Kristol falsely claimed Clinton and Obama didn't denounce "General Betray Us" ad
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol falsely claimed that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "didn't denounce MoveOn.org when they ran the 'General Betray Us' ad when General [David] Petraeus was testifying before Congress." In fact, both Clinton and Obama voted for an amendment in September 2007 that condemned the ad. Additionally, Clinton stated at the time, "I am an admirer of General Petraeus, as I've said on numerous occasions. I don't condone it, and I joined in voting for a resolution that condemned such attacks."
During the May 4 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace noted recent appearances on Fox News programs by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, and asserted that "the left wing of the Democratic Party -- MoveOn.org, the DailyKos -- they're furious. I mean, they are really upset, if you read their websites, at the fact that they say these Democratic leaders are making a terrible mistake now coming on Fox." Turning to New York Times columnist and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, Wallace asked: "Can Obama, can Clinton, can Howard Dean, can they safely ignore those folks now?" Kristol responded: "I think if they're smart, they will; if they were smart, they would have." Kristol added, "I mean, they went with the left -- this is part of a bigger picture. They tried to end the war repeatedly. They tried to cut off funds for the troops. They didn't denounce MoveOn.org when they ran the 'General Betray Us' ad when General [David] Petraeus was testifying before Congress." In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, both Clinton and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that condemned the September 10, 2007, New York Times ad titled, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?", among other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces.
The Boxer amendment "strongly condemn[ed] attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." Of the MoveOn.org ad, it stated: "On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States." It also criticized Republican-backed attacks on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) concerning his military service, as well as attacks on former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), who is also a veteran.
During a September 23, 2007, appearance on CNN's Late Edition, Clinton stated of the ad and other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces: "I thought it was pretty sorry when his [President Bush's] campaign attacked Senator Kerry's record of service, and I thought it was pretty sorry when the Republicans attacked Senator Cleland. I don't condone attacks by anyone on the patriotism and service of our military. I am an admirer of General Petraeus, as I've said on numerous occasions. I don't condone it, and I joined in voting for a resolution that condemned such attacks." Clinton made similar remarks during an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press that same day, stating: "He [Petraeus] is a man of great honor and distinction who has served admirably. I don't condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don't believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that. I didn't think it should've been said about Senator Cleland or Senator Kerry. I think it's important that we end this kind of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country."
From the May 4 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: Let me ask you about the flip side of that, Bill, because the left-wing of the Democratic Party -- MoveOn.org, the DailyKos -- they're furious. I mean, they are really upset, if you read their websites, at the fact that they say these Democratic leaders are making a terrible mistake now coming on Fox. Can Obama, can Clinton, can Howard Dean, can they safely ignore those folks now?
KRISTOL: Well, I think if they're smart, they will; if they were smart, they would have. I don't agree that it was smart in 2007 to the degree they did boycott -- to have boycott it. I mean, they went with the left -- this is part of a bigger picture. They tried to end the war repeatedly. They tried to cut off funds for the troops. They didn't denounce MoveOn.org when they ran the "General Betray Us" ad when General Petraeus was testifying before Congress. They were scared of the left wing of their party. I think Hillary Clinton has shown you can get an awful lot of votes by not pandering to the left wing of the party. Seems to me, she's been gaining in the polls in the last month --
WALLACE: Well, she was pandering for awhile there, wasn't she? She sure moved to the left on the war.
KRISTOL: She did move to the left on the war.
There's no end to the list of individuals and/or groups that the presidential candidates can be "associated" with, and therefore no end to the guilt by association charges that can be made, against those candidates... and no end to the questions of "Do you approve of what those individuals and/or groups do? Or will you denounce or reject or condemn those individuals and/or groups, for what they have done?"
There's no end to questions like that, because there's no end to charges of guilt by association, due to the number of such "associations" being themselves endless.
It sure does screw up the appearence of the ballot, when we include on it, not only the name of the candidate, but also squeeze on the many names of the individuals and/or groups we are "associating" with them...
Please Select One Candidate To Be President:
A. Sen. Obama/the Pastor of his church (an incendiary fool in the pulpit)/former "black militants" so old they now cash Social Security checks (instead of robbing banks)/Indicted guys who bought a property adjacent to him, on the same day he bought his property/all Muslims world-wide (who are presently "associated" with him, despite his not being a Muslim)/etc. etc etc., the "associations" are too many to list.
B. Sen. Clinton/her husband/his girl friends (and Sen. Clinton's girlfriends too).
C. Sen. John McCain/George W. Bush.
...despite the messed up appearance of the ballot (once it includes the many "associations" on it), it still makes for a clear and easy choice.
Because the relationship or "association" between John McCain and George W. Bush in these matters, is more real and more important and more decisive and more damning, and more worthy of condemnation and denounciation and disapproval and rejection, than is any other "association" or relationship being prattled about in these matters, be it one with an incendiary fool in the pulpit, or some bunch of liberal idiots with a web-site and a lot of money (it's moveon.org I mean there), or with you or your husband having many girlfriends...
Wait, let's be clear on this one: I personally find it to a very admirable thing, and a fine "association" of little or no guilt, to be said to have many girrlfriends, be you a man or a woman, or a Clinton, or both.
VERY good post, my Man!
I can't run for public office because I have seen every one of Roman Polanski's movies and he was married to Sharon Tate, who was murdered by the Manson clan. That would "associate" me with Charles Manson, wouldn't it?? Also, I never "denounced" those acts, either on TV or in print (nobody asked me). Wouldn't stand a chance.
muchas gracias MD.
You bet, me and you both, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.com, at being elected to Public Office, by way of the many little guilty findings against us, by the many associates and associations we might have made over the years... despite the fact that we never did (or are even suspected of doing) the things those people may have done. It'd be one heck of a DenialFest, denouncing the things done by the many people we have known.
Now, if you're a member of the Teamsters Union (the International Brotherhood of Teamsters), you'll have to denounce Jimmy Hoffa... and then denounce Labor Unions in general, and Socialists and Communists, and Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx too, for obvious reasons...
If you live in Vermont, then you have to denounce Sen. Bernie Sanders... and Socialists and Communists, and Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx too, for obvious reasons...
If you're Jewish, you'll have to denounce Caiaphas, and Judas.
If you work for MMFA, then you don't have to denounce CNN, because you have no known association with them (except an association like that of a watchdog to a sneakthief)...
...but if you work for CNN, then you have to denounce Ted Turner... and if you're Ted Turner, then you have to denounce Michael Milken... and if you're Michael Milken, then you have to denounce Junk Bonds... and if you denounce Junk Bonds, then you denounce Wall Street, and Mergers and Acquisitions, and corporate takeovers, and consolidation of the media, and...
The associations can make you dizzy.
Oh, by the way: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States...
...so expect the U.S. Senator from Illinois, to be called upon some time soon, to denounce Jimmy Hoffa.
DONALD:
Have you ever heard the Beatles' "Helter Skelter"? If so, you must be in the tank with Manson, like-thinking and all.
In fact, both Clinton and Obama voted for an amendment in September 2007 that condemned the ad.
What purpose does such an amendment serve?
None.
Absolutely no purpose that in any way serves the American public.
There was nothing wrong with that ad.
Yeah, there is nothing wrong with calling a four star who has honorably served his country for 20 years a traitor simply because you don't agree with him.
MoveOn.org did not call him "General Betray-Us" because they didn't agree with his, - they called him that because they expected him to betray us and toe the Bush Misadministration line. Which he did.
Miliraty service - no mater how long or how honorable - does not give one a free psss through life, IMHO. A liar is a liar is a liar.
Apparently, the Jingofascists who insist that the Pentagon would never lie to us are too young to remember the Vietnam War.
He is not a traitor.
I disagree. I believe that any military officer who helps Bush presecute his illegal was is either a traitor or a war criminal, and should stand trial along with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
Is that true? Is that how it goes according to law? Are soldiers to be prosecuted for following illegal orders? I know soldiers, not the sick pigs who micromanaged torture sessions from the White House, were the ones held accountable. Even though they were carrying out orders, that Alberto Gonzales, David Addington et al swear are not illegal, they still paid the price.
I mean what gives, man? What's going on with this crap. It's not supposed to be tis way.
This is what I poasted, Chris:
However, I don't recall any rank-and-file soldiers facing trial at nuremberg - only the high-level officers who gave the overall orders that prosecured the war.
Where was I wrong, if only 22 men were prosecuted at Nuremberg?
You were not wrong in terms of Nurembourg. I apologize for my mistake there. I took your statement as a generalized declaration that rank and file lower level nazi's were not tried and sought as war criminals.
