Whither Rush Goest, So Goes FOX News; FOX Now Insults War Generals
By Nicole Belle Saturday Sep 29, 2007 5:33pmAs we learned from both our Senate and House last week, in the United States we must never "attack the honor and integrity . . . of members of the United States Armed Forces." All good patriots from both parties agree on this.
That is why I was so shocked and outraged -- and more than a little upset -- when I went to FoxNews.com this morning and saw this:
I naturally assumed that the "disgraceful military leaders" attacked by the Fox headline must be those of another country, not those of the United States leading our Nation, putting themselves in harm's way, during a Time of War. Yet when I clicked on the item, this is the anti-military filth that I found:
And the text of the article -- by Fox News Contributor and frequent O'Reilly guest David Hunt -- is even more Despicable, as it repeatedly attacks the honor and integrity of members of the United States Armed Forces in one smearing paragraph after the next, beginning with this first sentence:
Our generals are betraying our soldiers . . . again.
And yet, Brit Hume still couldn't keep himself from making a few anti-MoveOn.org slams this morning on FOX News Sunday. Et tu, Brit?
Login or Register to post comments.
human shar pei Brit parrots anything Drudge, Red State and LGF say. He shouldn't be on the sunday show as a commentator if he is going to have the weekday "straight" news show
Oh, that's ok, they're republicans. They don't have to abide by their own logic!
Is Hunt just going after the Generals who are against the war or American Generals in the middle east in general?
Proving once again that it isn't the military that the Republinuts support, its the war. Anyone who is against the war, for whatever reason, is a traitor in their eyes.
If only these war supporters would do so with their own blood, rather than the blood of innocents.
Who cares? Who watches Fox News? The dark cloud of cognitive dissonance hangs heavy over the U.S. Homeland.
I sure hope Senator Cornyn & the Republicans saw this so he can hyperventilate with fake rage again.
I sure hope the backstabbing Democrats saw this, too.
The modern military isnt about national defense. It is about power and wealth. At the heart here are death and dominion.
Are these things you support? I dont. I also, for the same reason, dont support the military. As a consequence, it doesnt disturb me greatly when a 'killer' is spoken ill of. Which after all is the greater offense, speaking ill of a killer or the vile acts the killer will or has committed.
From my perspective, anyone that 'honors' killers is a monster and is insane.
No has taken free choice from these people. They could act decently ... if only they were decent. They are not. Instead, they are like Jessica Lynch. She willfully made the decision to learn to kill total strangers to make money so she could learn to teach children. That is a monster in my opinion. A monster that I dont believe should be allowed to teach children anything. Society disagrees. Society celebrated her and awarded her. This society - a culture of death - loves its killers.
So what are we left with. Killers demanding that killers be honored.
You cant honor killers and life.
The opposition isnt ... you listening John? As long as the 'opposition' is prodeath (support the killers), it isnt an opposition - it is a faction. At some point it must be seen that a true opposition is actually opposed to the death agenda of this culture of death.
I'm still waiting.
The hypocrisy of these criminals is beyond belief. I think that's why they get away with it. Let's keep trying to hold them accountable. Great find!!
CD @ 3:
couldn't put the last 7 years better myself- 13 years if you count the repub rule of house and senate
Rush and Fox are in the unenviable position of being for the war but against the troops.
Deezus @ 2:
whoops i meant this one :)
For the record, here's what this person said about the moveon.org ad:
The superpatriots who are so much up in arms because MoveOn had the temerity to criticize Petraeus would do well to remember that MacArthur was taken to task when he advocated that the U.S. should keep fighting in Korea, even if that meant invading China. The warmongers were incensed that anyone should dare condemn General William Westmoreland during the Vietnam War, who wanted to increase the size of the troops in that slaughterhouse to over 500,000 men. Military people are not mythic, god-like creatures; their actions are deserving of rebuke just as much as the civilians who are in charge of the government. Officers are supposed to have a set of values just like those on the outside and that includes recognizing that the wars that they fight can be illegal and if that is the case, their first priority is to then stop obeying those illegal orders [as Lt. Watada has done] as quickly as possible.
anon @ 7:
Please go back to REDSTATE. Buttmunch
What did NAZI germany feel like?
This what NAZI germany felt like.
What did NAZI germany feel like?
This is what NAZI germany felt like......And it will end the same way with the cowards committing suicide rather than face the just rewards they so richly deserve
FOX IS RIGHT! For once...
Bush is betraying them, anyone who's keeping the soldiers in the war are betraying them. And they are betraying regular Americans too.
Those in power are betraying EVERYone for their own personal gain.
Strawberry I think that was Mr. Buttmunch thank you very much!
and to CD at #3 over there over here, whatever.
anon @ 7:
LMAO!! Sweet. You're good. Jon Swiftesque, even. But you forgot the punchline.
Oops. I was in Rudy character.
There are two (2) types of intelligence on earth, The Biological and the Artificial, unfortunately the artificial is the only one advancing.
