAHAHAHA!!
Well, actually...
...yeah!
252 egregious instances (that we know of)
is Graysonbuzz, having just shot himself in the foot. The man is awfully long on words and awfully short on credibility.
MMFA's prior response to the Post suggests an interpretation of "pro-military" that may not be what the Post/Murray had in mind. Does it mean simply being supportive of service members or favoring a more liberal use of military to secure U.S. interests?
I am not defending the Post's use to the term. However, if the assumed definitions are different, then MMFA can criticize and the Post can ignore. Regardless of whether the Post's position is genuine or not, they can hide behind this confusion.
This does point to a problem with using the term; it's ambiguous. That's bad journalism. That should be reason enough for not using it.
When Conservatives use the term "pro-military" they mean "pro George Bush" generally and "pro Iraq war" specifically. That's why they like to throw around the empty phrase "support the troops" as if it means anything.
Anyone who opposes George Bush's stupid use of our military resources is automatically labeled as "not supporting the troops" by Karl Rove's lapdogs.
There are matters on which people hold opinions, sometimes serious matters and strong opinions, which cannot be entirely expressed in just a few words, or even a single hyphenated word (such as "pro-military")...
And of course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is one of those matters; and is both serious and surrounded by strong opinions.
And to discuss such a serious matter as Iraq, but to trade only in brief phrases and single words (even hyphenated), is to do nothing informative on the matter, and to maybe even do the opposite; to maybe misinform the reader or auditor, by misrepresenting Mr. Murtha's (or anyone else's) serious and strong opinions on the matter of National Security, so briefly as "pro-military"...
...every bit as much as saying "cut and run", or even condensing an involved plan for gradual troop redeployment from the region (conjoined with the establishment of an "over the horizon" contingency), by referring to that plan as calling for redeployment "immediately": A substitute word found in the substitute Resolution, that intentionally scuttled itself, and misrepresented (and distracted from) Mr. Murtha's plan.
Words are too important to the ideas they represent; too important in serious matters; they are too important to Law-making and Lawmakers, to substitute them and condense them and abbreviate them (and even contract them into pithy hyphenations), and perhaps make those ideas, and those serious matters, and the Laws themselves, into misrepresentations of what they truly are and should be.
I'd think the words were likewise near as important as that, to any newspaper at all, and to the Washington Post in especial.
As for Mr. Murtha, and his plan for troop redeployment from Iraq, and his stated intention to take the lead in setting the agenda for House Democrats:
I'd sooner think Mr. Murtha to be ex-military, than to think him "pro-military"; ex-military as an adjective to inform us of his many years as a Soldier in the Service of Our Nation; but a poor adjective at that, he being a former U.S. Marine, and there being no such thing as "ex-military" among them; they being semper fidelis; semper fidelis to the Corps.
To call that "pro-military", is laughably weak.
As for Mr. Murtha's plan, it is well known to many, and becoming of greater interest each day, to so many more Americans; it is a plan that recognizes that the job of the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq is long ago accomplished; they verified the non-existence of WMDs (at great risk to, and loss of, their own lives), and they toppled the "regime", and captured and/or killed it's legacy (at great risk to, and loss of, their own lives), and have provided as much internal security to Iraq, up to and past that nation's national elections of December 15, 2005, as they could (at great risk to, and loss of, their own lives)...
And so their job being long ago accomplished, so is their Homecoming now long overdue.
And I think that Mr. Murtha's leadership in the House is a welcomed thing (likewise long overdue); I think the Faith that he would give the American People in that capacity, as a leader of their House, is simply the Faith he has in them, the American People; cultivated over many years of Service, and now eternal in it's reward, is this kind of Eternal Faith...
But what else do you expect of a U.S. Marine, if not that he'd be semper fidelis, to both his Nation and to the Corps.
Sure, the American People would be well-served with Mr. Murtha as the leader of their House.
(And the Washington Post would be well-served to spend the few extra words it takes, to describe accurately such men, and the plans that they propose.)
that Democrats support the troops and veterans. Just because you are a democrat doesn't mean you hate the troops, ect. Dems are patriotic and want this country to succeed. Alot of us do not support this war because it is a stupid war. What is the reason we are wasting everything on this dumb war when we were suppose to hunt Bin Lauden. It's created more problems and solved nothing. That doesn't mean we hate our country or the troops. When will the media learn that Democrats are not sheep like the republicans. We speak our mind and that doesn't mean we are unpatriotic for doing so.