There are plenty of officers serving in that theater. Plenty of them serve on the front lines everyday. He made the generalized statement about officers, I simply carried it to its logical conclusion. Non commisioned officers give orders as well and the fact remains that a distinction cannot be drawn to stop at a certain level of military hierarchy when the overiding belief is that the whole war is illegal. If that is the case then everyone involved would therefore be guilty of war crimes and treason by his logic. There is no excuse for carrying out an order which is illegal. by his measure than every U.S. soldier should refuse all orders pertaining to the execution of an illegal war or they are guilty of war crimes.
We'll leave that for the war crime tribunals after Pretzelboy and his accomplices leave office. However, I don't recall any rank-and-file soldiers facing trial at nuremberg - only the high-level officers who gave the overall orders that prosecured the war.
There were plenty of low level officers in the SS corps who were charged and tried. Simon Wiesenthal made it a lifes ambition to search out those notorious and "rank and file" officers and soldiers who followed illegal orders.
But NOT each and every soldier who fought for the Third Reich. Just those who engaged in activities that rose to the level of war crimes, such as serving as a guard at a concentration camp, loading defenseless Jews onto boxcars for transport to the camps. etc.
Tite will tell whether Bush's illegal war results in any prosecutions. I would hope the upper echelons (both civilian and military) would face trial - only them would our internation reputation begin to be rebuilt.
I know that. I simply found fault with your insinuation that every officer who helped perpetrate this war should be tried for war crimes.
Not every officer - just the higher-ups. Like General Betray-Us.
How high up? At what rank do you become a traitor?
When you achieve a rank at which you are making decisions regarding the overall prosecution of war. If the war you're prosecuting is illegal, then you should face the consequences.
Interesting, I guess that could be as low as a lieutinent in some instances. wow!
William Calley was a lieutenent - wasn't he?
Also, Lt. Calley comes to mind.
Lt. Calley ordered his men to engage in an illegal act - the massacre of an entire village. His prosecution was right and proper, and had no bearing whatsoever on whether the US's involvement in Viet nam was legal or not - Calley's actions could not be justified under any circumstances.
You need a refresher on the Lt. Calley episode. At first there were plenty of higher ranking officers charged for this massacre. it was just that Lt. Calley got it in the end.
Nope - you're the one who needs the refresher course, Chris. The higher-ups were charged with covering up the massacre - William Calley was charged with the actual massacre. From Wikipedia:
On 17 March 1970, the United States Army charged 14 officers, including Major General Samuel W. Koster, the Americal Division's commanding officer, with suppressing information related to the incident. Most of those charges were later dropped. Brigade commander Henderson was the only officer who stood trial on charges relating to the cover-up; he was acquitted on December 17, 1971
After a 10-month-long trial, in which he claimed that he was following orders from his commanding officer, Captain Medina, William Calley was convicted, on September 10, 1971, of premeditated murder for ordering the shootings. He was initially sentenced to life in prison. Two days later, however, President Nixon made the controversial decision to have Calley released from prison, pending appeal of his sentence. Calley's sentence was later adjusted, so that he would eventually serve four and one-half months in a military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, during which time he was allowed routine and unrestricted visits by his girlfriend.
In a separate trial, Captain Medina denied giving the orders that led to the massacre, and was acquitted of all charges, effectively negating the prosecution's theory of "command responsibility", now referred to as the "Medina standard". Several months after his acquittal, however, Medina admitted that he had suppressed evidence and had lied to Colonel Henderson about the number of civilian deaths.
Most of the enlisted men who were involved in the events at My Lai had already left military service, and were thus legally exempt from prosecution. In the end, of the 26 men initially charged, Calley's was the only conviction. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai#Courts_martial
Yes they were charged with the cover up. Originally charges were filed against Calleys' commanding officer Capt. Medina who was said to have given the orders for the massacre and many Calley's platoon understood it this way. Also Maj. Gen. Kostner although charged with acover up was flying overhead that day and the intial investiagation pointed to his complacency in stopping the attack. My point was the Calley episode was an example of soldiers being charged for following illegal orders in that other G.I's in the platoon would have been charged with the killings i.e following illegal orders but they wer out of the military by the time of the trial. But all indications were that court martials would have been immediately sought against those men for following the orders of Lt. Calley. That is clearly evidence that a regular soldier can be charged for following illegal orders. That whole ordeal was indicative of the hierarchy giving illegal orders and lower officers carrying them out during the cover up. I can see where my initial posting would have given the impression that I insinuated the higher officers ordered the massacre. Poorly worded. I apologize.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was based on lies (wmd, Hussein responsible for 9/11) and thus the rationale for the shock and awe campaign was a betrayal of the public trust. For Petraeus to state falsified evidence that the eacalation has been a success is indeed a betrayal. Petraeus is indeed a traitor of the public confidence in a forthright and open accounting of the occupation.
"Betraying the public trust is not betraying our country to an enemy. If betraying the public trust was treason then there is a very long list of Presidents who are traitors as well."
The phrase wasn't "traitor" or "treason", that was your inference. You're taking your impression of it and trying to establish an undeniable definition from it. Meanwhile, betraying the public trust is not inconsistent with "betray us".
"Betraying the public trust is not betraying our country to an enemy. If betraying the public trust was treason then there is a very long list of Presidents who are traitors as well."
The phrase wasn't "traitor" or "treason", that was your inference. You're taking your impression of it and trying to establish an undeniable definition from it. Meanwhile, betraying the public trust is not inconsistent with "betray us".
Please spare me the intellectucal word parsing. When one betrays their country they are in fact commiting treason and therefore are labeled as a traitor. That is not an inference sir. I am taking no impression to establish a definition. The definition of betrayal of ones country speaks for itself. Gen. Petreaus is not beholden to public opinion. He is a soldier who serves his country. To insinuate that he "betrayed us" is clearly an indication that he betrayed his country. You need to understand that the oath one takes when becoming a member of the military is not to uphold public trust but to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic i.e our country. Generals don't run for office. You are confusing civilian with millitary.
I'm not confusing anything of the sort. You're taking a legal definition and applying it to all aspects of "betrayal". Forwarding a political agenda instead of being honest about the military situation is a betrayal of the American public, which the military ultimately works for. Is the "us" in "betray us" supposed to mean the Constitution? There's nothing in the ad that says anything about betraying the country, either.
If you don't want to hear parsing, then don't conflate things that are different. Words have meanings.
I'm not doing anything of the sort. Your'e exactly right words have meaning. Showing a four star general in full dress with the insinuation that he betrayed us is clearly an indication of treason. When military personel perform an act of betrayal in the course of their duty what else is there? Has MoveOn clarified this ad in which they indicate that they really meant that Petreaus just betrayed our trust and not the country? The "us" means the people i.e the country. Therefore they insinuated that a military person betrayed the country i.e. an act of Treason. The insinuation is clear. There is nothing in the ad which says anything about not betraying the country either, that makes no difference. The ad indicates that when Petreaus testifies before congress he will be betraying us. It's that simple. When a general betrays "us", what does that mean? Does it mean the people, the country or what do you suppose that means? The type of argument you are using is much like "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" You refuse to draw a distinction between military and civilian in this matter. What is bizarre is your argument that MoveOn only meant that Petreaus betrayed "us" as if "us" in this instance doesn't mean the Untied States. Why don't you tell us who "us" means in this ad?
What is bizarre is your argument that MoveOn only meant that Petreaus betrayed "us" as if "us" in this instance doesn't mean the Untied States. Why don't you tell us who "us" means in this ad?
How about "us" as in "We the People of the United States..."?
You and me. The American public.
So if the American public equals the country, then how is it that Petraeus isn't beholden to public opinion? He has a duty to his country, i.e. he has a duty to the people, therefore lying to the people is a betrayal of his duties. These are your definitions at work.
I give you credit, you are trying hard. You have no clue about he difference in military and civilian do you? Were you ever in the military? Look, when you are in uniform you are not beholden to public opinion nor to the public at large. You are not elected. You receive your orders and you follow them. You report as ordered. When you fight for this nation you are fighting for the people as well. The two are linked. You don't fight for public opinion you fight for the public. Those brave men who were at Normandy were not fighting for public opinion but rather the United States and as such the people who lived here. MoveOn indicated that Petreaus betrayed "us" not public opinion. Jeez!
Look, when you are in uniform you are not beholden to public opinion nor to the public at large. You are not elected. You receive your orders and you follow them.
Which is why we have civilians overseeing the military. In the end, General Petraus (and any other officer) ows his allegiance to the USA - which means THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. When the military and the people sharea common goal and vision (as in WWI and WWII), great things can happen. But when the military and the people do NOT share a common goal and vision (as in Vietnam and Iraq), it's up to the military to alter their vision.
Which is why we have civilians overseeing the military. In the end, General Petraus (and any other officer) ows his allegiance to the USA - which means THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. When the military and the people sharea common goal and vision (as in WWI and WWII), great things can happen. But when the military and the people do NOT share a common goal and vision (as in Vietnam and Iraq), it's up to the military to alter their vision.