I don't care about what FOX thinks, but unfortunately an awful lot of Murahkins get their information from them.
We need to write our reps to have them condemn this kind of things they way they did the Times Ad.
Didn't you all know that it's different (and justified) when wing nuts do it....
Strawberry @ 14:
Excuse me? I just told you I dont support the military because they are a tool of death and dominion and you thinik that is redstate?
I particularly like your argument - buttmunch.
My post is a condemnation of this country AND the left for not being a true opposition but rather nothing more than a trivial faction of these thugs.
You CANT embrace death and dominion and oppose these people. I dont think you understand that based on your comment.
Post American @ 5:
There is no such thing as the "Homeland".
We live in The United States of America.
While I believe Petraus to be little more than Bush's sock puppet for his garbarge "stay the course" propaganda I also think that the Be-tray-us ad was way out of line.
All it served to do was fuel the fire of neocons and their ilk.
I'm sure we are just "taking his words out of context" "(tm).
Rudy Guiliani @ 18:
Learn to read. Nothing fascist in my post. You wont hear republicans condemning this nation, its military or patriotism (as defined by this country). I just did that.
This is a culture of death - that isnt a proud proclamation - it is a lamentation.
Jenny'O @ 17:
ok but is he only going after the anti-war generals?
Bah, I hate this "support the troops" crap. I feel sorry for the soldiers stuck in the middle of the mess and unable to get out, and who regret ever joining the military in the first place. And I feel sorry for the soldiers who have been injured. Other than that, screw the Army, screw the Navy, screw the Air Force, screw the Marines, screw the officers and the fucking generals, screw the President and the Vice-President and all the other assholes who perpetuate this insanity, time after time after time.
There is an even better graphic on the Fox web site which I grabbed and posted here:
Fox News: Disgraceful Military Leaders
Disgraceful indeed - The hypocrisy, I mean.
Paula @ 23:
I always hated the naming of agencies like "HOMELAND Defense" or articles like "The PATRIOT Act"
Who the fuck are we, the USSR?
The republicans use name like this so we have a hard time disagreeing with what they do, without seeming UN-Patriotic.
anon @ 22:
NOOOOOOOO! You don't understand my post?! REALLY?! (SNARK ALERT) Let's put it this way, You're a poser posing as a lefty that is really posting here so you can link back to your REDSTATE friends how whacked out we are. How's that?! Look sweetie, we know right wing nutters like yourself come here so there's no way in hell we'd let such a badly written post see the light of day without hitting spellcheck. If you can use such big words, you'd either know how to spell them or know how to use spellcheck. You're a mole and a bad one at that.
Rush, Brit, and the rest of those morons can kiss my ass. I made another contribution to Moveon.org just to piss off my reich wing friends and to ensure that Fox Noise and the rest don't succeed in stifling free speech. THAT's what they want. Well, I got news for them: Don't fuck with the First Amendment!
no, Cunning Linguist--great name by the by--we are the USSA.
If anyone here would take the time to read Hunt's article, they'd have a different perspective. He takes to task the military leaders who let the troops take the blame for their orders, and also for not standing up to Rum(p)sfield.
I also was upset at the "Betray Us" headline, as it is the type of juvenile garbage I expect of the wing-nuts. Progressives are intelligent and thoughtful; let's not imitate the enemy like that.
My neck is sore from my head snapping back and forth among the various channels and points of view of the right. What gives? I thought the top brass were lining up to approve of invading Iran (what a lamebrain idea THAT is; will earth even survive a war that could go nuclear?) and here the right is criticizing them? Or is the criticism a way to ensure they line up behind Emperor Palpatine (I mean Cheney)? If anyone can shed light on this, I would appreciate it.
On another note, I also have always hated "Homeland Security." What's wrong with "Domestic Security" or "National Security." "Homeland" to me connotes a people indigenous to a particular country for centuries, and many Americans either have or have ancestors who have come from far away.
I dont think Limpbaugh, Hannity and other Fox millionaires ever had to fill in the blanks:
"I, _____ , having been appointed ...... do solemnly swear that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.
... More insulting news for the United States...
Look who Bush has chosen to continue to be in a position of power
to speak for and lead our great nation and United States diplomatic efforts.
Here's one. The political advisor for both SACT and USJFCOM
Her job involves keeping the coalition in Iraq together.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_arti...
It's a good sign that they blatantly contradict themselves on a daily basis now. Fox News has zero credibility and is losing viewers on a daily basis.
Strawberry @ 31:
I have posted here for quite a while. Yesterday I called nicolle out. Ask Nicolle. What you are saying is sophomoric. I meant everyword. Too often the left trivially argues policy regarding this culture of death without addressing the actual issue - this is a culture of death. I said it and I meant it.
The Smiths Go To Washington @ 36:
OH MY FUCKING GOD! That can't be for real. Holy Shit! Where did they dredge that up? Look, I'm a female bodybuilder (hint) and that was no female! Whoa. In my heaviest lifting days, I never had a five o'clock shadow like that.
