April 18, 2006
On last night’s edition of Special Report, host Brit Hume exposed the hypocrisy of a General who has recently spoken out against Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld. General Anthony Zinni who has attacked Rumsfeld said this in the run-up to the Iraq War:
“What bothered me … [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.”
While he was CENTCOM commander under Clinton in 2000, he said this:
Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,” adding, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.
DOWNLOAD – .WMV
DOWNLOAD – .MP4
Alabama Watch linked with Brit Hume zings Zinni
Wizbang linked with Understanding General Zinni...
Texas Rainmaker linked with Zinni vs. Zinni
62 Responses to “Zinni’s Hypocrisy: Iraq Was a Threat Before It Wasn’t (VIDEO)”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
2:21 pm [ Quote ]
I’m sorry, is someone arguing that this war has been prosecuted competently? Or that general officers say what they’re told to say while in service?
2:32 pm [ Quote ]
Give the man a break, books dont sell themselves. Shill.
2:37 pm [ Quote ]
The only problem is that that quote came in 2000, when the war began in 2003. Don’t you think in order to find real hypocrisy they should find a quote right before or at the beginning of the war?
2:38 pm [ Quote ]
Good link.
Zinni obviously is telling two completely different stories, and he may have been under oath for one.
Of course, they could be the same identical story, and I just don’t see the “nuance.”
I doubt it. It’s a slam, all right, fair and square.
2:39 pm [ Quote ]
I’d say General Zinni has discredited himself completely on this issue – so much so that he should resign.
Wait… he’s already done that.
Next.
Actually, hold the train… AFTERTHOUGHT… this is John Kerry’s favorite General? I guess the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree, Mr. Flip-flopper!
It would have been an absolute joy (in a political sense) to see your complete administration, Mr. Kerry.
2:58 pm [ Quote ]
Simon Owens Said:
2:37 pm
The only problem is that that quote came in 2000, when the war began in 2003.
Doesn’t Zinni link the two very, very clearly?
I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew.
Good soldier or not, he apparently lied before the Senate OR he’s lying now.
I don’t see the “problem,” I’m afraid. I see a general unable to keep his story straight.
3:19 pm [ Quote ]
Zinni is exposing himself as just another incompetent Clintonoid “General”, cut from the same mold as Wesley “I hate the US Military” Clark.
3:25 pm [ Quote ]
The problem lies with current intelligence at the time leading up to the war. In the realm of global politics, up-to-the-minute intelligence and facts is what counts, not what someone said in 2000 when Bush didn’t even begin planning the war until well after 9/11.
I agree that his comments are somewhat contradictory, indicating that his criticism is political in nature, but it’s a far cry from complete hypocrisy, and I wouldn’t consider it as such.
3:36 pm [ Quote ]
Simon,
You are truly a kool-aid drinking moron.
3:36 pm [ Quote ]
Simon, contradictory statements about a serious issue like an enemy’s nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon capability in wartime by a General who is calling on the Secretary of Defense to resign for what you acknowledge are political reasons is “a far cry from complete hypocristy, and I wouldn’t consider it as such”?????
Buddy, what the hell are you smoking?
Oh wait, you’re a Liberal – do I have to ask!
3:39 pm [ Quote ]
I can’t believe you “support the troops” people! Degrading men like Clark and Zinni who served their country for their entire lives. You put “general” in quotes?! My God. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!
I honestly can’t believe you would attack the mans military career … a man who laid his life on the line, a patriot … because he offers a different opinion than you.
3:45 pm [ Quote ]
[...] But don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what retired General Anthony Zinni said recently on Meet the Press – April 2, 2006 (video): “I heard the case being built to go to war right away. And what bothered me, I had been hearing about some of the assumptions on the planning, dismissal of the for—previous plans, and I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.” [...]
3:55 pm [ Quote ]
nascar,
Believe it. They’ve done it with Murtha, Kerry, Clark, and now Zinni. But when Newt calls the war a mistake, and a withdrawal, crickets.