Be opposed to the reasons for the war. That is your right. But we are there. There are troops in harms way and they would benefit to know that the country is behind them and their success in this conflict. What they do not need are Democrats, presumably trying to gain political points, standing up questioning the motives and patriotism of our President - THEIR top leader - while they are fighting. How about getting behind celebrating their successes rather than fixating on the problems in Iraq.
If someone feels that the mission was accomplished already—toppling Sadamn and now feel it is more a diplomatic position we should be taking and that keeping our troops in harms way will not reach our goals but instead needlessly cause further harm to the troops wouldn’t it be speaking out of support for the troops to call for their withdrawal? You assume that your position on what is in the best interest of the troops is the correct one. But even if you don’t agree with the other position can’t you still recognize is does indeed come from a position of support?
Frankly, I do not think Iraq is sufficiently stable for us to withdraw. If we completely pull out now, then I think there is a real possibility that country could dissolve into worse chaos than there is now. However, discussing that point is reasonable.
My complaint are the accusations of Bush being a liar, Bush wanting war, Bush wanting to make his friends rich, etc. Those types of claims cannot possibly help the morale of troops being shot at and risking running into IEDs every day. If there was a grain of plausibility to such claims, I might could see making the point. But damaging the morale of troops by pursuing partisan politics does not smack of supporting out troops in my mind.
Do you really think the troops care about political sniping of that sort. I imagine there are even a portion of the troops that share those political beliefs. Do you think the troops were harmed when people said Clinton was waging the dog? I think you give our troops to little credit--they can see past political sniping. Rightly or wrongly they were sent to do a job and they are doing their job to the best of their abilities whether they agree with the decisions or not and they know that at the end of the day the American public by and large support them if not the decisions of this administration.
Do you really think the troops care about political sniping of that sort.
Absolutely yes they care!! Your own characterization as "sniping" implies it's cheap and partisan, and there is NO PLACE for cheap, partisan conduct during a time of war. I agree with Buzz, in that many of the allegations of the left have no real basis in fact and are harmful to our troops. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy and that's easily proven by the fact that much of the anti American buzz in the middle east, are echoes of Democrat claims over the years; Bush Lied, Bush manipulated, Iraq should have never been confronted and on and on. I can't help but believe that if the terrorists saw a united America, they would be much, much less likely to fight on. Division in the ranks, much of it fabricated nonsense, only serves to give the enemy hope and a reason to fight on. It HURTS the troops and make their mission more dangerous and difficult.
I thought our enemies were attacking us because they hate our freedom? So what your saying is that the more we practice these freedoms the more they'll hate us. That makes no sense. These fanatics see us as infidels. They're not concerned with the fact that we might be untied infidels or infidels in disagreement. To them, an infidel is an infidel.
And how can you claim that the democrats are to blame for the "anti-American buzz in the middle east"? The first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 came about a month after Clinton took office. The planning of the attack took place before he was in office. By your reasoning, it's the republicans who are to blame. They had been in power for 12 years prior to the first bombing at the WTC. In fact the republicans were in the White house for 20 out of the previous 24 years.
On to your strangest supposition: " I can't help but believe that if the terrorists saw a united America, they would be much, much less likely to fight on." Can you name a period in your lifetime, when America was more united than after the attacks of 9/11? We were united at home. We had the support of most of the world including many Islamic nations. That all went up in smoke when we unilaterally and pre-emptively invaded Iraq. We squandered the world's good will towards us. And why? What reason are we using this week to support our in initial invasion? Several of the original reasons have not panned out, so the powers that be change the reasons as they see fit.
Don't bet on your statement about division in the ranks being "fabricated nonsense." You know this, how? Troops in the field, risking their lives on a daily basis, never knowing who is friend or who is foe, don't appreciate being misled any more than the general population does. I guarantee you there is distention in the ranks. and it has nothing to do with dissent at home. it has everything to do with the way this government is using and misusing the lives of those who serve.