It is not up to the military to alter the vision of public policy. That is up to the elected civilian offcials. I guess you two would like to start voting for military generals and admirals. Then you would have a point.
So if the two are linked, then doesn't he have to be honest with the people since that's who his forces are fighting for? And if so, then isn't such a thing subjective, determined by the people themselves?
So if the two are linked, then doesn't he have to be honest with the people since that's who his forces are fighting for? And if so, then isn't such a thing subjective, determined by the people themselves?
Yep - of the people, by the people,and for the people, as Lincoln once put it.
I think the biggest problem in this thread is that "betray" is defined as the acto be being a "traitor". "Treason" is a special category of betrayal - you can betray your wife, for example, by having an affair - but that does not constitute "treason".
The argument here is whether a person in the military can betray the people without betraying the nation.
Let's go back to the example of William Calley. He betrayed the American people for acting in a manner unbecoming a soldier when he ordered what became known as the MyLai Massacre. Yet as heinous as that was, it did not rise to the level of "treason".
So, yes - it's quite possible that General Petraus could in fact betray the American people, yet not commit treason.
WZ,
That is a bit of a stretch. I don't know how you can show that his actions betrayed the American People and not the country at the same time. I guess you could make an argument that his actions gave help to the enemy by giving them propaganda material. but how would tht not be betrayal of both? I hold firm to my belief that when it comes to military personel; if there is betrayal of ones country then there is betrayal of the American People because the two are inextricably linked from a military perspective. I just don't believe there is a division of the two from the military perspective. When we go to war we don't fight for the country and not the people of America nor do we fight for just the American People and not the country. If Petreaus were an elected civilian it is definitely possible to betray the public trust because such a trust would have been established through an election. There is just a difference here in my opinion. We disagree but I can tell you I have enjoyed our discussion.
So if the two are linked, then doesn't he have to be honest with the people since that's who his forces are fighting for? And if so, then isn't such a thing subjective, determined by the people themselves?
You do realize that top military brass are not elected officials right? They receive their orders ultimately from the commander and chief. They don't report to the public. The military falls under the Department of Defense. this is a fruitless debate, you'll never understand. Serioulsy, have you ever been in the military?
How does this address my question? Are they linked or aren't they? If they're fighting for the public, then they owe the public honest answers just as much as they owe the civilian command a full military effort. If they're ordered to lie then they should refuse those orders as they violate their duty to the public so long as it doesn't compromise the mission.
I'm asking for clarification of your comments, which relies on your understanding of the military. What deep insights can you provide here?
How does this address my question? Are they linked or aren't they? If they're fighting for the public, then they owe the public honest answers just as much as they owe the civilian command a full military effort. If they're ordered to lie then they should refuse those orders as they violate their duty to the public so long as it doesn't compromise the mission.
I'm asking for clarification of your comments, which relies on your understanding of the military. What deep insights can you provide here?
My deep insight is that I have served my country honorably so I have a persepctive from a military standpoint that you obviously don't have. I don't know where you get this idea that the military is an entity that answers to the public like an elected official does. An elected official can betray the public trust because such trust is established through election. Petreaus doesn't owe YOU an explanation for anything.
We just flat out disagree here. You believe that a military person can betray the American Public and not the country. I say that the two are inextribly linked from a military perspective. Military personel, while at war, don't fight for the American people and not the country, nor do they fight for the country and not the American people. The two are one from my military perspective. You don't make a distinction between the two when in the military. When you betray your country you betray the people and when you betray the people you betray your country. That's the way it is. If Petreaus were elected you would have an argument. the problem is that you see this from a civilian perspective because that is all you know. You want to assume that Petreaus is accountable to you just as your congressman is. I'm sorry to tell you but that just is not the way it works.
You're still not answering the question. You're linking fighting for the people and fighting for the country, yet the military doesn't owe any honesty to the people? That seems wildly inconsistent.
Elections have nothing to do with it. Nobody in the Military is elected, so nobody in the military owes the public honesty, apparently. The Secretary of Defense isn't elected either, and deals with military matters, but there's no public trust involved with that job either, I guess.
"Showing a four star general in full dress with the insinuation that he betrayed us is clearly an indication of treason. When military personel perform an act of betrayal in the course of their duty what else is there?"
So they should have found a picture of him in his bathrobe, or what? It seems to me like there are a few things that can be defined as "betrayal" that don't constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy, even for a general.
"Has MoveOn clarified this ad in which they indicate that they really meant that Petreaus just betrayed our trust and not the country? The "us" means the people i.e the country."
The "people" is not the same as the "country", since you're using a legal term.
"Therefore they insinuated that a military person betrayed the country i.e. an act of Treason."
Doesn't it bother you to make so many connections in this manner, honestly? Doesn't that indicate to you that you don't have much of an argument, where you have to keep identifying one thing to another in other to sustain your supposed point?
"The insinuation is clear. There is nothing in the ad which says anything about not betraying the country either, that makes no difference."
Truly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen. You're saying the context makes no difference, like if it doesn't specifically say he's not betraying the country that you can make that definitive conclusion.
"The ad indicates that when Petreaus testifies before congress he will be betraying us. It's that simple. When a general betrays "us", what does that mean? Does it mean the people, the country or what do you suppose that means? The type of argument you are using is much like "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" You refuse to draw a distinction between military and civilian in this matter. What is bizarre is your argument that MoveOn only meant that Petreaus betrayed "us" as if "us" in this instance doesn't mean the Untied States. Why don't you tell us who "us" means in this ad?"
Again, just because he's military doesn't mean any betrayal is "treason", so the distinction is meaningless. As for what the ad meant, just read it.
While there are no references to the betrayal of a country, there are references to the American people. That would be an indication that "us" refers to that particular group, then. This is hardly in the realm of defining the word "is" as Clinton dishonestly did.
So they should have found a picture of him in his bathrobe, or what? It seems to me like there are a few things that can be defined as "betrayal" that don't constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy, even for a general.
Are you for real? We are not talking about just the word betrayal sir. We are talking about a general betraying "US" meaning the people, meaning the country. As we have said before, military personel are not elected persons. When a military person engages in betrayal during the course of their duty, is their anything other than the performance of his military duties at issue? The implication is clear. You refuse to see it. I don't know if it is just because you want to argue or you are an apologist for this kind of vile crap.
The "people" is not the same as the "country", since you're using a legal term.
Oh please, stop with the parsing. Good God, are you really trying to argue that when a general betrays the people of the Untied States he is not betraying his country as well? Pssst, when a soldier betrays his country he is betraying the American People as well. You can't betray your country and not the people who live their nor can you betray the people who make up your country and not betray the country itself. I fail to understand why you think otherwise.
Doesn't it bother you to make so many connections in this manner, honestly? Doesn't that indicate to you that you don't have much of an argument, where you have to keep identifying one thing to another in other to sustain your supposed point?
No it doesn't bother me. The ad said he would be betraying us when he testified before congress. That meant to me he would be betraying the people who make up this country and as such the country. I am curious to know what you think was meant by "us" in this instance. Are you trying to honestly make the argument that when a military person betrays his country he is not betraying the people who live their and vice versa.
Truly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen. You're saying the context makes no difference, like if it doesn't specifically say he's not betraying the country that you can make that definitive conclusion.
Kind of like "There is nothing in the ad which says anything about betraying the country." Is your argument then, that because the ad does not specifically state he is betraying his country I can't make that conclusion. But, you can make the conclusion that it means a myriad of other things even though it is not specifically stated? What is truly dumb here is your incessant denial that MoveOn meant by the words "betray us" something other than a military person betraying the people and as such his country. I guess I will just have to wait and wait on your analysis of what "betray us" really meant. Perhaps you don't know, or perhaps you just like to argue wth me for the hell of it. Either way, I'm dying to know what the ad really meant since you seem to know. Tell me, what did the ad mean when it said he would be "betrayng us" when he testified before congress?
testifies before congress he will be betraying us. It's that simple. When a general betrays "us", what does that mean? Does it mean the people, the country or what do you suppose that means? The type of argument you are using is much like "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" You refuse to draw a distinction between military and civilian in this matter. What is bizarre is your argument that MoveOn only meant that Petreaus betrayed "us" as if "us" in this instance doesn't mean the Untied States. Why don't you tell us who "us" means in this ad?"
Again, just because he's military doesn't mean any betrayal is "treason", so the distinction is meaningless. As for what the ad meant, just read it.
Quit dodging the question. What other types of betrayal are there for a military person in the line of duty? What does "us" mean in this ad sir?
While there are no references to the betrayal of a country, there are references to the American people. That would be an indication that "us" refers to that particular group, then. This is hardly in the realm of defining the word "is" as Clinton dishonestly did.
I tell ya', you can tap dance with the best of them. You have tried to say that the betrayal they accuse him of doesn't necessarily mean the betrayal of the American people or the United States. Then you say the the ad is an indication that "us" means the American People. If a General, who in a time of war and during the process of completing his duty, betrays the American People what does that mean? You completely have no understanding of the difference in military and civilian do you? When you are in the military and you betray your country you also betray the people and when you betray the American people you betray the country. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.