Additionally, they stand behind a president who was AWOL, a war monger VP who had 6 deferments, and a secDef who saw no combat.
3:56 pm [ Quote ]
His statements might appear contradictory, but two things must be taken into account:
1. Zinni was still active in 2000, and when you’re active you don’t neccessarily have the ability to speak of what you actually know. He also included the word “probably” which indicates that his information is not a result of some direct intelligence operation or report.
2. Zinni does not say that Iraq is an imminent threat. Of course everyone knew that Saddam was in love with WMDs and that he was a threat. That’s not the reason why we went to war (although for some people it probably is). We were told that he was an IMMINENT threat. If you subscribe to the mantra that post 9/11 anyone that doesn’t liek us is an imminent threat then sure, but the fact is that Iraq was weaker in 2003 than in 2000.
3:57 pm [ Quote ]
Simon Owens Said:
3:25 pm
The problem lies with current intelligence at the time leading up to the war.
Except that he says he didn’t believe it at the time.
“I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew.”
So why did he tell the Senate something different? There are several possibilities:
1) He was telling the Senate what the military wanted him to say
2) He was lying to the Senate
3) He is lying now
4) He is saying now what the DNC wants him to say
I don’t know, but it is interesting that the man almost completely contradicts himself.
4:17 pm [ Quote ]
Isn’t this the piece of trash who wrote that book “plan of action” or something like that with Tom Clancy? Clancy sounds like such an idiot in interviews. None of what he says makes sense. The general practically had to do all the talking for him. Tom Clancy should be deported.
4:19 pm [ Quote ]
nascar
not that you were talking to me about the “general” in quotes, etc…. but I feel the need to respond to a bit of your idiocy.
Who is attacking Zinni’s “different opinion” than theirs? They’re attacking the fact that Zinnin offered two complete opposite opinions himself. His opinion isn’t different from ours, it’s different from his own!
I think it’s safe to say it’s only going to get worse. The attacks from the media and the left’s hitmen have been beyond anything we could have imagined for years now. The Dems are smelling blood and know it’s all or nothing time. Just a warning to fellow Republicans, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait, the attacks will only get worse up until the 2006 elections, and we’ll see what happens after, depending upon the outcome. But expect a lot of tricks like these being pulled out of the Dems’ sleeves. More traditionally non-liberals attacking the administration or supporting Democrats. The Dems are hoping that the American public, still concerned with security, won’t see through there phony attempts to look tough on it.
4:28 pm [ Quote ]
Zinni seems to be somewhat a ‘Loose Cannon’ on the political scene for both parties. His latest statement idicates he, (Zinni), has the ability to shoot himself in the foot. Also, to cause collateral damage to the Democrat agenda of “Get Bush”.
5:15 pm [ Quote ]
Bull-caca Randy,
He’s being attacked because he’s questioning your leader (the Decider! Hahaha)and the leadership of the country. You hypocrites wouldn’t bat an eye if he wasn’t asking you to take off your rose-colored glasses. Call me names all you want … or tell me of my idiocy. You are Un-American. You hate America and the values our country was founded on.
5:18 pm [ Quote ]
Incidentally … “I am the Decider!”?
This is why President Bush is not encouraged to speak off-the-cuff!
5:31 pm [ Quote ]
Call me names all you want … or tell me of my idiocy. You are Un-American. You hate America and the values our country was founded on.
nascar,
Are you serious?
Zinni isn’t being attacked—it’s more of a “Hey, look, he said the exact opposite thing a few years ago?” It’s a “gotcha,” and a good one. No one is saying anything about his character or his opinion (although he must make OBL proud).
For what it’s worth, I think Randy’s correct. We’ll see the left descend to even more reprehensible behavior.
nascar—really, really think about these people who represent you. Can you really, honestly be proud that these people claim to speak for you? Have you been paying attention at all?