Graysonbuzz,
I believe your blind support of this administration is clouding your judgment and hampering any intelligent debate from you. When we first heard of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction", everyone was scared. Even most liberals were in agreement that we should attack Iraq, especially after the 2003 SOTU (I think) address where Bush told the country that Iraq had WMD and were planning to use it against the U.S. Bush used WMD as an excuse to play Henny Penny with our fears. Liberals AND Conservatives joined together to give the president authorization to attack Iraq. We all believed the president. We wanted a safer America. That was three years ago. Three years later and 2,500 service -men and women-dead, we learn that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Instead of being honest with the American people - and with the Iraqi people, the president blamed his decision to go to war on bad intelligence. Then the president changes his tune to "We're went after Saddam to liberate the people of Iraq." You say in your post that you're tired of people accusing the president of lying. Sorry, but if the shoe fits...
If you're truly interested in the truth, look at PNAC. PNAC exists to make America and the world "better" through global military action and global economic domination. They need these wars to make money and assert American power throughout the world. Is this truly the right way to go? Is it morally right to ask our troops to die so that Halliburton can make a buck? What do you think that does to our troops' morale? Just because someone doesn't agree with the war doesn't mean that they hate the troops. It's assinine to say otherwise. It's also assinine that "liberals want us to lose the war in Iraq". Why would we want that? We want our troops home safely. We want to quit spending money on a war that has become bogged down. We want a timetable to bring our loved ones home - and for you, Graysonbuzz, to assert otherwise is contemptuous at best. I submit that this whole war was planned before Bush II took office. Again, look at PNAC. They state on their website that they needed a 9/11-like event to happen. Take an hour and do some research. Isn't the truth worth an hour of your time, or would you rather sit at your computer, throw bombs and cause trouble on a website wherein you're the minority?
That's just it...the claims are plausible, more so with each new revelation regarding how much the administration knew prior to the war. "Plausible deniability" is a satirical term, not an actual defense.
In any event, do you really that steadfast support of a conflict really equates to support of the troops? Do you believe that criticism of the deployment in Somalia after the fact amounted to criticism of our troops? Or are you using the our troops in the same manner that, e.g., Ms Coulter asserts Democrats use 9/11 widows?
Not ALL of us believed him
...but I agree with you.
If our troops' morale is lowered by partisan politics at home, then they're too thin-skinned to be in a war zone. I think they are more professional than that.
Many conservatives use "support the troops" to mean "support Bush". We have troops over there being shot at daily, dodging IEDs, serving far longer than they were supposed to, missing their families, watching their buddies get killed and maimed...you think they give a rat's butt what we liberals are saying here at home? Many of them AGREE with us, but can't say anything for fear of reprisal.
It's a bogus argument, TOMMY.
I have PROVEN Bush lied at least a dozen times in this chatroom alone. On Sept 7, 2002 in a joint press conference with Tony Blair. Bush said" I would remind you, when the inspectors were in Iraq, when they were finally denied access an IEAE report came out saying Iraq was six months away from a (nuclear) weapon. I dont know what more evidence you need." Evidence that actually existed would have been nice. This is a lie. No such report, didnt exist. Bush pulled it directly out of his ass. This is not a case of mistaken intelligence. Not a case of being wrong in hindsight. Bush pulled this report directly out of his ass. Not only that it misrepresented the IAEAs actual position which was that they had destroyed Iraqs nuclear capability in 91 and had seen no evidence of any attempt to reconstitute it. Then there is the aluminum tubes story. If you accept that a lie is purposefully giving fale information Bush sent 12 reports to congress (not to mention scads of public statements) saying the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for Gas Centrifuges DESPITE the fact these tubes had been inspected by OUR experts on Gas Centrifuges and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST AGREED that it was unlikely that would be used for GCs at ALL. Much less only used that way, Bush continued to make this claim even against the unanimaty of scientific opinion without ever mentioning this refutation with those most likely to kjnow either to congress or in his public statements. On July 14 2003 he (in a press briefing at the white house with Kofi Annon) said the reason we invaded Iraq is that he gave Iraq every opportunity to allow the inspectors in and after a reasonable time he had to invade. Now I HOPE that was a lie, since everyone not in a cave in Sri Lanka in 93 knows the inspectors WERE in Iraq. So any other explanation than a lie is much worse. (alternate reality, heavy drugs, inability to tell the difference between what he WISHES had happened and what DID happen...)