Chris,
Makes perfect sense, to those who can look beyond their partisan hackery and accept it. Very well stated.
Tommy,
Yeah, I loved the "'people' is not the same as 'country' since you're using a legal term" That tells me immediately his argument is flimsy. I guess Benedict Arnold didn't betray his country or the people or was it a betaryal of the people and not the country? Oh. wait, we weren't exactly a nation under constitutional law at that time so he really didn't betray anyone or anything, right?
"Yeah, I loved the "'people' is not the same as 'country' since you're using a legal term" That tells me immediately his argument is flimsy."
If you can address the point at some point then you can call it flimsy. Meanwhile, "Treason" has legal standards that aren't met by betrayal of public trust, and I don't see how that point is refutable.
"He makes everything so hard by over analyzation. He has yet to inform me of wht the ad really meant."
I said what "us" meant in the ad"
"He is yet to inform me of what "us" meant in the ad."
Is this different from "what the ad really meant"? I don't remember you asking that.
"He seems to think a military person is beholden to public opinion and doesn't receive his orders and must follow them."
I never said that. I don't know what following orders has to do with anything, Petraeus should act as an honest agent in his military role and not play political games. I don't care who ordered him to do what in that regard.
"He seems to think Petreaus makes public policy."
I said that where?
"He has no clue about the military, that is obvious. If he was in the military I would be very surprised."
I haven't seen any great revelations about the military coming from you. Is it supposed to be some great detriment to my credibility that I wasn't in the military, or what?
"The implication of the ad was clear, no amount of philosophical word parsing can change that."
But there are no "implications". You didn't infer anything, so the meaning must have been much stronger than something that was simply suggested.
Any other strawmen you want to throw out there? It's much easier than analyzing things, isn't it?
Keep side stepping. Everything I wrote is true and you known it. Answer the questions and quit saying you did. If Petreaus makes public policy then he would be beholden to public opinion. He doesn't and he isn't. I assume you think you answered the question of who is "us" when you said it was an indiation of the American people. Well then why don't you tell us what it means for a General (in a time of war while performing his duty) to betray the American people? Dont' worry I don't expect an answer you haven't given one yet.
For Petreaus to betray the trust of the American people as you so want to believe then wouldn't the people have to put trust in him in the first place? When did that happen exactly. I must have missed when he was elected to General. Tommy is correct, you have no argument, you cling to baseless assertions and defend them by continual questioning of my arguments. I have yet to see you back up your argument with anything except for a circular questioning of what I write. You are pitiful.
"If Petreaus makes public policy then he would be beholden to public opinion. He doesn't and he isn't."
Yes, but that's not the only way one has a duty to the public. It's our tax dollars and our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands and wives out there with their lives on the line. Anyone who makes a case for that spending and those risks has a duty to the public, wouldn't you agree?
"I assume you think you answered the question of who is "us" when you said it was an indiation of the American people. Well then why don't you tell us what it means for a General (in a time of war while performing his duty) to betray the American people? Dont' worry I don't expect an answer you haven't given one yet."
I'm still waiting for the list of possible ways to betray someone. You've only listed one (Treason), and that's surely not the only way.
"For Petreaus to betray the trust of the American people as you so want to believe then wouldn't the people have to put trust in him in the first place? When did that happen exactly. I must have missed when he was elected to General."
By that logic the public shouldn't have any trust in the military at all. If we were attacked and they didn't defend us, well, we didn't elect them.
"Tommy is correct, you have no argument, you cling to baseless assertions and defend them by continual questioning of my arguments. I have yet to see you back up your argument with anything except for a circular questioning of what I write. You are pitiful."
Well Tommy would say that opinions don't have to have any basis at all, so I'm not sure he'd care for you calling him "pitiful". Meanwhile, you're just making baseless accusations against me, claiming I've said things I haven't said. Is this how adults are supposed to behave, in your view?
Yes, but that's not the only way one has a duty to the public. It's our tax dollars and our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands and wives out there with their lives on the line. Anyone who makes a case for that spending and those risks has a duty to the public, wouldn't you agree?
No. You lack perspective in this matter sir. Petreaus or any other general does not owe YOU an explanation for anything. What recourse do you have for your disagreement with military personel? Can you vote them out of their commission?
"I assume you think you answered the question of who is "us" when you said it was an indiation of the American people. Well then why don't you tell us what it means for a General (in a time of war while performing his duty) to betray the American people? Dont' worry I don't expect an answer you haven't given one yet."
I'm still waiting for the list of possible ways to betray someone. You've only listed one (Treason), and that's surely not the only way.
Wrong. I'm waiting for the list of possible ways for a military person to betray the people and not the country at the same time. You lack military perspective in this matter. You see everything from a civilian perspective. You want Petreaus to be accountable to you just like your congressman is. It don't work that way. From a military perspective, which you don't have, the American people and the country are inextricably linked. How can you draw a distinction during a time of war between the two? Can you say the military is fighting for the American people and not the country? Can you say the military is fighting for the country and not the American people? From a military perspective sir, when you betray one you betray the other. That's the way it is. Your whole argument hinges on the idea that Petreaus violated public trust by fraud or unfaithfullness. I'm telling you that you cannot violate the trust of something you are not beholden to in the first place. If Petreaus were elected he would have earned the public trust. He wasn't.
By that logic the public shouldn't have any trust in the military at all. If we were attacked and they didn't defend us, well, we didn't elect them.
Wrong, the public has trust that the President will order the military to defend us. The public trusts that the military is well provisioned, trained, and ready. You keep thinking the military is accountable to you like a congressman. You lack perspective here.
Well Tommy would say that opinions don't have to have any basis at all, so I'm not sure he'd care for you calling him "pitiful". Meanwhile, you're just making baseless accusations against me, claiming I've said things I haven't said. Is this how adults are supposed to behave, in your view?
Please, the deflection is getting old. I have asked you numerous times on this thread in various ways to basically explain to me how, from a military perspective, a serving general can betray the public and not his country. Other posters here who disagree with me hold the same view as me in that when you betray your country you betray the people and vice versa. I just disagree with them on whether Petreaus betrayed either. You have made the claim that Petreaus betrayed the American people but not his country. That is your claim so you need to explain it. You answer with questions. You have yet to give me any kind of explanation of how a distinction is made between the American people and country from a military perspective. Are you going to do that or not?
"No. You lack perspective in this matter sir. Petreaus or any other general does not owe YOU an explanation for anything. What recourse do you have for your disagreement with military personel? Can you vote them out of their commission?"
I couldn't vote Alberto Gonzalez out of his appointed position either, so what? Does that mean he didn't have any obligation to work as objectively as possible? People at this level aren't automatically or randomly selected for their jobs, they are appointed. Bush can replace him in that role.
"Wrong. I'm waiting for the list of possible ways for a military person to betray the people and not the country at the same time. You lack military perspective in this matter. You see everything from a civilian perspective. You want Petreaus to be accountable to you just like your congressman is. It don't work that way. From a military perspective, which you don't have, the American people and the country are inextricably linked. How can you draw a distinction during a time of war between the two? Can you say the military is fighting for the American people and not the country? Can you say the military is fighting for the country and not the American people? From a military perspective sir, when you betray one you betray the other. That's the way it is. Your whole argument hinges on the idea that Petreaus violated public trust by fraud or unfaithfullness. I'm telling you that you cannot violate the trust of something you are not beholden to in the first place. If Petreaus were elected he would have earned the public trust. He wasn't."
I'm not saying that anyone's fighting for the country but not the people. What I'm saying is that you can betray the public trust without it being "treason".
"Wrong, the public has trust that the President will order the military to defend us. The public trusts that the military is well provisioned, trained, and ready. You keep thinking the military is accountable to you like a congressman. You lack perspective here."
Then the public should have trust that the President should hold Petraeus accountable for his actions, and shouldn't be trying to get a General to take on a political role in the first place. Petraeus can still be criticized for going along with that, in the meantime.
"Please, the deflection is getting old. I have asked you numerous times on this thread in various ways to basically explain to me how, from a military perspective, a serving general can betray the public and not his country. Other posters here who disagree with me hold the same view as me in that when you betray your country you betray the people and vice versa. I just disagree with them on whether Petreaus betrayed either. You have made the claim that Petreaus betrayed the American people but not his country. That is your claim so you need to explain it. You answer with questions. You have yet to give me any kind of explanation of how a distinction is made between the American people and country from a military perspective. Are you going to do that or not?"
If you want to argue that betraying the people is betraying the country, then Petraeus betrayed the country. If you insist that makes it "treason", then that's up to you. It's not going to change the nature of what he did, though. I've explained how you can betray the people without it being "treason" perfectly clearly. Go back and re-read if you need.