Remember the drive-by shootings at Republican campaign headquarters in 2004?
The 10,000 lawyers poised to claim the election for the Democrats?
The exit polls predicting Kerry was winning by a landslide?
Judge Alito’s confirmation hearings?
Claims echoed and re-echoed in the media that Bush let NO flood because he hates black people?
Now, now. Really. Are you honestly proud to have these people serve in your government on your behalf? It should make your flesh crawl.
5:34 pm [ Quote ]
So you whine about me name calling for saying your “idiocy”, and then call me un-American and say I hate the country, etc.? Wow dude.
Anyway, way to dance past the point that he totally flip-flopped. It has nothing to do with going against the President, as I clearly explained, it’s the fact that he’s going against what he himself said. I don’t think flip-flopper even goes far enough, but that’s the best term I can come up with for it at the moment.
But go ahead Nascar… Keep up the classic liberal move of defending the indefensible
5:58 pm [ Quote ]
Wow. Attacking former generals in your own military. You guys are really are getting desperate.
I’m glad you have the audacity to attack a General that was serving his country and putting his life on the line while you sat at a keyboard dreaming up a blog you’d start that could smear people like him. Classy!
5:59 pm [ Quote ]
Randy,
Do you absolutely and entirely stand by every single thing you said in 2000? 2003?
6:13 pm [ Quote ]
No one is saying anything about his character or his opinion (although he must make OBL proud).
Read that a couple of times, take a deep breath and pull your head out of your ass.
I haven’t seen any concerted attacks on War Heros from the left (that is question their service), if there has been one please advise and provide links.
Don’t try the GWB angle, protecting the great state of Texas part time isn’t actually serving.
6:28 pm [ Quote ]
I think I pointed this out yesterday, Zinni has made many comments, compare them at your own discretion.
When it fits your agenda, its called Whistleblowing, its patriotic, when someone points out the discrepency in the language, its smearing.
Got It!
6:31 pm [ Quote ]
Harry Said:
6:13 pm
No one is saying anything about his character or his opinion (although he must make OBL proud).
Read that a couple of times, take a deep breath and pull your head out of your ass.
Zinni contradicted Zinni. His opinion is irrelevant. However, criticizing his former C-C is exactly what OBL has predicted—hence my assumption re the latter’s reaction.
You don’t seriously think the terrorists ignore this stuff, do you? It makes them dance in the streets.
Pay attention, please.
It’d also be nice if you were slightly more articulate and a little less rude—but I know that’s expecting too much.
6:33 pm [ Quote ]
Its funny how you take Zinni’s word as law, but all the remaining Generals are what, “Partisan Hacks”. Zinni served this country with honor, I do reserve my right as a citizen to question his judgement and policies as a General.
6:34 pm [ Quote ]
When it fits your agenda, its called Whistleblowing, its patriotic, when someone points out the discrepency in the language, its smearing.
And when he contradicts himself, it is news.
It’s not a discrepancy, for goodness sakes. It’s either a lie then, a lie now, or some statement made for political convenience. In any case, he said it.
I don’t know why, and neither do you. But he’s hardly a fan of Bush. I’ll bet the terrorists think he’s wonderful.
6:37 pm [ Quote ]
Fiftytwo, these aren’t attacks?:
Not from me. Regardless of name-calling, etc., Zinni said one thing, and now he says something else.
It’s hard not to draw some conclusions about his motives, given the political climate.
I am my own person with my own beliefs and I vote for people I think reflect my views.
Really?
Gee, I vote for people who I think will get the job done.
6:50 pm [ Quote ]
Pay attention, please
I am paying attention and patiently wating for you to post links.
When will the extreme right wing (that includes the whitehouse) stop smearing war heros.
If I were a solider in Iraq the last thing I’d ever want, is to go into politics. It wouldn’t matter if one were Sgt. Alvin C. York, you’d smear and attack.