That is just on WMDs. Bush has lied about his stand on previous positions who benifitted most from his tax cuts the cost of the Medicare prescription benifits. The bottom line is Bush is a liar. He lies like most people breathe the only way to continue to pretend he hasnt lied is to run from the facts like vampire from holy water. Just because you refuse to accept reality is in no way a reasonable reason for you to tell us we are not being responsible for actually aknowledging it.
you mean the ones we were told we weren't going to have? we being the people, including poppy bush, who said this was going to turn into a disaster. sorry, all your blue sky rhetoric doesn't change a thing. the way you support the troops is to tell the truth, not your childish hero worship of gw bush.
We support bringing them home. We support NOT using them for reasons other than what is crucial to our nation. We are NOT obligated to support Bush OR the mission to support them. That is YOUR way we are not obligated to see it as the ONLY way. I see it like this. Soldiers join up to protect me and my country. Once they do, they lose all right to question where and how they will be used. There is only ONE mechanism to protect them from a President that lies and mislead to use their lives cheaply for any reason other than what is important enough and crucial to our country. That mechanism is Public opinion. We are doing our part in that bargain. IF you are saying well now they are there we MUST support the mission it means once troops are in harms way there can never be ANY criticism no matter how justified of that war. Bush could invade Canada and the same specious reasoning would apply.
Your WEAK excuse as to why once there is a war we should no longer criticise the President is best answered by Teddy Roosevelt. To say there must be no criticism of a President we must support him right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but morally treasonable to the American Public. I also say what we dont need is exhortations as to why we need become mindlessly servile and eschew our obligation to demand that ALL policies conform to the ideals we associate with this country because of some phantom time out YOU would give a President because he starts a war no matter how egregious the starting of this war seems to us. That is a prescription for disaster. The President works for me. NOTHING he does puts him beyond criticism.
I must admit that I'm deeply torn on the issue of withdrawal. I have little doubt that our continued presence is in now way in the best interest of the livelihood of our troops nor beneficial to our economy. On the other hand, I am concerned about the possibility of even greater violence which could result from a precipitous withdrawal.
Once again today, Bush is calling for "neighbors" to do more to rebuild Iraq. While that would probably be the best solution for the U.S. and Iraq, why would they not be inclined to give us the middle finger salute? I can see limited cooperation, but full support under U.S. stipulations doesn't make sense. I also have to suspect that our competitors are, at least in part, viewing our Iraq quagmire with pleasure.
First the violence/chaos monster is already out of the box. It became inevitable as soon as we invaded. Unless we plan to stay there for decades it is only putting OFF what will come. Also I think our presence is adding to the mix of violence not detracting from it.
Second ANY action can have unintended consequences, we dont really know if our continued presence will in the end, when all the violence is tallied up add or detract from the final body count. Therefore I think we should act on what we DO know. Motives. Our motive for invading Iraq is unsupportable. No WMDs, no immanent threat, no current collaborative connection with either al Queda nor international terrorism. The majority of Iraqis dont want us there. EVERY poll we have ever taken shows this. What is the logic of saying we are staying to help you no matter what YOU want? I think whatever the internal problems Iraq has we should not use them as an excuse to continue our occupation. Their problems even the ones we added to are in the final analysis THEIR problems and THEY must address them. I just dont see how our continued presence can help that dynamic. Even IF we are acting as a brake on overall violence and I am not sure that is so, it is only a holding pattern tactic. The problems are still there and when we leave will STILL break out, it is only postponing the inevitable shaking out of these hostilities. Are we going to stay there for decadese regardless of what the Iraqis want? If we are it is morally unsupportable and if not then we are only postponing any violence we are stopping. Either way I think the only really ethical tack to take is to treat the Iraqis like adults and leave because THEY WANT US TO.
Yes, the polls show a majority of Iraqiis think that U.S. military presence inflames the terrorists, but does anyone believe that the U.S. military will listen to the ordinary Iraqiis?
"War Bill Deletes US Military Base Prohibition", By Richard Cowan , Reuters
Friday 09 June 2006
" Washington - Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of US military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.