"Are you for real? We are not talking about just the word betrayal sir. We are talking about a general betraying "US" meaning the people, meaning the country. As we have said before, military personel are not elected persons. When a military person engages in betrayal during the course of their duty, is their anything other than the performance of his military duties at issue? The implication is clear. You refuse to see it. I don't know if it is just because you want to argue or you are an apologist for this kind of vile crap."
How can there be an "implication" if you didn't make an "inference"? That's awfully strange. He can betray the American public without committing "Treason", whether he's military or it's in the course of duty or anything else. I see the implication just fine, that doesn't mean there's a valid basis for it. I also don't care for the ad, since it leads people to have the wrong impression and therefore doesn't convey the message as well as it could be.
"Oh please, stop with the parsing. Good God, are you really trying to argue that when a general betrays the people of the Untied States he is not betraying his country as well? Pssst, when a soldier betrays his country he is betraying the American People as well. You can't betray your country and not the people who live their nor can you betray the people who make up your country and not betray the country itself. I fail to understand why you think otherwise."
So to demonstrate that all A is B, you say all B is A. You are using a legal term, Chris, talking about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Betraying the public trust does not do that. It is not the same thing. Yes, betraying the country does the same to its people, but it doesn't necessarily work the other way around because you're using different standards.
"Kind of like "There is nothing in the ad which says anything about betraying the country." Is your argument then, that because the ad does not specifically state he is betraying his country I can't make that conclusion. But, you can make the conclusion that it means a myriad of other things even though it is not specifically stated? What is truly dumb here is your incessant denial that MoveOn meant by the words "betray us" something other than a military person betraying the people and as such his country. I guess I will just have to wait and wait on your analysis of what "betray us" really meant. Perhaps you don't know, or perhaps you just like to argue wth me for the hell of it. Either way, I'm dying to know what the ad really meant since you seem to know. Tell me, what did the ad mean when it said he would be "betrayng us" when he testified before congress?"
I'm not denying that they're saying he betrayed the people, I'm denying that's the same as betraying the country and is therefore "Treason".
"Quit dodging the question. What other types of betrayal are there for a military person in the line of duty? What does "us" mean in this ad sir?"
I already answered this, but you ask it multiple times. As for "other types of betrayal", how many types are there to choose from? Surely more than one, right?
"I tell ya', you can tap dance with the best of them. You have tried to say that the betrayal they accuse him of doesn't necessarily mean the betrayal of the American people or the United States. Then you say the the ad is an indication that "us" means the American People. If a General, who in a time of war and during the process of completing his duty, betrays the American People what does that mean? You completely have no understanding of the difference in military and civilian do you? When you are in the military and you betray your country you also betray the people and when you betray the American people you betray the country. Why you can't understand that is beyond me."
Again, you're talking Treason, a legal term. Betraying the public trust doesn't qualify. "Treason" is a different standard. Just trying to flip it doesn't logically work. Like if someone said they hate cars, you could conclude they hate VW Beetles. But if someone said they hate VW Beetles you can't conclude they hate cars in general. Similarly, when you say "betray the country" that means government and security interests which extend to the people, but betraying the people does not necessarily extend to the government and security level. It's a matter of sets and subsets. This is really a rather simple point and I don't see how I'm being inconsistent here.
Brabanito wrote:
>>This is really a rather simple point and I don't see how I'm being inconsistent here.
You are not being inconsistent. You are presenting a good argument, and I have pretty much always trusted your judgment, and you have not *betrayed* my judgment. If you started quoting Rush Limbaugh, I would say that you have betrayed us; but I could never accuse you of treason.
On the other hand, if you blindly followed progressive idealogy, it would be no different than blindly supporting a general. In both cases, you would be saying that you are suspending reason because of faith, always a stupid position. Like I say, you don't argue this way. Chris, however, does.
Tommy wrote:
>>Well, OK. If you're saying it's blindly supporting a general just because you don't condone a politically motivated and highly partisan website smearing a four star general with such incredible disrespect, by taking his name and twisting it into some cheap slime, then I concur with Chris....and we are blind together on this one.
Yes, Tommy, if by blind you mean lack of reason, then you and Chris are in on this together. In your post you confuse name calling ("politically motivated...partisan..smear..") with an actual argument. Yes, that is blind. I don't prefer to argue that way.
Even if war had been declared, it was over in three weeks. The government of Iraq was conquered and it's leader executed. America was victorious.
I say, not very convincing.
You can inform me on the letter of the law if you like.
"When did Petreaus aquire the public trust so he could later betray it?"
When he acquired a position by which to influence public perception of the war.
"We are talking military here sir. When a military person betrays the American people he does in fact betray his country as well. To say that a serving member of the military betrayed the American People is in fact saying that he is treasonous."
According to what, precisely? You berate others for not belonging to the military, surely you can back up your assertion here since you are in a loftier position.
"The other people here who have argued with me have indicated that betraying the people is in fact givning aid and comfort to the enemy. do you dissagree with them?"
Who said that?
Look, didn't Petraeus take on a political role over a military role when he spouted a line of administration BS to Congress? Do you think that's appropriate? Don't you think that's a betrayal to the public? I don't think that's "treason", but I also don't buy the argument that it's automatically treason because he's in the military, therefore you can't call it betrayal. The reality of his actions affects the nature of the charge, not the other way around.
When he acquired a position by which to influence public perception of the war.
Petreaus is not accountable to YOU. He does not owe me or YOU an explanation fro anything. He is not your congressman.
"According to what, precisely? You berate others for not belonging to the military, surely you can back up your assertion here since you are in a loftier position.
Your sarcastic tone is noted. The only persepctive you hve on this matter is a civilian persepctive. I have a military persepective. Therefore I can tell you that no distinction is made between the American People and the country you are fighting for from a military perspective. It's that simple. I'm sorry you fail to see that persepective, until you do you will not understand the other side of this argument.
"The other people here who have argued with me have indicated that betraying the people is in fact givning aid and comfort to the enemy. do you dissagree with them?"
Who said that?
I disagree. I believe that any military officer who helps Bush presecute his illegal was is either a traitor or a war criminal, and should stand trial along with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.
For Petraeus to state falsified evidence that the eacalation has been a success is indeed a betrayal. Petraeus is indeed a traitor of the public confidence in a forthright and open accounting of the occupation.
I'll agree with you on the point that in the strict legal definition, he may not be a traitor, but in the common definition, I will stand firm. He sold out the American people and, more importantly in his case, the military by using his position to support a corrupt administration in their execution of an illegal and immoral war. So, I will not be cowered by his shiny stars and will stand by the statement that he is a traitor to his country. Maybe not in the legal sense, but in the moral sense.
Look, didn't Petraeus take on a political role over a military role when he spouted a line of administration BS to Congress? Do you think that's appropriate? Don't you think that's a betrayal to the public? I don't think that's "treason", but I also don't buy the argument that it's automatically treason because he's in the military, therefore you can't call it betrayal. The reality of his actions affects the nature of the charge, not the other way around.
No he reported to Congress as ordered and expected. That does not make him a congressman or a political operative. Your assertion of BS is only opinion sop it therefore in no way bolsters your argument. Look, I didn't call it betrayal MOVEOn did. You have admitted that he betrayed the American People and I'm telling you that from a military perspective that that is the same as betraying your country. Military personel don't betray the people and not the country. that is just the way it is. sorry.
"Petreaus is not accountable to YOU. He does not owe me or YOU an explanation fro anything. He is not your congressman."
He doesn't have to be my congressman to be accountable.
"Your sarcastic tone is noted. The only persepctive you hve on this matter is a civilian persepctive. I have a military persepective. Therefore I can tell you that no distinction is made between the American People and the country you are fighting for from a military perspective. It's that simple. I'm sorry you fail to see that persepective, until you do you will not understand the other side of this argument."
So there's nothing specific here, just you using the fact that you have a military perspective as a tool of convenience. If I was in the military the concept that any betrayal is automatically "treason" would be ingrained in my outlook. If you say so.
"(quotes from others)"
But all along your argument has been that people are accusing Petraeus of "Treason", a legal term. Jawill's argument doesn't help you out there, since he admits it's not in the legal sense. Wz's comment didn't have anything to do with the public trust, it was that furthering an illegal war was traitorous. Roundhouse said he was a traitor to the public trust. So again, who said that betraying the public trust is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"? Or is this just more of you attributing beliefs to people without any basis whatsoever?
"No he reported to Congress as ordered and expected. That does not make him a congressman or a political operative. Your assertion of BS is only opinion sop it therefore in no way bolsters your argument. Look, I didn't call it betrayal MOVEOn did. You have admitted that he betrayed the American People and I'm telling you that from a military perspective that that is the same as betraying your country. Military personel don't betray the people and not the country. that is just the way it is. sorry."