"Who cares," Post American? I frigging care!
Of course the Republicans in Congress would moan, groan, and tear their hair if a progressive individual or organization dared to question the veracity of Dubya's hand-picked military sock puppet. But why would Democrats do so? (Sorry, Barack. Abstention counts as half a vote against democracy and free speech.) Why, Democrats? Why are you such cowards? Why don't you stand up for free speech? Why are you afraid to defend the Constitution?
And why would Democrats not return tit for tat? What Limburger, Faux, etc. are doing is far worse than what MoveOn did. Should Democrats be wasting time on stupid retaliatory, denunciatory motions? No. But they sure as hell ought to be issuing press statements, going on the talking head shows, etc.
By their silence, our putative "leaders" are saying, in effect, that it's perfectly OK for right-wing nuts to attack progressive patriots...but it's a naughty no-no for a progressive organization to attack a man whose track record shows clearly that he's a suck-up, eager to carry water for Chickenhawk in Chief. (Check the assessment by Petraeus's boss, Admiral O'Fallon!)
Since this is about persons in uniform, let's put it in military terms. If you let the opponent choose the time and place of battle, you lose. If you agree to play on a non-level field (with opponents on the higher part), you lose. The Democrats in Congress seem, not just willing, but eager to be pathetic losers.
But why? Why won't they insist on fairness? Why won't they defend the Bill of Rights? Why do they insist on behaving like losers? We elected them to end this immoral war, which in the long run has probably already hurt us even more than the Iraqis. But they refuse to stand up for justice. Instead, they play the "inside-the-beltway" game, a game in which the traditional media are wearing red jerseys. They're pathetic.
Yes. . . we are the USSR. . .
So like, we are only supposed to support some of the troops now?
Not all of them?
The ones we are told to support?
This is starting to get complicated......
Republicans in office today are chicken hawks, draft dodgers, those that hid in national guard during vietnam [which was common knowledge then it was a guaranteed way too avoid duty in vietnam], republicans pretend too be compassionate, conservative christians when it suits them, pretend too honor our military when it suits them, pretend too be pro-family, anti-gay marriage when it suits them [when not they chase male pages in the halls of congress/senate, or seek gay man on man sex in airport bathrooms, and not too be forgetting the married ones using the female prostitutes violating their marital vows before god and man, yes they are good at using hypocrisy till they get caught, and they have been caught so often and so regularly they are finally getting their just karma, and their main propaganda machine fox news/network, is no exception, culture warrior Bill "sex phone freak" Oreilly, Rush "limp" Limbaugh the infamous drug addict, Sean "multi-millionare" Hannity who sells himself as a good american, who can relate too the common man/woman, how ironic a man who lives so far removed from the common man/woman is able too sell that hypocrisy, and then the infamous Ann "wicked witch of the right wing/warmongers" Coulter, who sells her books hawking her idea her ilk the right wing are braver than the left wing, and can defend us from the boogie man terrorist, but I bet the video of her fleeing in terror from the harmless cream pie a heckler tried too hit her with during one of her infamous warmonger speeches, how ironic she fled in terror from what many comedians did for a good laugh..., yes they are the right wings ideal representatives, but some of us can see right thru them, and the old saying you can fool some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time is coming home too roost for the right wing chicken hawks who pay mere lip service too their right wing agenda...., it truly is as old Jackie Gleason the late comedian said "how sweet it is'...
anon @ 26:
Okay.......whatever you say (koo koo!).
I thought they wouild wait until a Dem president took over before slamming any military figure like they did in the late 1990's.
fix noise is slowly going downhill, while they pat themselves on the back for ratings, they are dropping, they peaked in 2004 when they pimped their swift boat hatchet job...
Remember when Bush said "you're either with us or against us"? I guess he meant the military as well.....
GonzoD @ 46:
That became obvious when Rove said that after 9/11 liberals offered terrorists therapy.
StirFry @ 44:
This is at odds with what people are taught. Just consider this. If Jessica Lynch had decided to give sexual pleasure to total strangers in order to make money for college - she would be put in jail. (Pleasure not death and with her body) Instead she opted to do what she was taught/told - learn to kill total strangers for money for college. She did and was given awards and acclaim. You may not see the difference - its hard to realize you are thinking they way you were taught to think. She opted to make money in the death industry because that is what this culture taught her to do - which is why this is a culture of death. (The mercs/contractors are just a patriotic extension of that). Todays military isnt the honorable defense establishment it was meant to be. It is a tool of dominion and death. That is how it is being used because it is controlled by a culture of death. Cultures of death solve problems with death - lots and lots of death. There was a time in this country when more constructive solutions were used - past tense.