BTW
There is zero contradiction between the statements
Take a look @ this timeline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
When Zini made his first statement there were no weapons inspections. He rightly questions if weapons programmes have begun and is rightly concerned
When the second statement is made inspections have resumed and the intelligence (the stuff not made up) points to no weapons.
Why is this so hard to understand.
6:51 pm [ Quote ]
where’s my post?
6:51 pm [ Quote ]
Whats wrong with these stupid generals! BUsh is like the best pres ever! They just hate him sooooo much. Its not like they care about this country that they have faitfully served for like years! This rarely happens so they must REALLY hate him! Bush said the other day that he is the decider man and what he says goes! Take that lib bush haters!
Contray to what the “media” says Iraq is going so awesome. I heard that kids can walk to school and only have like two carbombs go off and only a year ago it was like 8! No progress? That is total lib media bs!
6:57 pm [ Quote ]
There is zero contradiction between the statements
Madness.
Oh, I mean “nuance.”
The contradiction comes from Zinni himself saying he didn’t believe the intelligence at the time. That’s what makes it news, I think. It doesn’t necessarily mean he lied before the Senate, but it raises a few questions.
Zinni, obviously, is not a fan of Iraq or Bush. I think he might have the good sense to be quiet and not give comfort to the enemy, in essence, by voicing his opinion. Maybe he’d just trying to make money, maybe not. I’m guessing he isn’t the noble hero you’re making him out to be—are you?
What’s the problem with Zinni saying he believed it then and now saying he never believed it then? Give me a break.
7:05 pm [ Quote ]
What’s the problem with Zinni saying he believed it then and now saying he never believed it then? Give me a break.
Maybe I’m just missing something here. He states, when there are no weapons inspections and intelligence is weak, that he is concerned about weapons programmes. Sound like a pretty responsible fellow to me.
AFTER weapons inspections resume he looks at the intelligence and says that it doesn’t looks like weapons programmes have resumed and that the intelligence contradicts what the admin is saying.
Exactly where is the contradiction. Sounds to me like the guy has his head screwed on straight.
7:14 pm [ Quote ]
This discussion has the political integrity of a Sean Hannity debate, but to continue:
Zinni, in the most recent quote, is referring to the lead-up to the Iraq War, post 9/11. Pre 9/11, Saddam Hussein probably was the most “significant near-term threat” at the time. That was before Osama Bin Laden. You know, that guy that the average American barely knew existed before 9/11? Pundits like to hee and haw and about pre and post 9/11 mindsets, but when it comes to what a general said in 2000 being confused with his views concerning the political climate of 2003, apparently 9/11 never happened!
This is besides the fact that you’ve ignored his use of the word “probably” in his 2000 quote and “solid proof” in his 2006 quote, but who’s taking notes? And for that matter, who cares if the administration’s cross-hairs would logically be more deeply focused on Iraq in 2003 than in 2000, and therefore be expected to be more accurate than a general assessment before a war is even on the table? Hell, before there was even an intense investigation into whether or not Iraq had WMD’s, which would have provided more accuracy to Zinni’s opinion?
Ok, I now await your usual rebuttal that I see commonly in this thread. Here, I’ll even start it for you: “Simon, u r a iDiot
111. Liberals r stoopid.”
7:17 pm [ Quote ]
Hey!
Right wingnuts!
Those of you who can read anyway.
Check out a copy of “Cobra II.” read it, and come back to class with an informed opinion.
Zinni made the 2000 comment before Congress as a serving officer whose comments were printed and vetted by the White House prior to release. (If you don’t know, and you should, an administration official can say anything believed to be true IN RESPONSE TO A DIRECT QUESTION but MAY NOT VOLUNTEER DATA THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OFFICIAL, AUTHORIZED, PRINTED, REMARKS.) Thus, no question from Congress, no answer. The 2003 comment was made to to a reporter after listening to Cheney lie about WMDs during an awards ceremony. The later remarks were made after the most intense efforts were made to settle the question of WMDs. The former were made while the Bush administration was cherry picking Intel. and cranking up the phony war.