Was he ordered to misrepresent the truth? If you want to say that he was completely honest and accurate in his testimony, good luck with that. I expect anyone who has such a serious influence on matters of life and death to act as an objective agent, I would think that someone with a military perspective would do the same.
Showing a four star general in full dress with the insinuation that he betrayed us is clearly an indication of treason.
The problem comes in when people on rthe right accuse Move-On.org of treason simply for running that ad.
I forgot to mention this:
"That is not an inference sir. I am taking no impression to establish a definition...To insinuate that he "betrayed us" is clearly an indication that he betrayed his country."
So there's no inference, no impression, it's just plain as day...but it's based on an insinuation that creates an indication for your conclusion. Truly bizarre.
Yet.
I wonder why they HAVEN'T BROUGHT him up on charges of perjury YET?
That's a better question. Is there a statute of limitation on perjury (or treason)? If no, we still have a shot at justice. And should he and his cadre of comspiritors be found innocent through impartial query I could be satisfied justice has prevailed.
"Betraying the public trust is not betraying our country to an enemy."
Actually when American citizens are slain and maimed, as well as our national security severely compromised and our civil liberties eroded for that betrayal of trust, I think a good argument can be made that, no matter how earnest the intention, America has been betrayed on behalf of her enemies.
This kind of imperialism that has us mired in Iraq on the wrong side of history, must never happen again. Those in power responsible for wantonly sending soldiers in the path of grievous bodily harm for lies must be held to account. Let the guilty pay.
"To follow the idea of this being an illegal war to its conclusion, every soldier who willingly obeyed orders which originated from an illegal war is also guilty of not only war crimes but of treason as well. "
Can you expand on this assertion? I'll admit to a bit of ignorance of the law in this instance. Does the letter and spirit of the law include soldiers? I could see an argument for including civillians who indulge in propagating an illegal occupation as they are not compelled by threat of execution, like soldiers are, for voicing dissent and issuing protests.
That's a better question. Is there a statute of limitation on perjury (or treason)? If no, we still have a shot at justice. And should he and his cadre of comspiritors be found innocent through impartial query I could be satisfied justice has prevailed.
Come on! Not only is perjury very difficult to prove there is no evidence now or then which indicates that Petreaus willingly lied to congress. I fyou want the man put on the same pedastool as Nazi's at Nurembourg then fine. I find it rather peculiar though.
Actually when American citizens are slain and maimed, as well as our national security severely compromised and our civil liberties eroded for that betrayal of trust, I think a good argument can be made that, no matter how earnest the intention, America has been betrayed on behalf of her enemies.
Perhaps you can make that argument, but it is only conjecture. Military leaders are not subject to public approval. The don't run for office. Petreaus has not willingly betrayed his country to give aid to any enemy. Therfore he is not a traitor. It's that simple. We can debate the philosophical if and but's all day. It changes nothing and the fact remains that the ad was a vile charachter assasination.
This kind of imperialism that has us mired in Iraq on the wrong side of history, must never happen again. Those in power responsible for wantonly sending soldiers in the path of grievous bodily harm for lies must be held to account. Let the guilty pay.
Fine, we can debate the merit of your argument, to an extent I wold agree ith you. The fact remains that you are making your argument as if Petreaus is a civilian official beholden to the public. He is not a traitor by definition. Your case is rather a stretch and would indict Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II as traitors.
Can you expand on this assertion? I'll admit to a bit of ignorance of the law in this instance. Does the letter and spirit of the law include soldiers? I could see an argument for including civillians who indulge in propagating an illegal occupation as they are not compelled by threat of execution, like soldiers are, for voicing dissent and issuing protests.
A soldier has an obligation to refuse an illegal order. If in fact this is an illegal war as you believe, then anyone persecuting it is subject to be engaging in illegal activity. There is no distinction in a general following an illegal order or a buck private following an illegal order when they know it to be illegal. If this wars illegality is as obvious as you indicate then by reason alone you are basically saying that any soldier who is actively following through on illegal orders is a war criminal and traitor.
Chris,
Those who use word parsing games to defend the slimy and obvious partisan smearing of a four star military general truly is the height of disrespect.
Your sincere and consistent arguments in the face of that are admirable.
I'm not sure what part of this you two aren't getting?
the General is an employee of the US tax payer, we trust that he do his job as we are paying him to do it, represent the country in the best manner possible and deliver reports back to his employers in a timely and honest fashion
When said General comes and spouts the party line while our eyes tell us he's not being completely honest about the reality of the on ground complexities, that is a betrayal of the tax payer
Interestingly enough the General is bound by the orders of the commander and chief so it's not as if he can be frank about his opinion anyway, in that he is betraying the tax payers trust again...by allowing his uniform and medals to play cover for a failed policy while aware he cannot actually answer the question posed to him by Congress in an open manner
Acrhispage wrote:
>>He is not a traitor.
According to you. But the arguement is that he betrayed us--not that he is a traitor. The ad never claimed that.
Look from a military perspective, the American People and the Untied States are inextribaly linked. You don't serve one and notthe other nor do you betray one and not the other. Petreaus is not accountable like a congressman. this hwole idea of betraying the public trust is bull. The ad indicated he betrayed the American People therefore the gauntlet was thrown down that he also betrayed his country. If you disagree then fine. I'm just telling you that from a military persepctive there is not some blanket distinction between country and the people who comprise the country.
We disagree.
I believe in accountability to the American people.
I believe there is a public trust that has been betrayed by a sitting general at the behest of corrupt civillian leadership.
You don't.
We disagree.
Yeah, that's fine.
We disagree.
I believe in accountability to the American people.
Yeah well so do I. I believe our elected representatives are accountable therefore they are beholden to the pubic trust. Petreaus is not accountable to YOU or me. If he was we would have recourse to remove him if he betrayed our trust. Tell me how do we do that to Petreaus or any person int he military for that matter?
I believe there is a public trust that has been betrayed by a sitting general at the behest of corrupt civillian leadership.
What public trust? The man is not a member of congress.
You don't.
I believe that Bush has betrayed the public trust. There is a much bettrer arguemnt for him being a traitor than Petreus. Bush is a civilian. He answers to us or at least he did in 2004.
We disagree.
We disagree, because I am pointing out that a person in the military isn't accountable to YOU. Furthermore from a military perspective the American People and the Country itself are inextribaly linked. You can't betray one without betraying the other. If you say that this can happen, please tell me how. If you believe that Petreaus did betrya his countrya nd the people, fine. At least we agree on the idea of what constitutes treason for a military person.
Those who use word parsing games to defend the slimy and obvious partisan smearing of a four star military general truly is the height of disrespect.
Tommy - We're giving General Betray-Us all the respect he deserves. As I stated above, military service does NOT give you a life-time pass on doing the right thing.
I simply must laugh at your conception of what is and isn't acceptable rhetoric along with your blind reverence for authority, Tommy. This is a country that values free speech, so if you want us to zip it on this, you're wasting your time.
It's that conservative top down, deference to hierarchy that has led us to the brink of authoritarian rule. Thank goodness Americans are smarter than that.
And forgive me if I'm wrong, I don't recall you taking Republicans to task for calling Democrats traitors, terrorists, defeatists, etc. for disagreeing with the occupation of Iraq. So your argument rings hollow.
Round,
You said the Iraq war was based on lies as if it is fact rather than your opinion. Please pick out the "lies" from the authorization to use force against Iraq from the following list:
he resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:Thanks
ps. see wikopedia for the above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_IraqWhat is the basis for 1)weapons of mass destruction and 2)a connection to 9/11? And did the administration have access to information that showed those arguments had no grounds?
Those were the reasons most widely touted for going to war, in any event. If we're concerned about things that happened in the early 90's and late 80's, why weren't Republicans pushing for war under Clinton's watch? Why didn't Republicans demand Bush 41 let someone else run for office in 1992 since he let Saddam go? As for ties to terrorism in general, welcome to the Middle East. Why not invade Saudi Arabia?
The WMD and 9/11 arguments are what made the rationale. Outside of that, there's nothing that distinguishes Iraq from any other Middle Eastern country in relevance to the time period. If the administration was suggesting otherwise that's dishonest as well.
Brab,
I find your questions interesting but irrelevant in this discussion.
I find your argument that any of the stated reasons beyond what you consider significant as "dishonest" only shows you to be blinded by BDS.
Please explain how the administration knowing that its self-serving intelligence was cherry-picked is irrelevant to whether the war was based on lies or not. Wasn't that your point?
If you don't have an honest response, just log off instead of spouting your weak "BDS" garbage. You only make yourself look like an idiot.
Brab,
No that was not my point. Go back and read my post again. It is right there. No need to try to mischaracterize it. I simply asked you to point out the lies. I noticed your original reply did not answer that question but only made accusations and questions (although related,) that are off topic.
Just because I pointed that out, your reply was simply a quick descent into an ad hominum attack. You can think what you like about me but that does not matter. I look at your reply simply as a poor attempt at deflecting. I'll just let it pass that your replies simply failed to answer my original question.
