It turns out that conservatives didn't think it was so terrible to call someone "Senator Betrayus" back when that was wingnuttese for Chuck Hagel.
In general, my view is that people shouldn't make puns.
« Six Years Later | Main | Credit Where Due »
Betrayus
11 Sep 2007 09:02 am
Comments (20)
and lets not pretend the GOP is above smearing soldiers for political reasons.
MoveOn's ad was ill-considered, but they're hardly the first actor to accuse someone else of "treason" (ex.: every righty blogger, ever).
Surgin' General
"The ad was a strategic blunder. It was an attempted insult of a man serving his country and doing a difficult job. A man who is part of a organization that is more trusted than either Congress, or the White House. It came across as extremely childish, and its timing could not have been worse. Right before the man speaks, as if to shout him out, call him a liar before he even speaks. It makes them look childish, ill mannered and insane. The opposites of mature, civil and reasonable. Most folks don't want to hang out with crazy people, or rude people, or people stuck in grade school. And they certainly do not take advice on how to run a country from such folks."
Quoted from your link.
Sk
From Duke Professor Peter Frearer's op/ed in today's Boston Globe ("MoveOn's McCarthy Moment"):
"Precisely because it is so vicious, so public, and so deliberate, the attack on Petraeus cannot be ignored by either side in the Iraq debate. Supporters of the war are duty-bound, like Joseph Welch [the Army's lawyer in the McCarthy Hearings], to rise and ask of war opponents, "Have you left no sense of decency?" Antiwar members of Congress, like Senator McCarthy's allies, are obliged to answer.
Let us be clear. It is legitimate to grill Petraeus on his testimony and to ask him tough questions about the strategy he has been pursuing. It is legitimate to disagree with him, or to conclude that an alternative course of action has a better chance of advancing US interests in the region. Healthy civil-military relations do not depend on accepting uncritically anything a senior military officer says. Quite the opposite, they depend on a full and frank exchange of views.
It is not legitimate, however, and it is exceedingly corrosive of healthy civil-military relations to question the general's patriotism when his views differ from yours and are inconvenient for one's political agenda.
This is a defining moment for the antiwar faction. They can continue on the path on to which they have veered, repeating some of the worst mistakes in American history. Or they can make a clean break with the past, police their own ranks, and promote a healthy, critical, public debate about the best way forward in Iraq."
Ooooh, a caller on Rush once said it! Wow, must be wingnuttese.
What's next, Matthew points us to a comment on thread at Little Green Footballs to prove that Moveon's full page ad in the Times isn't any worse than those wingnuts?
"This is a defining moment for the antiwar faction. They can continue on the path on to which they have veered, repeating some of the worst mistakes in American history. Or they can make a clean break with the past, police their own ranks, and promote a healthy, critical, public debate about the best way forward in Iraq."
Hey, apparently we're now a faction! Can majorities be factions? I wish we were as organized as wingnuts seem to think we are.
"Ooooh, a caller on Rush once said it! Wow, must be wingnuttese.
What's next, Matthew points us to a comment on thread at Little Green Footballs to prove that Moveon's full page ad in the Times isn't any worse than those wingnuts?
Posted by Al | September 11, 2007 11:11 AM"
Have you ever watched FoxNews? That's basically their whole shtick, calling people traitors. Hannity even had a segment called "Enemy of the State."
"Have you ever watched FoxNews? That's basically their whole shtick, calling people traitors."
That's why I watch "Special Report w/ Brit Hume": to see Brit name his "traitor of the day".
Matthew points us to a comment on thread at Little Green Footballs to prove that Moveon's full page ad in the Times isn't any worse than those wingnuts?
it'd make more sense to start with a best-selling author, someone like Ann Coulter, maybe.
That's why I watch "Special Report w/ Brit Hume": to see Brit name his "traitor of the day".
Posted by Fred | September 11, 2007 11:35 AM
Now you're just being intentionally stupid.
"Now you're just being intentionally stupid."
How so? By pointing out how stupid your original statement was? Hannity is a blowhard, as are Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews. That doesn't mean everything on their respective networks fits that mold. You knew that though, right? So why be stupid?
