Comment by Patrick1 — May 11, 2007 @ 4:19 pm

Patrick1,

I am wondering how your military record in defending this country stacks up against the military record of the general you call a traitor. But, I think I can guess.

Ned

Answer: NONE, except,the Japanese Generals and diplomats that were repsonsible for attacking Pearl Harbor were tried, convicted and executed as war criminals. What should be done to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, etc.?

Censoring Batiste or anyone else for advocacy, or even the claim of fundraising is another matter, but the example of Wallace as an advocate on air does not hold water.

Eight years passed between the first WTC bombing and the second on 9/11/01. Bush hasn’t beat that record.

That record included 4000 casualties in Africa while ignoring the guy who organised it established cells in the US along with contacts in US special forces, FBI and CIA.
Not exactly an indication of how on-the-ball Clinton’s administration was in regard to ldomestic al Qaeda cells.

In any event, thanks for letting us know your support for the flypaper strategy. Dead Americans don’t count as long as they’re not stateside.

Had Bill Clinton still been in office on 9/11/01, … in all likelihood those Towers would still be standing.
Comment by Maeven — May 12, 2007 @ 1:42 pm

Based on the track record of inaction against al Qaeda and disfunctional buerocracy that Clinton established during his own presidency. Right.

You know CAP, the big brother of this site, put out a list of failures of the Bush administration in addressing the terrorist threat.

In it they cited unmanned drones searching for bin Laden being withdrawn from service over the skies of Afghanistan after Bush took office and before 9/11.

They failed to point out that under Clinton these drones had spotted bin Laden at least 3 times in 2000 and that they were taken out of service to be fitted with missiles in order to kill him instead of just continuing to look at him.

This comment presumes that the Bush-Republican policies for protecting Americans (on any front, including but not limited to terrorism) have been successful. More successful, too, than the Clinton policies, which Patrick1 implies would be the policies of a Democratic president were one in office now or in the future.

When you examine the record and not the rhetoric, Americans should only hope for a Democratic president with Clinton’s policies if both preserving the Constitution while protecting your life is important to you.

Nothing that Bush has done in the last seven years has improved Americans’ safety or chances of not becoming victims of a terrorist attack. Ironically, everything that Bush has done has increased the likelihood of Americans losing their lives while also losing their Constitutional protections from an intrusive and abusive government.

From the reorganization (of existing) and creation (of new) U.S. intelligence agencies, to failing to secure ports, borders, nuclear reactor sites, chemical manufacturing sites, dams, bridges, highways, railroads, etc., Bush has drained the U.S. Treasury (for generations) on an adventure to Baghdad on behalf of multinational oil companies that is guaranteed to move more people to commit acts of terror against Americans.

And who the terrorists don’t kill, deregulated and un(der)funded government will. The mind boggles to think that in the 21st century we would be returning to the time of Upton Sinclair in America.

Eight years passed between the first WTC bombing and the second on 9/11/01. Bush hasn’t beat that record. Had Bill Clinton still been in office on 9/11/01, with all of the warning signs and alarm bells that had U.S. guard dogs (like Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Cofer Black) alerting the chief executive to an imminent attack in the U.S. by Al Qaeda, in all likelihood those Towers would still be standing.

if not, STFU!!!!

VoteVets is an organization of military veterans who have served. These are Iraq veterans. CBS is firing Gen. Batiste because he is a member/advocate of this group of military veterans who have served in Iraq. Whether or not they oppose the war, CBS has just issued a public statement that they HATE THE TROOPS:

CBS VP Linda Mason amends her complaint against Batiste. “It isn’t just that he took an advocacy position,” she said. “General Batiste took part in a commercial that’s being shown on television to raise money for veterans against the war.”

That’s irrelevant.
It would be relevant if you said she was on to discuss a different topic but promoted McCain instead. But having a McCain aide on to talk about McCain is “advocacy” in the same way that having John McCain on to talk about his own policies is. Or anyone from the WH to talk about government policy is.

Either you’re calling for “Meet the Press” to be shut down or you’re not. Figure it out.
Or god forbid… provide some context for something you quote.

Merriam-Webster defines hypocrisy thusly:

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue.

By dismissing General Batiste for their stated reasons, CBS easily meets the criteria for hypocrisy.

AF

That, in a nutshell, is the basis of CBS’ Hypocrisy.

Many of us did this very same thing when the Los Angeles Times fired Robert Scheer (opinion columnist-scholar-professor) because of his anti Iraq war articles. The loss of many subscribers hit them where it hurts – in the pocket.
Unless the “news media” start realizing that we, the people, cannot trust them because of their subtle or overt biases, let’s make it clear by costing them money. The news media is systematically being bought out by ultra conservative businessmen who view it as creating a conglomerate and efficient, (It is efficient because if they control the media they control what America hears and deduces from the skewed information, this goes to marketing, product purchases, and politics.)so we are forced to take a stand.
Consider also the change in Time magazine which has hired Willian Cristol, another ultra right conservative. Cancel your subscriptions folks. You are getting more honest news right here on Think Progress and Huffington Post, and Truthdig.

If you’re going to pretend you know what you’re talking about – at least repeat the story correctly. I was discussing my mother – not my grandmother(who also got out) or my great grand-mother – who was long dead. Are you a savant?

So, go ahead, parade around your fake grandmother, or your bogus dead child, or wave around the farcical “law degree” that you got over the internet, but none of these things create a platform of morality that you can then use to preach your hate. If anything, it lowers your platform to the subterranean level.

One day when you stop hating yourself, perhaps you will stop projecting your hate onto everyone and everything else. That day may be long in coming since, from what I can see, your self-loathing is justified.

Bye.

Does the name Smedley Butler ring a bell?? I doubt it……
“After retiring from service, Butler became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, communists, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s.”

But if you’re calling a retired Major General a sympathetic radical who hates his country… you’re more than a little outside the realm of reality. Think about it.