General Betray-Us?

Remove all ads!

Is this political correctness? I always associated it with genders or minorities... not with business lobbies. Sheesh, that is scary stuff. Can you imagine being ruined because you say on TV that hamburgers can be bad for your health?

 

Freedom of speech only guarantees your right to say something. It doesn't mean that it is free and that there will not be consequences.

A classic current example is Democrat Rep Brian Baird. He came back from Iraq and had the nerve to comment that the Surge was working. Now he is being savaged by Moveon.org and other far left anti-war organizations. He mouth will probably end up costing him his seat in the House.

 

MoveON is a private citizen group and not a government agency. Citizens have the right to assemble in groups to criticize their government as they see fit. That is their right under the Constitution. If you disagree with them, then you have the same right to counter with your own comments, as the radical right never fails in doing, indulging itself fully in that right. It's only when the "radical left" engages in the same rhetoric that the right suddenly starts harping on the "consequences" of free speech.

 

I slightly disagree with your calling them a private citizen group. They are a political organization no different than the villified "Swift Boat Group" that was so hated for their ads against John Kerry.

As to my comments on the freedom of expression not being free they were not directed towards Moveon.org. They can say whatever they want as they are a political organization and that is what they do. My comments were directed at Amaster's post about a gun commentator who lost his endorsements when he said something his customers didn't want to hear. That is where freedom of expression has a cost.

 

Great. So we're in agreement.

 

Well, Snook, since you brought it up, I'd like to point out that the senate didn't even try to pass a resolution condemning an organization for exercising its right to free speech. What makes the Moveon.org situation so different, Snook? Could it possibly have something to do with their political orientation, maybe?

 

I don't know how abridged their right to speak was -- as I read it, the government simply stated that they disagreed with the statements made, not that they were going to take legal action to silence such talk. Congress enacted no law forbidding them to say what they wish.

In any event, this has come up in the past. Freedom of speech is freedom from government control of your expressions and certain private intrusions into your life. For example, as an employee, I cannot be fired from my company if I write a letter to the editor criticizing my company. However, said company has no obligation to give me a raise or a promotion and they may choose to punish me that way for speaking out against them. That's tough but it's their right to choose who they will or will not promote.

That said, I have no obligation to shop any particular place, and if I am a shopowner, no one has any legal obligation to shop at my store. If I put out a big sign saying "I support the war in Iraq" I can't be too surprised if some people choose not to shop at my store. Conversely, if I put a sign out that says "Bring the troops home", then another segment of society will choose not to do business with me. That's THEIR right to make that choice, and it's one I have to respect. This is why many shop-owners try to keep their places of business politics neutral.

 

Ah! My bad. Both the organizations you mention are private citizen groups. But I'm not sure if whether or not the Swift Boat team was hired by the Republican party. If they were, then they were no longer a private group, in the same sense as MoveOn. MoveOn criticizes both Democrats and Republicans, although the Republicans get a lot more criticism for sure. MoveOn is to the Left - God bless them - of most Democrats, as that vote of yours by Congress may suggest.

 

The difference, as I see it, is that Moveon.org did a pre-emptive smear campaign. You have to remember, their ad came out before his written report was finished and before he testified in front of Congress. In addition they were smearing a man who at the time wasn't a public figure and was doing a job as ordered by the President. There wasn't and still isn't any reason to doubt his integrity and honesty. To call a man who has honorably served our country for so many years a traitor without any reason is something that should upset most people (unless they have a political axe to grind). That is the reason so many Democrats crossed over and joined in the vote condemning the smear.

I agree, if it had been a Republican controlled Senate and the vote was on party lines it would have been more about politics. In this case it was one of the most non-partisan votes the Senate has had in years.

As I mentioned earlier, the most shocking political impact of the vote was seeing a 50% defection of the Democrats from the vocal radical left. What that means is open to intrepretation.

 

Hold on Snook. First of all, you were the one who compared Moveon to the Swift boat Veterans, not me. Are you taking it back, now, since it backfired? For the sake of argument, I will entertain your claims, though.