I don't support this war but I think that based on the comments I've read about this post, we liberals are shooting ourselves in the foot by not understanding who the enemy is. David Hunt is a patriot regardless of his ideology. He has served his country for most of his life. His article was criticizing political generals who are prosecuting our brave soldiers for doing their jobs. I don't understand why you all can't see that distinction.
I want our troops home just like the rest of you. But while they are there, we on the left have to understand that sometimes they are shooting at the enemies of the both liberals and conservatives... that's right, terrorist scumbags. If we are going to complicate the rules of engagement so much for these men, then eventually they'll have to have their lawyers in the foxhole.
I don't understand and I don't think we can overcome an anti-military perception by the general public.
Strawberry @ 39:
"Dredge up" is right. Apparently some self-anointed crusaders are easy marks for gossip, hearsay and conspiracy theories.
"Goest"?
That's second-person, as in "whither thou goest".
It should be "goeth".
All the best,
The Grammar Police
How is it that Fox doesn't see Ollie North as a disgrace. He sold weapons to Iran and admitted that he lied to congress. But again the repugnacans worship the convicted felon and disgrace to the uniform.
Freedom in communication and the power of internet will reveal the truth. These words can be heard straight from the mouthes of the people who said it. I know you may not desire to sit through a whole Rush Limbaugh show or read Colonel David Hunt's book. But in there you can read the words straight from the people who said their beliefs and then make a determination from that. Or you can catch buzzwords and half sentences from right, left, up and down blogs (thanks: wayback machine and google cache). ;)
I digress you'd be quite surprised neither of them said what was said here. Sure the sentence starting with [...] was right but the truth is in the whole story. Kinda like, Colombia roasting mahmoud, read what what the middle eastern and chinese presses posted: "People cheered" They didn't include any mention of the 60 minutes of jeers and laughter at his lies.
So let's really exercise freedom and sit through the annoying muddle of others rather than following ignorant lies of those that wind a story that sounds good.
ckerst @ 52:
In the eyes of the wingnuts, North was only doing what the fucking commies (liberals) wouldn't let Reagan do. When the wingnuts break the law, they're patriots protecting the country.
The mind boggles....
They delight in this kind of stuff and their utter immunity from accountability.
Its a carefully orchestrated physcological assault.
annoy @ 53:
OK…annoy... let’s start with the truth by actually reading the article that is the focus of this post.
I don’t support this war but I think that based on the comments I’ve read about this post, we liberals are shooting ourselves in the foot by not understanding who the enemy is. David Hunt is a patriot regardless of his ideology. He has served his country for most of his life. His article was criticizing political generals who are prosecuting our brave soldiers for doing their jobs. I don’t understand why you all can’t see that distinction.
I want our troops home just like the rest of you. But while they are there, we on the left have to understand that sometimes they are shooting at the enemies of the both liberals and conservatives… that’s right, terrorist scumbags. If we are going to complicate the rules of engagement so much for these men, then eventually they’ll have to have their lawyers in the foxhole.
I don’t understand and I don’t think we can overcome an anti-military perception by the general public.
Rush Limbaugh's idea of real soldiers:
http://pabloonpolitics.com/generals.htm
they probably see they are polling terrible on wrong side of debate, and just want to straddle both sides of that fence like any good propagandist would.
This is no shock.....
I have a coworker who is a hardcore right winger- he claims to totally support the troops, yet when any vetern of this war speaks out, he says they 'deserved to be killed'. Sickening!
What is chilling to me is that many of these right wingers want the US soldiers in Iraq to die- so they can have yet another 'hero' to worship....
These right wingers who act as if tghey diefy the troops are not too keen on having strong vte benifits....
The right wing in this country sickens me- these poeple lack empathy, are defined by their greed-
> In the United States we must never “attack the honor and integrity . . . of members of > the United States Armed Forces.” All good patriots from both parties agree on this.
Really? How so? How is it that donning the honorable uniform of the United State military automatically confers that institution's honor upon the wearer, even if he or she were previously devoid of such honor? Was William Calley an honorable member of the US Army? Benedict Arnold? Is Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the "Gitmo-izer", an honorable soldier?
"All good patriots from both parties" must - must! - call them as they see them. It is our responsibility as patriots to hold the individuals who wear our country's uniform to the highest standards of honor and integrity befitting their membership in our armed forces. To do otherwise is... well... Republican.
jb
John Barringer @ 60:
jb... you just don't get it. The article in question is criticizing pinhead generals who are appealing to the political correctness of this country by prosecuting our soldiers for crimes, who are placed in a horrible situation, and are just doing their job. Nobody is saying that soldiers or generals can't be criticized. Men/Women by nature are flawed. It's when the criticism becomes the rule rather the exception. It's when the criticism gives the impression that all or most of the military is bad.
Donning the uniform of the military by itself does confer honor. But I sure as hell am going to give most of these guys the benefit of the doubt when they are facing bullets.
party on jb
BigKAD @ 61:
Oh No! How dare the PC police prosecute our dear heroes for.....crimes! (snark)
Do you seriously believe that crimes like raping a 14 year old and killing innumerable amounts of innocents should be ignored? Seriously?