7:22 pm [ Quote ]
Also, I love how you didn’t include what he said right after the quote you mentioned. Do you ever actually investigate the transcripts or do you just repeat what FOX News tells you? Jeez, this lends credence to the accusations that righty blogger merely repeat the spin of the higher ups.
From the EXACT SAME INTERVIEW, said RIGHT AFTER the quote you mentioned:
“Now, I’d be the first to say we had to assume he had WMD left over that wasn’t accounted for: artillery rounds, chemical rounds, a SCUD missile or two. But these things, over time, degrade. These things did not present operational or strategic level threats at best. Plus, we were watching Saddam with an army that had caved in. It was nothing like the Gulf War army. It was a shell of its former self. We knew we could go through it quickly. We’d stripped away his air defenses. He was at our mercy.”
7:34 pm [ Quote ]
Actually, let’s look even more into the interview, now that I have it up on my screen. Said by Russert right before Zinni made the remark you quoted:
“Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military. ‘I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I’d say to analysts, “Where’s the threat?”’ Their response, he recalls, was, ‘Silence.’”
So, put into context, since he said that he was consulting right up until the point of the war, do you think he could be making a reference to THAT instead of what he knew in 2000?
Gawd.
7:40 pm [ Quote ]
Harry:
Exactly where is the contradiction. Sounds to me like the guy has his head screwed on straight.
Sorry, I’ve listened to it again, and I don’t buy your explanation. He is clearly saying now that the intelligence didn’t fit “what he knew.”
Trouble is, from his own statement what he knew agreed with the intelligence. (Broadly speaking.)
Duh.
Again (and try not to sound like a real idiot if you respond this time) the question is, why did Zinni make the comment in 2000 in the first place if he now claims he didn’t believe any of it, and if all of his subsequent statements contradict it? My guess is, you don’t have a clue. But it is interesting.
7:45 pm [ Quote ]
chitown Said:
3:55 pm
nascar,
Believe it. They’ve done it with Murtha, Kerry, Clark, and now Zinni. But when Newt calls the war a mistake, and a withdrawal, crickets.
Additionally, they stand behind a president who was AWOL, a war monger VP who had 6 deferments, and a secDef who saw no combat.
And I’ll bet you think you support the troops.
Do you REALLY want to talk about Murtha, Kerry, and Clark? Really? You’ve got to be kidding about these clowns.
But, I suppose your statement is yet another example of enlightened liberal “nuance.”
Why are you so bent on failure?
I don’t get it.
Please explain.
7:52 pm [ Quote ]
Hold on:
I’ll ho,d off on responding to your other comments (Simons doing a great job) but:
Clark? Really? You’ve got to be kidding about these clowns
Clark was on patrol in the jungle, looking for Viet Cong, when he was shot four times. Commanding his troops despite his wounds, he gave a series of orders, and his soldiers quickly overran the enemy positions. His bravery in battle earned him a Silver Star.
Yep the man’s a joke alright, that’s pretty funny stuff.
8:11 pm [ Quote ]
Harry:
Clark’s performance as a soldier is irrelevant.
Respond all you want, have whatever opinion you want. I think it’s really silly to claim that Murtha, Kerry, and Clark are somehow prophets. That is, if I gathered that correctly. It’s hard to tell around here.
In fact, your comment isn’t even good sarcasm.
8:15 pm [ Quote ]
OK,
The post that Fiftytwo responded to in #30 is gone … why was it erased Ian?
And, fiftytwo … you don’t actually say anything in #41. What up with that? Right when I begin to think we can actually have a conversation, you start in with the childish attacks and typical right-winger evasion of the point.
Come on man!
Ian, why are you sensoring me, your B-more brother?