Exactly how were the claims by the Swift boat Veterans not pre-emptive? SBVT first went public in May of 2004, 2 months before Kerry actually got the Democratic nomination.

Senator Kerry wasn't a public servant?


Anyway, if you really think that "There wasn't and still isn't any reason to doubt [General Petraeus'] integrity and honesty", I think maybe you should revisit his 2004 editorial. If not his honesty or integrity, there is more than enough reason to at least doubt the General's objectivity and judgment. When I first read the editorial, I had to double check the date. It's the same crap the administration is saying right now.

Snook, there is no radical left in the senate. There's barely one in the house (really, not even a handful house democrats can be considered "radical"). Both the democrats and the republicans have made big moves to the right as compared to where they were in the '80's. To put things in perspective, Reagan was considered an extremist by his own party in the eighties.....and the neo-cons running the show now are even farther right than he was. This "radical left" you're always talking about doesn't actually exist, Snook. Or, at least, none of them are holding office.

Nixon was more liberal than Clinton. Clinton spent more money on the military than H.W. Bush. H.W. Bush raised taxes. The reason you see "radicals" everywhere is because you've failed to notice the republican shift to the right and the democrats' subsequent shift towards the center....and seem somehow convinced that anyone who isn't a right leaning moderate is automatically a "radical".

[ September 25, 2007, 14:21: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

@Drew

I have no idea what you are talking about. They are both political organizations that do/did nothing other than try to sway public opinion.

Very easy. The SBV were talking about something that happened 30+ years ago. Moveon.org was speculating about something when they had no idea what it was going to be. To me, and maybe I have my definitions wrong, that is pre-emptive. As to when Kerry won the nomination, I don't see how that has anything to do with anything. He was a declared candidate.

Of course he was a public figure. That is why he was open to attack and the slander rules are much looser. A soldier is not a public a figure and shouldn't be subject to the same ridicule. As an anology Bill Gates is a public figure, the person who answers his phone isn't. Ridiculing/mocking Bill is acceptable, doing the same to his administrative assistant isn't.

I never said the radical left was in the Senate. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My point was that the Democrats who count on the vocal radical left didn't do what they wanted them to. That hasn't happened in a while as for quite some time now, votes have been pretty close to party lines.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The leading Democrat (Hillary) is a socialist. I'm not sure how that is a shift to the center. As to the Republicans you may be right about them shifting to the right, but I'm curious as to how much of that is you being concerned about the radical right as opposed to the more central Republicans.

 

Hillary is not a socialist, the only person who could belive she is a socialist is an American who have never had any contact with a socialist. By socialist standard Hillary is a classical liberal (in the old world use of the word) with quite a few strong conservative streaks.

 

Yeah, it's been sometime since I last heard about socialists in the US, but surely there must be some.

 

I think TGS made Drew's point.

 

Hillary seems to me more social liberal than anything. I don't think there are many real socialists around in American politics, atleast not in positions of real importance. I remember though that there was someone in the house of representatives who saw himself as a socialist. The first one in American history I believe.

Supporting a larger government than the neo-liberal utopia or more than non-existant taxation and public spending is not quite enough to qualify one as a socialist, atleast not by any definition I've encountered.

 

I would agree. Hillary might - and I'm not really sure on that - be somewhat on the left of the average for US senators, but she's hardly a socialist. I think there are few politicians in the US who can be classified as even social democrats.

 

Wow! You must be rewriting history. Was Grant not a public figure? Was McArthur? How about Ike? There are Generals who are also the rulers of their countries all over the planet. Once "soldiers" become political, like the General under discussion, then they are public figures. Actually, even before so. The General you are referring to is helping to craft public policy. Someone who crafts public policy is a politician.

John Kerry was also a "soldier," who served in Vietnam. Because he is only a Democrat, he may not be under the "soldier protection plan from public criticism" idea of yours. But Generals are often the most criticized public figures in history, despite the protection plan, even Napoleon has been criticized from time-to-time - and in his own country. But you know the French - they have no respect. Obviously. Who else could have accomplished so many wars for his beloved counrty as Napoleon? Who else could have blown up so many cities, villages, and homes, killed so many men, women and children in the name of France? And he could wave flag with the best of them as well. Have you seen him in those big, colorful paintings hanging in the Louvre with all those flags? A real patriot, for sure.