Committing war crimes is not part of their job. Do you think that we should just ignore the rules of combat? Are you sick?
navyswan @ 62:
jb... you are a reactionary. I do not excuse all behavior in a time of war. I said I give the soldiers the benefit of the doubt. There is a difference between raping a 14 year old and having to shoot your way out of a neighborhood where scumbag terrorists are hiding among civilians. Your problem is that you pull the extreme example out of your azz and can not see the big picture. The vast majority of the troops are not committing atrocities. Maybe if you focused on a few who perform heroic acts as opposed to the extreme example, people wouldn't think you are ant-military.
I'm not sick,,, just sick of the lack of perspective dude.
Well, he may have a point but Id need to know more about the specifics of these cases he's talking about to really draw any conclusions. He doesnt seem to be attacking the anti-war generals, which I expected, he seems to be going after those he believes are waging a sort of retroactively politically correct war where the soldiers arent being given clear rules of engagement. That would kind of suck.
"Maybe if you focused on a few who perform heroic acts as opposed to the extreme example, people wouldn't think you are ant-military." BigKAD
See, you think you can just bash people as being anti-military because you are a righty on a lefty blog. All you are doing is spouting Fox News talking points about keeping our focus on the "heroes" and looking the other way at atrocities.
I am not worried if people think I am anti-military. You see, I am a military spouse. I don't need some concern troll to tell me how I should view the military. I see it from the inside. And I think people like you are dangerous. You look the other way at atrocities and you criticize people for pointing them out. To you, the military could do no wrong. You are wrong. There have been more than a "few" incidents here and there. From Abu Ghraib to the most recent story of snipers baiting people with wires and shooting them in the head, there is constantly stories of atrocities. This is because people like the ones in the Fox story who see the Geneva Conventions as quaint and PC. They see rules of engagement as a hindrance to 'the job' the troops are doing. This leads to the kind of environment that breeds atrocities. How many times does an 'anomaly' have to happen before it is a pattern?
There is no such thing as the "Homeland".
We live in The United States of America.
I always hated the naming of agencies like "HOMELAND Defense" or articles like "The PATRIOT Act"
Who the fuck are we, the USSR?
The republicans use name like this so we have a hard time disagreeing with what they do, without seeming UN-Patriotic.
No Child Left Behind, Help America Vote Act. Cynical Orwellian Newspeak and effective marketing. These people pose as 'Christians' and personify evil...
bubba @ 64:
He has a point? Maybe you didn't read his comments, but he's defending the practice of baiting, i.e. leaving an explosive cord or something in front of somebody's house and shooting them when they come out and pick it up. That's just murder, so fuck your war storyline. This is no war. The US military is just killing a bunch pist-off Iraqi citizens who want the US military out of their country. It's shameful.
Col Hunt seems to be Ed Anger in his day job. "I'm so pig-biting mad over these looney politically correct generals--"
America holds a referendum on Rush Limbaugh every single day. 20 million listeners listen to his show day after day, year after year, decades after decade. Rush has completely annihilated his competitors. His massive ratings are unprecedented in the history of radio broadcasting. Limbaugh has a bigger daily audience than all his liberal progressive counterparts combined. Case closed.
Patriot Actor @ 42:
Only if you accept a world of black and white.
There's those who feel you need to "spit on the vet" to show you're really against this war. Believing in that false stereotype is a cynical belief for those supporting the Bush administration.
In their limited vision you can only be for both or against both.
Gord @ 66:
I always hated the naming of agencies like "HOMELAND Defense" or articles like "The PATRIOT Act"
Who the fuck are we, the USSR?
The republicans use name like this so we have a hard time disagreeing with what they do, without seeming UN-Patriotic.
No Child Left Behind, Help America Vote Act. Cynical Orwellian Newspeak and effective marketing. These people pose as 'Christians' and personify evil...
Everytime I hear America refered to as 'The Homeland', it gives me a chill, as it reminds me of 'The Fatherland' (Nazi Germany) or 'The Motherland' (USSR)
i think fox and others are baiting us into a smokescreen debate on whether or not free speech should be banned, censored, or even punished. the government showed their willingness to do so with their condemnation of Moveon. why would any one of US want to follow suit? there's a reason the first amendment is FIRST!
NewNameAcquired @ 16:
I have to agree with you here. As much as I think FOX is a repub disgrace, this article is dead on.
How many Generals have been convicted of anything in all the many scandals that are going in the War in Iraq?
How many E-7 and lower have been put on trial and sent to prison?
I'm not saying a few of them might have been renegade but every soldier is taught to obey orders and not question anything......just do as your told and you'll be backed. That is till the shit hits the fan then the upper command turn on those soldiers saying they acted on their own.
Its not the first time and I'm certain it wont stop anytime soon.