From Duke Professor Peter Frearer's op/ed
I don't listen to college professors. Buncha effete pointy-headed America-haters.
Puns are like guns.
They shouldn't be fired off irresponsibly.
"In general, my view is that people shouldn't make puns.
I LOVE a good pun, even sometimes a cheesy pun!
The idea that making cogent arguments can only be accomplished using sterile, mind-numbing techno-speak that offends no one (or convinces anyone for that matter) is as about as silly as saying that there's such a thing as "traditional marriage".
People enjoy rabble-rousers (along with bright shiny things) and if someone can get people's attention as well as convey some factual information, well..., all the power to them. The Republicans have been capturing people's attention for thirty years now; they've just been a tad light on the factual information.
Goodness me, the MSM group-think has so thoroughly penetrated that people will simply rattle off the "conventional wisdom" despite the fact that what they refer to as "CW" has never been either.
"The ad was a strategic blunder. It was an attempted insult of a man serving his country and doing a difficult job.
According to whom? Chris Matthews? Sean Hannity? Some other "gotta fill this airtime" stooge? And as to insulting Petraeus, he should have thought about his reputation before he went on Fake News to peddle Republican propaganda.
Hey, apparently we're now a faction! Can majorities be factions?
They most certainly can, but they're the ruling faction less often than you'd expect.
But aren't you a pun-dit?
Maybe Petraeus can sue MoveOn for pun-itive damages.
From Duke Professor Peter Frearer's...
Actually the name's Feaver, and he's a current member of the White House staff. His op-ed is propaganda, and the Globe should have labelled it more accurately.
For those of you who have your undies in a bunch over a latin pun... Petraeus=BetrayUs. I tend to agree, BetrayUs is not the exact term I would use to describe Petraeus, how about liar? Or self-aggrandizing hypocrite, or incompetent asshole? Any of those will fit the bill. If you care to read about it what this man has done to help foment the current civil war in Iraq click here. Or here.
A snippet:
Investigative reporter Max Fuller in his detailed examination of documents, stresses that the vast majority of atrocities attributed to ‘rogue’ Shiite or Sunni militias, "were in fact the work of government-controlled commandos of ‘special forces’, trained by the Americans, ‘advised’ by Americans and run largely by former CIA agents." (Chris Floyd, ‘Ulster on the Euphrates: The Anglo-American Dirty War’) Petraeus attempt to play ‘Good Cop/Bad Cop’ in order to ‘divide and rule’ hasn’t gone too well, nor is it likely to succeed now.
As Gutpa noted in his interview with Democracy Now with understatement: "This played a key role in terms of stoking and fomenting the civil war, because you had death squads wearing government uniforms, being armed and trained by the U.S. going around killing Sunnis randomly. It generally alienated the Sunni Arab population from the government and drove them into the arms of the resistance."
Now Petraeus is apparently funding and training the Sunnis to take on the Shiite.
"...there are reports that have stated clearly with these militias saying, like, "Yes, we're getting weapons from the U.S. government." And part of it is, is that they do want to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is another Sunni-based group. It's an Iraqi-based group. But their main purpose is they want this money and weapons and aid to fight the Shiite militias."
"So here we have them, like in 2004, setting up these Shiite militias, and now he's setting up these Sunni militias to fight these Shiite militias. And what it portends is just an absolute disaster for Iraq. And, of course, it will also be used as justification: "Well, we can't leave because a bloodbath will result." But we're not looking at the fact that it's the U.S. that's creating this bloodbath."
But you're worried because a left wing political group is calling him out over lies in testimony before congress? Heh. No wonder Petraeus is so confident.
He can count on your stupidity.
Petraeus is an employee of the American People.
And as my employee, I'll call him whatever I wish.
I see him as a shoe-licker to a President with a tendency to use soldiers to invade others based on lies whilst at the same time forgetting that he was too important to be a soldier himself.
General Shoe-Lickus.
Delete it if you feel like a bushie.
I don't give a shit.
I hope you enjoy my opinion.
Comments closed September 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
In general
Hmmm... An accident? Or super lame?
Posted by jhupp | September 11, 2007 9:19 AM