 

Actually, they were talking about something that didn't happen 30+ years ago.

Good bait and switch, Snook. I said Kerry was a public servant, mirroring your own argument about why Moveon was wrong to attack General Petraeus. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Petraeus isn't just a soldier. He's a General. He has rank, power, and political influence. If you honestly think that Generals and Admirals aren't political animals, you must be living under a rock.

Another bait and switch. What you said was "As I mentioned earlier, the most shocking political impact of the vote was seeing a 50% defection of the Democrats from the vocal radical left. What that means is open to intrepretation." Now, given that the resolution condemning Moveon came from the Senate, and roughly half the democrats voted for it, you were rather clearly implying that the half that didn't vote for it were "radical". It may not be what you meant, but it is what you said.

Snook, there is no way to be nice, here, and I'm sorry about what I'm about to say. Every time you make these ridiculous arguments, you only illustrate even more clearly for anyone who didn't live under a rock in the eighties how utterly ignorant you are of history. If you look at voting records instead of listening to talk radio and watching Fox news, you'd realize that everybody shifted to the right over the last 25 years or so. If you'd bother to look, you'd notice that actual liberals are utterly disenfranchised with the Democrats. Had the Democrats actually shifted to the left as you suggest, the moderate democrats are the ones who would be feeling disenfranchised with the party. By the way, Snook, if you check Hillary's voting records instead of listening to the angry white men (and Ann Coulter) flapping their lips on talk radio and in the right wing media, you'd notice that Hillary most assuredly is not a socialist*. Dennis Kucinich is a socialist. Hillary isn't even a Liberal.

* Liberals aren't pro-big business. If you look at her voting record, you'll notice that Hillary is. Liberals tend to favor legalizing gay marriage. Hillary only supports granting them civil unions. Sure, on some social issues, Hillary Clinton is a Liberal. Where gay rights are concerned, she's a moderate. On economic issues, she's actually a Conservative.....favoring big business and the de-regulation of many industries.

[ September 26, 2007, 11:22: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

To take things more back to topic I think I partly agree with Snook about Petraeus though. While I don't think he's beyoned public criticism I think public servants in general should recieve a bit more breathing room than politicians. Public servants are after all mostly just following and executing the political orders coming from above. Still with power comes responsibility and even public servants are responsible to the people even if somewhat more indirectly than politicians.

 

Let me see if I've got this straight -- Petreaus is a soldier in Iraq, a high ranking one. He came home to make a report to Congress, one in which he spoke well of the war in Iraq, citing several examples of what he sees to be successes there. That's what I see. So, . . . .

Here is a man on the ground. He's been there, he's seen the battle ground, he probably knows some of the soldiers who've died. I think it's safe to say that he knows more about the situation over there than everyone on this board put together. Therefore, to me his report has some merit.

BUT, he's also a political animal, as all generals have had to be throughout the ages (as Chandos so amusingly illustrated with his Napoleon examples.) He takes his orders from Bush and the rest of the presently Republican White House. Therefore, his report is not gospel, either.

The thing is, had his report been one in line with the left wing party line, they would have been lauding his name all over the place, as the left has done frequently when other "on the ground" soldiers have spoken out against government policies. Had Petreaus made a report like that, of course, he could kiss his chances of advancement goodbye (at least in the short term) and would have lost any ability to positively influence the direction of the war in Iraq. In other words, it would have been political suicide, and that is ASSUMING that that's the kind of report he had to make, which is a big assumption.

The right is not pure on this sort of thing either. He would never have been permitted to MAKE his report had it been a negative one. Those facts notwithstanding, while of course left wing groups are going to disagree (and strongly) with what he had to say, the attacks they made on his character were out of line -- they have the right to make them, of course, but that doesn't make it right. I think Congress was right to say that the comments about Petreaus were disgusting.