The $94.5 billion emergency spending bill, which includes $65.8 billion to continue waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is expected to be approved by Congress next week and sent to President George W. Bush for signing into law.
As originally passed by the House of Representatives, the Pentagon would have been prohibited from spending any of the funds for entering into a military basing rights agreement with Iraq.
A similar amendment passed by the Senate said the Pentagon could not use the next round of war funding to "establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq."
The Bush administration has said it does not want to place any artificial timelines on a US presence in Iraq and that it wants to begin withdrawing troops when Iraqi security forces are better able to protect the country. But it has not ruled out permanent bases in Iraq. "
from: [link to www.truthout.org]
and this:
"US "Planning to Keep 50,000 Troops in Iraq for Many Years" ", By Francis Harris, The Telegraph UK,
Monday 12 June 2006
" America plans to retain a garrison of 50,000 troops, one tenth of its entire army, in Iraq for years to come, according to US media reports."
----------------
"Military planners have begun to assess the costs of keeping a 50,000-man force in Iraq for a protracted period of time. At present the total number of serving American troops is about 500,000.
The plan has not yet received presidential approval. But it would fit with the administration's belief that while troops numbers will fall, American forces will have to remain in Iraq beyond Mr Bush's departure from the White House in early 2009.
Military analysts have noted that significant American spending is already being committed to permanent bases in Iraq. "
[link to www.truthout.org]
Thank you, Solon, for articulating the reasons why the highest level of support we can show our troops is bringing them home once it becomes clear that staying is not worth the lives it costs.
That maybe the troops are questioning Bush's motives? Don't assume that since he sent them there that they are 100 percent behind the president. It doesn't work that way. It never did, it never will. The troops will do their jobs to the best of their ability, they will defend themselves and their brothers and sisters. They will do their best to reach their objective. To most that objective is to see that they're alive one more day. If told their job in Iraq was finished, they would all gladly become citizens again.
Democrats are not sheep like the republicans
If I had made a similar comment about Democrats, I would have been shouted down and accused of:
1. Making unsubstantiated claims.
2. Smearing Democrats
3. Called other names.
Where is the self policing here when it goes the other way?
You're just as much a participant here as anybody else, Grayson. Police away! Nobody's stopping you.
No one claims that the commentary on this site will be "fair and balanced". If you post on a forum whose members tend to be liberal, expect the occasional snotty remark. The posters here are only expressing their personal opinions, after all (to use a favorite argument of those who defend O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Coulter, and other prominent conservative "private citizens" who host their own TV or radio shows). If you really feel that that comparison of Republicans to sheep was inappropriate, there's an easy remedy: flag the post for removal. Of course, if the moderators find that you've flagged too many posts without cause, you'll get kicked off. But I have no doubt you're willing to risk it for the sake of your honor.
that should read, "occasional snotty remark about conservatives."
What? Now if we post on this cite we are responsible for all the other posters too. Sorry I am only answerable to what I post. I am not going to waste my time policing other posters. I post when something grabs my attention or it is a subject I am interested in. If someone’s hypocrisy or lack of consistence draws my attention I will comment but to think a bunch of anonymous posters are going to police each other is laughable. If you think it is so important feel free to cite every instance where you feel people aren’t being fair and balanced in their posts—hope you don’t have a day job... this could get time consuming.
What exactly do you THINK you're doing here... all we hear out of you are loud diatribes and finger-wagging. I think that qualifies as 'policing'. You gonna teach us 'liberals' a lesson? More power to you.
by a lot of these conservative posters about how unfair this site is and there's not much left. are you guys really that fragile?
...to that brother!
If you want that, go to Fox News.
If some liberal had seriously proposed that we shouldn't talk about Bill Clinton's philandering because we have troops in harms way in Kosovo or Somalia? Rush Limbaugh's head would have exploded. To hear Conservatives try to protect Puddinhead George from criticism by tossing out "troop morale" would be laughable if it weren't so insidious in its purpose.
He stated on his show today that Murtha's call for redeployment was to "take American troops OUT of harm's way . . . I don't know what's MORE 'pro-military' than that . . ."
to pull the lever in November and give him an opportunity to strut his stuff