8:15 pm [ Quote ]
Harry:
One more thing, general:
You’ve got to admit that, at least on the surface, the Democratic leadership appears to be invested in failure.
Name one Democrat who says we are winning. Are there any? Isn’t the cry throughout the liberal land that we are losing horribly, that the war is a joke, and that Bush is incomepetent?
I don’t know why the Democrats are doing it. But can you really say the Democratic leadership has the posture of a group of politicians poised to succeed?
If so, I’d like to know why. Really.
8:18 pm [ Quote ]
What Generals can’t have disagreements with the Administration.
I count 8 Generals who support Rumsfeld, including Tommy Franks, Pete Pace, Richard Meyers to name a few, and 6 against, including Zinni, Swannak, and Clark. I’m sure the list will grow, but Generals disagree all the time on tactics, weapon systems, logistics, so what.
Rumseld isn’t going anywhere, and he has done a pretty good Job.
8:18 pm [ Quote ]
And, fiftytwo … you don’t actually say anything in #41. What up with that?
nascar:
Well, what’s your point? I get it, I guess—that when Newt criticizes the war no one listens.
But Murtha, Clark, and Kerry didn’t simply render an opinion. They postured for political and personal gain and deliberately misrepresented themselves—or were exploited by the Democrats.
Completely different than Newt rendering an opinion.
Hence, do you REALLY want to go there? It just doesn’t seem possible that you’re serious.
8:18 pm [ Quote ]
The hypocrisy is on the part of the NY TImes. They do not bother to give their readership the complete story, yet deny they are biased. Hell, they aren’t even NEWS anymore.
FOX, on the other hand reports both sides of the story.
The left likes to SCREAM that any viewpoint contradicting their leftist spooge, is BIASED or not real news.
8:26 pm [ Quote ]
You’ve got to admit that, at least on the surface, the Democratic leadership appears to be invested in failure
No the democratic leadership would like to invest in a workable plan. No Fiftytwo a workable plan is not covering one’s ears and saying lalala. A workable plan is also not repeating, it’s ok, it’s ok when it really isn’t.
and that Bush is incomepetent
Yes I agree, he is.
Democratic leadership has the posture of a group of politicians poised to succeed?
Honestly I would really care which party came up with a workable plan, they’d get my vote.
If you can’t see that the present course is a failure and a change of direction is needed then I don’t know what to say.
8:28 pm [ Quote ]
I summarize all the points made in this thread (by me) over here
8:32 pm [ Quote ]
Clark’s performance as a soldier is irrelevant.
But to smear the man’s character is somehow relevant. I’d say that his actions in battle speak to his character and regardless of his opinions he should be honoured for that.
Refering to the man as a “clown” is…well I think you get it.
10:44 pm [ Quote ]
Understanding General Zinni…
It’s a little hard right now. Brit Hume reported on Special Report yesterday that Gen. Zinni’s recent criticisms of Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq are quite different from what he said in 2000 when he worked under President Clinton: Former Clinton…...
11:08 pm [ Quote ]
[...] Zinni’s Hypocrisy: Iraq Was a Threat Before It Wasn’t [...]
3:57 am [ Quote ]
But to smear the man’s character is somehow relevant. I’d say that his actions in battle speak to his character and regardless of his opinions he should be honoured for that.
Here we go—character suddenly matters to the liberal, unless it’s Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards…
I appreciate your attitude, but Clark’s performance in Vietnam has nothing to do with his book deal that was launched by 60 Minutes.
I’m certainly not attacking him as a soldier—but I hardly think he’s the same as Newt rendering an opinion.
Try to pay attention.
6:38 am [ Quote ]
You mean Newt (I’m having an affair on my wife)Gingrich.
Character
7:01 am [ Quote ]
Harry:
Oh, come on. Grow up. Newt’s opinion is hardly designed to take down a Presidency.