These Generals all look for that extra star. They want to end their career with no blemishes. They want to retire with full benefits. They feel they arent going to give up years of service when a snot nosed punt in their unit obeyed their order but let loose ends and it came back to roost at that Generals doorstep. They will give up that young recruit over themselves in a heartbeat. They can always get another soldier to follow their orders so one or two wont make a difference.
It goes to the top...
And the self proclaimed "Commander Guy", is the one that sets the rules, puts it into play, picks his Generals and fires them. he hides behind the ones that hold careers ahead of the military and the republicans have honed their politicalization game playing to try to help ensure their rule is what is the culprit and the corrupting element. Why you think they like the Blackwaters so much. They are the contractors (mercs) that do their bidding for money......... The military is for country and honor and that sort of thing.
Misty @ 73:
Unfortunately, you are both wrong. You are civilians trying to make out the rantings of a military person, and you got the point wrong. He is not saying that the Generals should be tried for the crimes of their underlings, he is saying that no one should get tried for these crimes because he doesn't think they are crimes. And then he goes on to say that the only ones that should be tried are the Generals or other officers who bring charges. However, those people are seldom the same people who are commanding the troops who broke the law.
What he is ultimately saying is that, if a soldier is tried for a crime based on information collected by NCIS or another type military investigative group, and then found innocent by a panel of Generals that don't think what they did was a crime (even of it was), then the person who brought charges (more than likely a military investigator) should be charged for the crime that the soldier was tried for to teach them a lesson.
His thesis is not that the rules of engagement should be made to be legal, but that the people investigating should look the other way. If he were arguing that the rules of engagement should exclude criminal activity and the officers who gave the order to break the law should be tried, then I would completely agree with him. However, this is simply not what he said. He never mentioned having a problem with any of the criminal orders that the troops are being ordered to do. On the contrary, he said that they worked. He explicitly said that the "baiting" that was going on 'worked in Vietnam and is working now'. I am not sure we read the same article.
Richard Peterson @ 34:
Anyone who read that slime dripping drivel would understand that Hunt is a kill-first-and-don't-ask-questions type of psychopath. He would only be happy if American troops and policemen were like Blackwater thugs. Shooting anything that moves, killing the hearts and minds of those we invade and occupy. Hunt is the perfect example of everything that is repugnant and loathsome in US fascism.
Those of you still apologizing for the attack on Bush's military/political puppet sicken me. Go back to cowering under your reich wing masters. Fucking apologist toadies.
Around The Sphere October 1, 2007
Our linkfest offering readers links to blogposts from websites of many different viewpoints. Linked posts do NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
IT’S DISGRACEFUL ATTACKING GENERALS FOX NEWS SUGGESTS but seems like they...
Around The Sphere October 1, 2007
Our linkfest offering readers links to blogposts from websites of many different viewpoints. Linked posts do NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
IT’S DISGRACEFUL ATTACKING GENERALS FOX NEWS SUGGESTS but seems like they...
Crooks & Liars seem to be forgetting that Fox News is a news organization, not a direct arm of the Republican party. So you will find various types of opinion pieces there. This was opinion/commentary, not a news story.
Did anyone actually read the FOX News article itself, or did most just read the headline, CrooksAndLiars' take on it, and run with your own notions of what the article MIGHT have said?
Face it-- if you simply made assumptions without reading the article, then you're just as much of a puppet as the military leaders who continue unquestioningly with Bush's plan.
They have to discredit the military, so "we" beg them to pass combat missions on to Blackwater. Then they'll get the grreen light for the invasion of Iran. Why use pesky governement troops, when there are "trained warriors" eager to go. (They won't mention the part about for quintuple pay, or how ever much more they get.)
John Rohan @ 79:
And Moveon was..... what exactly?? Hm?? Not exactly a news story. It was a private ad payed for with private funds.
oh my spelling...
[...] video: Read up kiddiesread more | digg [...]
It's just the typical republican hypocrisy. John Rohan (#77)...You're are joking right? You don' think Fox News is a wing of the Republican party?? Frankly, I wish people would stop treating them like a legitimate news organization, when they're anything but. They're in fact the Republican's very own Pravda, which also explains why people who watch Fox have been proven to be far less informed than those who obtain their news elsewhere.
Edwin @ 82:
and "Faux News" is a private company owned by a right wing propagandist that claims it is a "fair and balanced" new orginization when it is no such thing as everyone knows and is just a right wing talking point spigot.
How nice that Hunt only NOW throws Rummy under the bus . . . how about during the first year of the war?
So has DAux news sid anything about how bad Rush has been?
actually I'm all in favor of dropping the "a" and calling it "Fux News"
My parents always taught me to look at both sides of every issue.
Didn't the Germans during WWII refer to the French Resistance as "terrorists" and "communists" and the Vichy regime as the "legitimate" government?