AA,
He's too "deep" for his own good sometimes. Sometimes black is black, white is white and the why doesnt' matter, Ya' know?
"You said the Iraq war was based on lies as if it is fact rather than your opinion. Please pick out the "lies" from the authorization to use force against Iraq from the following list:"
So yes, your point was that the war wasn't based on lies. Again, how are questions about the administrations honesty regarding the two key arguments, or the worthiness of the other points you list "irrelevant"?
As for the rest of your post, you must be joking. You brush off my questions and accuse me of having "BDS" and then talk about me "deflecting" and making "ad hominem" attacks? You are truly the king of projection.
Remember the AA rule: whenever AA provides a link, it almost *never* shows what it is supposed to show. Here is just one more example.
What exactly are you trying to show by your link, AA? That Bush didn't lie about the Iraq war? Are you serious? The actual text you provide is simply a cut and paste from wikipedia, and simply repeats the reasons for going to war. But if you follow any of the links provided in the wikpedia article, you will find that they don't back up the reasons. Many cast doubt on them.
"President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups."
link
Then why didn't they make arguments based on that "list"? Pobably because they realized the public wouldn't be swayed by all that junk without being scared by the threat of wmd and 9/11 links. The neocons were not honest brokers in the push for invasion.
Oooh, all those bright shiny stars and medals blinded me to the fact that he lied to Congress about how great Iraq was doing from his BS surge, how much Iran was involved and which group they were helping, conflating AQI, al Qaeda, and Iran, etc.
What about the other generals that called out Patreus on his BS and brown nosing? Are they allowed to criticize him since they have just as many shiny stars as he does? Or is it still off limits?
A traitor is someone who betrays their country for the benefit of an enemy of that country. Your conclusions about coporations etc. in no way shows Petreaus has willingly betrayed his country so that the enemy would receive aid.
A traitor is someone who betrays their country for the benefit of an enemy of that country. Your conclusions about coporations etc. in no way shows Petreaus has willingly betrayed his country so that the enemy would receive aid.
You don't have to benefit an enemy to betray your country. Any action that goes against the best interests of your country - whether it benefits an enemy or not - can make a person a traitor.
1. Bill (Billy) Kristol is a serial liar.
2. General Petraeus is in fact General "Betray Us".
Both statements are true and are not in contradiction to one another.
I would agree with you about Kristol.
I disagree about the General, I do not see him as being a bad person, just someone who is following his orders and believes he is doing the right thing for his nation. I have respect for all the men and women in the military, i just hate this war.
Blind support of the military doesn't do anybody any good.
They are people. Men and women. And they are subject to the same biases, fallibility and poor judgment as the rest of us.
Support them when they deserve it.
Denounce them when they deserve it.
Heroism and repugnancy occur no more or less often in the military than they do in any other profession.
"Blind support of the military doesn't do anybody any good."
It is not "blind support" to give your support to young men an women who honorably serve on the orders of others. The military is controlled by civilians. You may not blindly support all the particular actions of the military, but you should in fact blindly support the need for the military. Support for a military in general should. It is a necessary good... or evil in your case.
"They are people. Men and women. And they are subject to the same biases, fallibility and poor judgment as the rest of us."
Most of the time, when in the military, you act on orders.
"Support them when they deserve it.
Denounce them when they deserve it."
Denouncing the troops does no good. Denounce the policy of which their orders orginate. The policies, of course, are made by civilians. The troops on the ground deserve YOUR support at virtually every turn.
"Heroism and repugnancy occur no more or less often in the military than they do in any other profession."
Yeah, I just love it when accountants risk their lives to save a comrade under direct fire. Heroism occurs with much more frequency for those kids on the ground over there. In fact, it occurs each day when they wake up and go about their missions. You may be able to point to isolated incidents in which soldiers acted heinously but the fact remains that your perception of military actions in combat as being the SAME as day to day actions in civilian professions is ludicrous. Your continual attempt to rationalize calling a man a traitor by calling into question and comparing military actions to civilian actions is hilarious.
Nice tapdance, but the point is that human nature is human nature. There are liars and scumbags in the military, just as there are in any other profession. Yes, we should support our military personnel and give them what they need to do their jobs, but sycophantic jingoism is not healthy in a free Republic
What tapdance? For your argument to have any validity now, we must assume that Petreaus' human nature is flawed. Just because you see him as a liar and a scumbag does not make him a traitor therefore the ad was vile and uncalled for. Sycnophantic jingoism? That's quite an accusation. No matter what you try to make me believe, there is no rationale for calling the man a traitor. It's a dispicable act and does nothing to further the cause of getting out of Iraq. It only serves to put those who are against this war from a ideological standpoint in the same box as the radical idiots who put out these kinds of ads.
The fringe will not end this war. It will only end when those in the middle band together and demand that it stop. The Moveon.org ad appealed to the fringes. The tactic reminded me of the street theater during the Vietnam War. Their intentions might have been pure, but they had a tendency to turn off many who would have agreed with their goals, but not their methods.
What many fail to understand is that we need to come together, not drift further apart. Our side needs to make sure that no one interprets our desire to see the war brought to an end with any kind of anti-military sentiment.
I'm not saying that anyone is anti-military but there are some on the right who are going to interpret our words and actions that way. We need to convince more to join our side. Ads like the Moveon ad will not accomplish that.
"I think that the General has been used by the administration. If he had chosen to go against the administration, he would have been replaced, and someone else would have been appointed to be the messenger."
Not that it was your intent, but that's not much of a defense. I would say that lying about the war for the sake of one's career is inexcusable. It's like "if I hadn't taken his money to kill his wife, someone else would have". It's still wrong.
That being said, I agree the ad isn't helpful. It does create the wrong impression and there are better ways to get the message across.
I think the administration put the general out there to take the heat, knowing that many would take any criticism of the general as an attack on the military. This created a win win situation for Bush/Cheney and a loss for the military and the citizens.
I took it to mean that he betrayed the TRUTH. Isn't that what we all want, is the unvarnished truth?
All we get from those in power are lies. Look at Shinseki and the other generals who told it like it really was. They were forced into early retirement because there still was lots of $$$ to be made for Cheney's cronies and Bush's unending revenge on the baddy who tried to kill his daddy.
It said he will betray us not the truth.
Yes - betray us by not telling the truth.
The ad was divisive.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with divisiveness. If everyone thinks the same way, the world is in lockstep. And it isn't very far from lockstep to goosestep.
Deeznuts said, "They are people. Men and women. And they are subject to the same biases, fallibility and poor judgment as the rest of us."
That's a perfectly valid point.
If we were Republicans we'd all be in agreement and willing to support the administration. And just so you know, some on both sides of the argument have "suited up" already.
Chrispage wrote:
>>It is not "blind support" to give your support to young men an women who honorably serve on the orders of others. The military is controlled by civilians. You may not blindly support all the particular actions of the military, but you should in fact blindly support the need for the military. Support for a military in general should. It is a necessary good... or evil in your case.
To give "blind" support for anything means to give support without reason. Nothing deserves support without reason. Since the US fought virtually every war since WW2 for unethical reasons, I don't see why I should blindly support the need for a military, especially a military monstrously big and brutal. While many of the people fighting in the US forces are moral, many are not. I am not going to blindly support the whole lot of them. After all, I don't see the people in the armed forces saying "I don't support the peace movement, but I support the people in the peace movement." Blindly loving the military is bad for a democracy.
To give "blind" support for anything means to give support without reason. Nothing deserves support without reason. Since the US fought virtually every war since WW2 for unethical reasons, I don't see why I should blindly support the need for a military, especially a military monstrously big and brutal. While many of the people fighting in the US forces are moral, many are not. I am not going to blindly support the whole lot of them. After all, I don't see the people in the armed forces saying "I don't support the peace movement, but I support the people in the peace movement." Blindly loving the military is bad for a democracy.
What is so funny is that you would blindly support them if they saved your arse. If may are moral how can may not be? the good thing is that we'll always have a military and brave citizens willing to give their life so you can call them brutal and indicate that there is no need for a military. Perhaps you are right. We should turn all of our guns into flower pots, missle silo's into playgrounds and when someon attacks us we sholdn't worry about defending ourself we should try to UNDERSTAND THEM.
Thank you Doris for showing respect. The haters on here who do nothing but spew hate toward anyone they disagree with never stop amazing me.
Hate will get them no where, when Obama or Hillary win next year you will see the haters remain quiet while the troops stay in Iraq.
I for one and tired of the partisan haters.
I do not see him as being a bad person, just someone who is following his orders and believes he is doing the right thing for his nation.
A lot of the defendents at Nurenburg used the same defense (following orders, serving the Fatherland, etc). And they ended up getting hanged for it.
What would you like? The Military to overthrow Bush?