I repeat, Clark’s performance in selling his book as a shill for the Democrats (unless he was truly concerned, which seems doubtful) has nothing to do with his service in Vietnam.
I’ll bet you think Kerry’s a war hero beyond reproach, too.
Your posturing on values doesn’t ring true. And I never, ever said that “character” has anything to do with rendering an opinion. Including yours.
7:07 am [ Quote ]
Harry:
If you’d stop sounding like a idiot long enough to pay attention, you’d see the issue here:
Is it ethical for former military commanders to criticize the military leadership while the war is still continuing?
Offhand, I’d say no. Further, I suspect that most in the military would agree.
The fact that Zinni seems to contradict himself—your nuanced opinion aside—lends credence to the suspicion that all of this is political. If so, then Zinni’s behavior if reprehensible.
After the war, these guys can say whatever they like and sell as many books as they like.
During the war, their actions are at least unethical. It’s still their opinion. And, bitch though they might, two facts are apparent:
1) This is, more or less, the behavior that the terrorists are waiting to see.
2) Rumsfeld doesn’t work for the generals. Their opinion is completely irrelevant.
I see this as “If I say this, will it encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops?” vs. “Am I part of the solution?”
So, stop sounding like an idiot and get on the right page with all this.
9:38 am [ Quote ]
When will the extreme right wing (that includes the whitehouse) stop smearing war heros.
In what way does it impugn a man’s military service to state that his statements are contradictory? How is that a smear? What he said on some news show a couple days ago has nothing to do with the time he served or the manner in which he served it.
Never mind that he also previously claimed that Iraq retained the means to rebuild its programmes even if the old munitions were no longer usable, a claim supported by the Deulfer Report.
12:11 pm [ Quote ]
When will the extreme right wing (that includes the whitehouse) stop smearing war heros.
This is another “bulletproof” tactic employed by the left. I was seen most obviously when Wesley Clarke announced his candidacy for the Presidency and immediately was declared the front runner before anyone knew who he was. Why?
The liberal Democrats need war credentials, and they have none. Bashing the “extreme right” for smearing war heroes is a cheap tactic.
How much media coverage was there on Bush’s NG service vs. Clinton’s burning the American flag and protesting the war?
How much MSM coverage was there on Kerry’s service and subsequent testimony before Congress?
How much MSM coverage has there been on people like Murtha?
Quite simply, the Democrats are getting what they deserve in this, as the party that hates war and wants to pull out of Iraq. Kerry himself said that terrorism is a police matter.
2:16 pm [ Quote ]
Wesley Clark is insane. Seriously, following that guys thoughts and statements is an exercise in futility.
At one hand, a lackey, and another, a dangerous demagogue.
Why can’t citizens in a free democracy criticize Generals?
Most will, of course, simply remain anonymous and serve their country quietly – their men and women will know about them (and form their own opinions), but the average citizen will remain unaware. Some will go on to earn great fame (most will welcome or encourage this fame, if you read history you will realize this, and some will earn it despite their personal modesty), and others, due to either their failure in military service or conduct after their service, will earn both criticism and/or accolades.
This is normal and good.
To start saying that military officers are immune from criticism is highly dangerous.
And highly convenient too, extreme lefties, since you like criticizing the military as a matter of course.
The fact is, everyone in every profession or role in life has varying degrees of performance. People will disagree about it. Hence, they discuss it.
4:42 pm [ Quote ]
Why can’t citizens in a free democracy criticize Generals
I seriously don’t know. A better question is of course why can’t people in a free democracy critisize the president and or his cronies without hearing statements like:
fiftytwo Said:
I see this as “If I say this, will it encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops?” vs. “Am I part of the solution?”
But answering that would expose the hypocrisy I’m seeing here. Unless you support Bush, no question and attack and smear anyone who diagrees, “how can we have freedom”
4:43 pm [ Quote ]
To start saying that military officers are immune from criticism is highly dangerous.
Same with a President