The people we call terrorists in Iraq are attacking an occupying force and, in their minds, fighting for their freedom. Just because we go around labeling them as "terrorists" and "thugs" and "islamofascists", etc. does not change their perspective and will not bring an end to this conflict. If Chinese troops were occupying your neighborhood, you would probably fight too... at least I hope you would.
Soldiers are instruments of policy, good and bad. We excuse them from moral judgment in the carrying out of their legal duties because they are to act as a unified and unquestioning force. We do not excuse those who give orders (military or executive) when they do so illegally, unethically and in an inhumane capacity. Wearing our country's uniform or holding high office does not make you immune from criticism or worthy of automatic respect and praise, especially when you are high up in the ranks. Your actions determine that.
The whole "Support the Troops" meme really means "support Bush's war without questioning anything"... just like "Death tax" is really the "Estate Tax"... it's a linguistic and emotional manipulation aimed at squashing discussion and dissent.
This blog is at best shallow troll bait for a bunch whiners and hippy want-ta be ankle bitters.
[Deleted. You should know, pal. I mean, you're here-Sitemonitor]
Brilliant, thoughtful, brings me back to the 3rd grade.
[Heh. We thought you never left-Sitemonitor]
sofla @ 89:
Silly sofla, discussion and dissent were sqashed a long time ago. The question now is how much jail time will you do for being anti-American. Will they just break your leg or will they break your neck instead? This is a whole other level of thuggery. This is despotism. Enjoy.
miskaone @ 90:
You can stop right there... I don't remember voting to go to war in Iraq.
Pres. Bush and his neo-con war cabinet made that decision.
miskaone @ 91:
Hey! I have an 11 year old son . . . you get his friends together and all you get is fart jokes and stuff really, really close to this (just not quite, atleast not in my presence) . . . .it rubs off, really!
[Hey pick fights elsewhere-Sitemonitor]
What part of the rank COLONEL in the author's name don't you understand? As a retired military officer, he has EVERY right to pen an oped on what he sees lacking in today's military leadership. If Sean Hannity did it, I would be agreeing with you. But Colonel Hunt is a decorated special forces officer and he has every right to share his views in this manner.
Deleted-Sitemonitor]
miskaone @ 90:
Reading, what a concept. If you had read the article, you would have known the author is Col. Hunt Ret.. But that's OK, people with your level of intellect can't be expected to actually retain the things they supposedly read.
You "stomach" Hunt's language, because you are like him. You like police states and love it when the US acts like a terrorist nation. We should just do the whole fucking village, right? Better to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents than let one bad guy live.
Dude, nobody has to give you gags, I'm quite sure the drawer next to your bed is full of them.
Keep digging buddy. You have a long way to go.
For those of you who didn't read Col. Hunt's (Ret.) blather, please go and see it for yourself. It's a page right out of Apocalypse Now. The kind of nightmare world miskaone loves to live in.
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
If Fox News is a wing of the Republican Party (spicegal #82) then I would have to say CNN would be the wing of the Democrat party.
I find it very interesting that a number of posters seem to ignore the actually article or decided not to read it at all. I though it was very clear the point that Col. Hunt was trying to make. He was not calling out the soldiers for doing their job, but rather calling out the Generals who give the orders and then throw the soldiers under the bus for doing what they were ordered to do. How can a general give an order to shoot and then say "sorry, you are now on trial for doing what we told you to do." I think he does a great job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Political system and how stupid political correctness is in the time of war.
[OK. Many people like yourself, seem to think putting on an air of superiority actually MAKES them superior. It doesn't. Bub-bye-Sitemonitor]
If "all good patriots" agree that we must never attack the honor and integrity of American soldiers, then what does that make all the Repukes who attacked and continue to attack the honor and integrity of John Kerry, John Murtha, etc.?
I read something of this ad, and it appears that commanding officers are selling out their subordinates for following their commanding officers orders, all so the officers can continue their upward political climb.
Of course this is also symptomatic of the Petraeus/Crocker report. Whatever went right was due of course to the surge, whatever went wrong was somebody elses fault, or the eternal fall guy, "God's will."
Sorry, I meant article, not ad.
Anytime time a generals kiss ass as much as these generals do and not stand up for his men should not be leading are troops, he is looking for the all hard to get fifth star on his shoulder. If we had generals like WW2 they would told bush go to hell they rather quit or retire then sell there troops off. No ww2 general would ever be aloud to address the senate and congress as the president lackey, I am a veteran and I belive the upper brass has broken there vow to enelisted men.
sofla @ 93:
Clytemnestra @ 88:
But then I'd watch it.
miskaone @ 97:
Congress did not declare war or vote to go to war in Iraq. They gullibly voted to give the President the authority to use military force based on a whole pile of bullshit that the administration cooked up to support their claim that Saddam posed an immediate danger to the U.S. This is Bush's war, period.
Oh, I love the "love it or leave it" line, too... that's so perfect! I love this country enough to respect its constitution and true principles and I will not stand idly by while scoundrels and criminals usurp them. I seek to correct the "bad" and encourage the "good. If you don't like that, tough.