I'm amazed that the right wing is so incensed about this alleged slight to the generals reputation but they're not pushing for the increase in benefits for veterans.
Why isn't anyone screaming about how elitist the general's supporters are acting?
I think the left is rather tame and any comparability is ludicrous. As a member of MoveOn.org my answer to you Bill Kristol "clean your own house first". I'm hoping that a new breed of Democrat emerges with our new expanded numbers that are registering to vote. We need to stop letting Republicans whip us into shape with their double standards and holier-than-thou discourse.
It is invalid to call a membe rof the military who has honorably served his coutnry a TRAITOR because he follows the orders given to him by the civilian authorities.
When those orders are to prosecute an illegal war that is in the long run NOT in our nation's best interests, then that general AND the civilian authorities giving him orders are not acting in our nation's best interests, and are therefore all TRAITORS.
The fact he may believe in the cause still does not make him a TRAITOR to his nation.
The fact that he's acting in Halliburton's best interests and not in the USA's best interest is what makes him a TRAITOR.
There are plenty of soldiers over there who believe in the mission. Are they TRAITORS as well?
No, because they're not actively formulating war policy. However, they would be within their rights not to obey orders that they personally feel are illegal - in fact, they're obligated under UCMJ to do that.
Amen.
The following orders mantra is no excuse for executing war crimes. For the military people far down the line, they are in no position to make that determintation due to lack of information. At the top, however, they know what they are doing and they know that they are lying for the benefit of a few to the detriment of all the military personnel they are supposed to be protecting. Hence, Genreal Betray-us. It is the rank and file military that are in the position to call him that more than anyone else. He has betrayed them far more than the average citizen.
It is invalid to call a membe rof the military who has honorably served his coutnry a TRAITOR because he follows the orders given to him by the civilian authorities.
When those orders are to prosecute an illegal war that is in the long run NOT in our nation's best interests, then that general AND the civilian authorities giving him orders are not acting in our nation's best interests, and are therefore all TRAITORS.
Gen. Petreaus has not betrayed our willingly betrayed our nation to give aid to the enemy. Therefore he is not a traitor. You confuse the role of civilian and military sir. They are not one in the same.
The fact that he's acting in Halliburton's best interests and not in the USA's best interest is what makes him a TRAITOR.
That is ridiculous. That makes all his orders illegal and anyone who sends them down the chain of command and then follows them are acting illegally as well. Acting in the best interest of your country makes you a patriot but not acting inthe best interest of your country does not make you a traitor as long as you are not betraying your country to give aid to the enemy.
No, because they're not actively formulating war policy. However, they would be within their rights not to obey orders that they personally feel are illegal - in fact, they're obligated under UCMJ to do that.
If they are obligated to do just that and don't (like they are doing right now) then they are guilty of war crimes and treason according to you. therefore you are sying that they are traitors right?
Voting on the Boxer bill does not necessarily mean Obama and Clinton disagreed with that specific charge about Moveon.
One can vote for a bill because one agrees with most of its part, or has no major problems with it. We can't simply say they "denounced" Moveon's ad.
Actually, weren't there TWO different votes regarding the MoveOn.org "Betray-us" ad?
As listed here, there's little to dispute. The problem is that the other vote (Sen Amdt 2934, 9/20/07--http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344 ) is the one which SPECIFICALLY targeted MoveOn.org over the ad's content. On THAT measure, Clinton did NOT denounce MoveOn.org; she SUPPORTED MoveOn.org's RIGHT to take out the ad (Obama, for some reason, chose not to vote on THAT particular issue). The vote on this amendment was 72-25-3.
Hillary's position is pretty clear. She supported an organization's right to take out an ad, but she opposed unfairly targeting a member of the military. (Obama seems to have opposed the attacks on a member of the military but waffled on the other matter.)
I look forward to a day when a majority of Americans are paying enough attention to what's actually happening that the party that is more in line with their interests doesn't have to spend so much time denouncing and condemning things that are true.
Hat tip to the GOP. You've actually got a lot of voters so scared that they're demanding that the govt., and presidential candidates, lie to them.
It is promising that the only arrow left in the right-wing quivver is the bald-faced lie.
It is disappointing that, despite the undeniable carnage and their constant, abject failure, these hideous fools are able to maintain any traction at all in the American political life.
.
Nobody should give a crap about anything such a shameless liar and filthy instigator of death, such as yourself, has to say.
You say they (Barack and Hillary) were scared (naturally, he mentions fear. Authoritarians are always afraid of something) of the left wing of the party. Well, actually the left wing of our party is the mainstream of the country but I would say it's essential for politicians to have a respectful fear of citizens.
The day that Dems stop denouncing and rejecting things just because Republicans tell them to is the day that we have finally started to move forward as a country again. I hope I live to see that day, and the sooner the better.
We Democrats don't denounce things because Republicans tell us to - we denounce things that we believe are wrong, immoral, and/or illegal - no matter WHO says them.
Strange, there's some weight for the opinion that the dem's pol figures are low because they're not taking it to HRM shrub and the his policies hard enough. Many calls to show more backbone and to stop giving shrub what he wants.
The traitor call is for a court of law. Suspicions are someone's opinion, can they make a case? Complaints about critisism is a call to quietly bow down to authority. I need three more boxtops to get that secret Decoder Ring.
It is amazing though. All the Flag Grade officers, in all of the services who were forced into retirement because they dared to say the "wrong" or "Not Politically Correct" thing, at least not in the eyes of this administration. where is the "outrage" there. We have had an administration that has lied to the Press and the people of the US of A for over seven years now, there is no "OutRage" heard from our politicians and journalist. We have a fourth estate that has become stenographers for this Criminally Corrupt Administration. Who, except for a handful of reporters, ask no questions, just repeat the GOP talking points as if they were news. We are giving a Power Point presentation and told that;s the news, now get over it.
I will not denounce MoveOn.Org because they have represented my view of what has happened these past seven years. I stand with them now and into the future. I am a proud Liberal/Progressive Democrat and hope to remain one for the rest of my life!
Once again, the Right Wing Professional Liars have been permitted to define the issue. Unless the Democrats learn to counter the GOP's ubiquitous dishonesty, they will never be able to relegate the Troglodytes to the political dustbin where they belong.
Nerzog,
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the ad placed before Patraeus appeared before Congress?
Also, what specifically did Patreaus say that you consider to have betrayed you?
As for the ad coming out before his testimony, I don't think there were any surprises in what he said. In fact, I vaguely remember a story that the MSM largely ignored about the White House actually writing the report for him. Given current circumstances, it is quite plausible that he basically blew sunshine up our butts in order to buy the Bush Administration some time. If he did these things knowingly, then he betrayed the American people, he betrayed the soldiers under him, and he betrayed the traditions of military service.
Of course, he may be totally innocent; we'll probably never know, given the level of secrecy surrounding this Oil War.
The ad was placed before his first time in front of Congress, but an advance of his testimony was available at that time.
He betrayed us by fudging the numbers of how many attacks there were. He betrayed us by pretending that the surge was even a working strategy when it was clear that the Sadr cease-fire was the only reason for decreased violence. He betrayed us by pretending that the deals made in Basra had anything to do with the surge and were in any way a long-term strategy. He betrayed us by trying to conflate AQI, the Mahdi army, Iran, and al Qaeda. He betrayed us by spouting BS admin. talking points about Iran which were unfounded or blatently untrue. He betrayed us by suggesting that Sadr was receiving major support from Iran, when Maliki and the Badr brigade were the ones receiving any real support. He betrayed us by lying about the strength and effectiveness of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police force. And he btrayed us by sticking by an administration that did so many terrible things on and off the battlefield to the men and women he was carged with protecting.
I'm sure you'll attract many followers. Badly put LOUD opinions have allways been winners. What part or parts of your description AFRICAN AMERICAN DEMOCRATE is the EX part?
Now that the media have destroyed Obama? Do to the help of? Whose Hillay and why? Would you like to borrow my meds? I recognize a greater need than mine.
Really, can we trust ANYTHING coming out of this administration? And they impeached Bill Clinton for lying about @#$%&* oral sex? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
What/s amazing is how dumb and blindly loyal these RIGHT WINGERS are to an administration that has sent the country on a path to ruin.
guilt, if not the legal responsibilities of "I vas jus following OR-duhs." To this day the entire German population is still being held responsible for Hitler. As an artist and art
historian, I am aware of many contemporary German artists who use this guilt as part of their work. The defense of the various German jurists in "Judgement at Nurenburg" was that since the "laws" had been changed or new "laws" were passed during the Nazi period, they, the judges, were following "legal" statutes, were "doing their duty" and therefore were not guilty of breaking the law. Of course, it always helps if you embrace the sick and inhuman mind-set of the nation's supreme court.
Am I making a comparison, here? Far be it for ME to do such a thing. After all, who am I to go against the wishes of the population that put Mr. Bush in the White House....TWICE.