Letters to the Editor
-
@Groenhagen
Sidney's lack of masculinity does have some relevancy. For example, how about that Drudge lawsuit? Anyone who has seen Sidney knows that he cannot beat up a girl.
Does this imply that, had Blumenthal beat up a girl, that his opinion about Bush's AWOL status would now be credible? Please explain that one.
In fact, please explain how Rather's and Blumenthal's credibility has absolutely any relevance to Bush's military service. This story is about an upcoming court case, wherein all the facts will be evaluated, under oath and probably before a jury. The case will look at various documents, and determine whether or not a major media outlet actively suppressed a potentially damaging story about a sitting president. Dan Rather could be shagging Larry Craig in a bathroom stall, and Sidney Blumenthal could be molesting interns with Foley, and none of that would make a damn bit of difference about the facts at hand.
Do you believe the military should have had no respect for Bill Clinton, a veritable draft dodger?
Corporal, you talk about hypocrisy, but I believe there's a line in your bible about removing the mote from your own eye. You've repeatedly expressed your ire about Clinton being a draft dodger, for the fact that he received 2 deferments. However, you're notably mum about Cheney, who received 5 deferments.
Personally, military deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam doesn't bother me. Had I been drafting age back then, you can bet I'd have done everything in my power to avoid that quagmire. However, these deferments seem to have a special relevance to you, being very important when it's a Democrat and not worth mentioning when it's a Republican. Can you please explain this apparent hypocrisy for us?
-
Groenhagen's Hypocrisy: Greatest Hits
First this:
Bush was elected less than a month after al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole. We were at war at the time; it's just that Clinton ignored those who declared war on us.
Then this:
You moonbats scream about the August 6 PDB. However, it is obvious that you have never read the contents.
Okay, let me get this straight. After the Cole bombing, Clinton should have known we were at war and acted accordingly.
However, after both the Cole bombing and the August 6 PDB, Bush had no reason to put the country on any sort of defensive posture.
How does that work?
-
Anonymous
I know its not constructive, but it really irritates me when some two bit fake tries to tell everyone that they served, and that they are more manly men then everyone else for it.
You don't get that from the real military, because they don't have to remind themselves.
Oh, and Groenhagen, one last thing, there is a 0231 in marine group 36, in the 1st Marine Aircraft division, and he is a colonel. Ben Mathews ring any bells?
-
Go Dan!
Please do the "patented" Dan Rather expose on thesa sordid pieces of disgraceful actions by a U.S.President to be and CBS. The sorry spectacle of what was a fine news organization stooping to the "SWIFT-BOATING" of Mapes and Rather is so discouraging to all who just want to know the truth.
poppop12
-
Corporate media objectivity on the corporate media is not to be expected.
The corporate owned media's hostility toward honest self evaluation (or should we say here, its honest exposure) is the source of the corporate media's hostility toward Dan Rather's lawsuit.
This lawsuit goes to the heart of the corporate media's utter failure to perform its duties to inform the public in an objective manner on much of anything important - Bush or otherwise.
Now we come to a time when Bush's reign as president is seen as a disaster from across the entire political spectrum. At the same time, the man himself is more widely than ever seen as a fraud. Yet, as since Election 2000, the media still goes to great lengths to prop Bush up. This was most recently witnessed in Bush's recent UN speech which absurdly promoted the export of US 'democracy' at the point of a gun - an up is down and black is white presentation which was covered by the media with its usual deference to 'the president.'
It is to be expected that the entire corporate owned media - not merely CBS - will pull out all the stops to discredit Rather and his lawsuit, for in so doing they are defending the indefensible: Themselves.
This is, after all, consistent with corporate media efforts to promote George W Bush ever since the Supreme Court handed him the presidency, when the media proceeded to its most challenging assignment: Pretending Bush is the president. This included, of course, parroting and amplifying its false propaganda on Iraq and now, of course, the repeat act against Iran.
Should this case proceed forward, things could get interesting. That is, unless Rather's effort is squashed and dismissed by an obviously concerned, if not worried, media and political establishment should this case proceed forward.
Rather, despite some possible doubts about his own performance in the past, deserves support in his endeavor to expose CBS and, by association, the larger and sinister role played by the corporate owned media and its propagandists during the last several years, if not longer.
-
Thanks, Groenhagen,
sincerely, for the reply.
I don't think I'm willfully avoiding any truths here (you seem to make accusations at everyone who engages with you. If you feel compelled to accuse me of anything else, I probably won't respond. It's not in my nature as a rational person to waste time on things like that. Just sayin'.) Anyway, I understand the hypocrisy point. I just don't think it's relevant. Last time I checked, hypocrisy is not illegal, nor has any bearing on the standing of a petitioner in court, nor on the merits of a petitioner's brief. Last time I checked, every single individual living or dead has practiced hypocrisy at some time - whether they knew it or not. Last time I checked, Rather in this case has every right to sue. Maybe the case will be thrown out. Maybe he'll lose. Maybe he'll win.
From your reply to me and to others, I conclude that the real answer to my original question is: this issue engenders an extreme emotional response in you for some reason. There isn't always a rational basis for emotional responses, and that's fine.... just the way it is. The reason I had asked for some rationale for your clear distaste for the idea of Rather bringing a grievance against his former employer was to confirm that I wasn't missing any rational objection for the bringing of this particular suit. I wasn't.
Again, thanks.