I was a hippy type in high school, although it was no longer hippy years, and then served four years in the Air Force with a Top Secret Clearance.
I always called myself a peace-time vet, and kind of felt uncomfortable calling myself a vet since I saw no action, but at the VA hospital, a Vietnam vet said I was a Cold War vet (toward the end of it), and a tangential member of intelligence since I had to sign papers swearing me to secrecy on my discharge.
Actually, the charge on the FAUX article was of generals betraying their soldiers by punishing them for following orders. What do you call it when generals sign off on stop gap losses and extended assignments to meet civilian leaders (largely republics) policies that then fail?
Okay, I am finished reading your posts, Nicole.
Feigning outrage and shock bores me. It seems when you can't find something of substance
to post, you resort to red-flagging stories that don't even deserve mention.
This is one of them. If Wes Clark had written this story, you'd have supported its premise 100%.
The point of op-ed is that the commanders who are in the rear with the gear are betraying
the men they command by allowing them to develop battlefield tactics then prosecuting
the same soldiers for the use of those tactics. That is all this guy is saying.
I am tired of the exaggeration, finger pointing, whining and outright lying about the content
of what's been written and the intent thereof.
[deleted]
I will say it again. If you want truth in politics, be the truth you seek.
Site Monitor: You can stop reading Nicole's posts if you want, but you might want to use that time for some reading comprehension classes. Nicole didn't write this. Glenn Greenwald did. Nicole linked it. And for the record, the policy of commenting civilly extends to our contributers as well.
Actually what this is that in todays politics it's not the reasoning that matters for the generals speaking, generally speaking.
It's the hook.
They never discussed the reasoning in the MoveOn ad either.
The first line in the article says it all:
Our generals are (BETRAYINIG) our soldiers … again
The same exact word used in the General Petraeus or Betray Us ad.
I gotta drink more coffee before spelling.
I don't know why I am bothering to reply to all the tin hatted people on this board who are so far left that their planet has rings around it but here it goes...
First:
READ THE F***EN ARTICLE will ya!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298203,00.html
FTA:
"Two great Special Forces soldiers, along with their team, tracked down a terrorist who was on the 10 Most Wanted list in Afghanistan."
"The soldiers followed this killer" ... "and put a bullet in his head."
"the Army showed its trust in these bravest of the brave by investigating them twice."
"Both investigations, however unnecessary, found them innocent of any wrongdoing."
"Unfortunately, after the trials and after these soldiers’ careers and lives have been ruined and after they clear up the mountain of debt they will amass from these trials, the generals involved will get promoted."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THESE are the generals and officers the article is speaking of:
Office bound, paper shuffler, generals that harass our troops and charge them needlessly when the soldiers do what they were ORDERED to do.
I have no problem with the statement that: "Our generals are betraying our soldiers" and "Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead" when applied to these idiots
Way to miss the whole point, Weeha.
Weeha @ 115:
But it's not ok to rhetorically ask whether Gen. Petraeus will in fact betray us by making prepared, politically motivated statements that whitewash the situation in Iraq in order to prolong the war there. Doing so will earn you a rebuke from Congress.
Weeha @ 115:
__________________________________________________________________________
God, what a wonderful war - everyone is "betraying" someone - Petraeus,
the guys you're speaking of ... everyone!
What's even better is that for the next 25 years the GOP will be blaming
Democrats for Bush's failure in Iraq.
The War in Iraq - the gift that will keep on giving.
Like STD's.
What about the disgraceful civilian leadership?
Charles @ 120:
and the disgraceful public that supported this debacle.
Who do we write to get Congress to censure Congress?
[...] FOX SITE SLAMS TROOPS - WHERE IS CORNYN? [...]
Amazing how Fox News and the rest of the right-wing whackjobs can not abide by what they see as their own rules. General Betrayus comment was too harsh, but for them to call Generals and soldiers a disgrace is okay. Time to throw them all into the gutter.
Only problem is with the RWWJs is that they always try to back down from their statements and claim it is the liberal medias fault. But when it is the conservative media who prints it that is a different story as we all know that the Washington Times and Fox can never be wrong.
Just my ramblings, and pl;ease feel free to use the RWWJ as a new abbreviation.
Col. David Hunt:
As a combat experienced soldier, he has a right to express his opinions about the conduct of the war... just as John Kerry had. (The way Sen Kerry and another vets (Vietnam) were rubbished by the Republican Party has done for a few years now is wrong.)
I do have to question how a man, after 29 years military service, was passed over for promotion to General three times. If I question that, I have to question his ability to make sound comments about military procedure. If he was a good as Fox would like us to believe, he would have left with at least one star on that shoulder.
Still on R&R
Australia
rmf @ 28:
thats a lot of screwing!!! anint ya tired!!! gotta say I agree with ya!!!!
So is Hunt just going after American Generals who are against the war or American Generals in general?
Login or Register to post comments.