Glen Greenwald sums up the absurd and mendacious nature of the right wings, oh so shocked, reaction to the MoveOn.org Petreaus shennanigans.
It begs the question; is the right wing noise machine, along with their cohorts in the so called liberal media, aware that their words and misdeeds are on record?
Or are yesterdays just erased from the collective memory of these small time neocon wannabees?
Glen barely touches the surface of the organised republican slander machine's attacks on any one, yes any one who opposes their twisted vision for 'muricas future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Klein is right. He's a liberal, he's against the war, but he knows that ad went over the line. Greenwald is also correct that that accusation has been made by conservatives in the past. It doesn't matter. It doesn't make it right for moveon to make it in this case. I obviously disagree with moveon, but the larger point is that tactically, the ad was stupid. It defeated its own purpose because it was offensive to too many people, including many, like Klein, who are sympathetic to surrender.
By the way, although the charge of treason is a heinous one, that doesn't mean it can never be used. Truth is an absolute defense. In the case of John Kerry, he testified before Congress, without any corroboration, about his fellow soldiers raping and pillaging and carrying on "like Ghengis Khan". Had he actually witnessed those acts, he would have been duty bound to stop them, or to report them. Either he witnessed those crimes and he abetted them, or he testified falsely to Congress about his own brothers in arms. That's why hundreds of men who served with him in Vietnam banded together to stop him from becoming President. So, in some cases, the charge of treason is warranted. That makes it ok.
Klein is wrong... and he was for the war before he was 'somewhat' against it. The Ad has served its intended purpose without any political cost to Democrats. Did the Swift Boat Liars inflict a political cost on Republicans and Bush. Even after their fabric of lies was exposed, Bush distanced himself from them and beat a self-inflicted wounded Kerry.
The point is, Repugs have been way ahead on this game of unfounded smear, they may retract sometimes but the idea is that the message was delivered.
There was a level of doubt about the candor with which the Patraeus report would be 'framed' before he even went to Capitol Hill, the Ad merely excentuated that doubt and rightly so.
The right wing is just pissed because they are finally being beaten at their own game...
When was the fabric of lies exposed? I missed that. Seriously, show me one charge the Swift Boat guys made that was ever factually refuted. Why has Kerry STILL never released his form 180?
It's called 'Google', you should try it sometime.
www.factcheck.org/article231.html
Smear artists, none of whom were with Kerry in his boat and funded by Bob Perry, known Republican operative, with deep pockets and not two brain cells to rub together.
That's a well-sourced, well-researched piece. The last sentence reads, "At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth."
All that really proves is that there is a serious difference of opinion about what happened. Not surprising, given the fog of war, and the intervening years.
Kerry's version of events has always depended very heavily on Rassman--not surprising, seeing Kerry did save his life. Rassman has something of a vested interest in the official version as well.
I'm not saying I know what happened. I don't. I am pretty sure that Kerry has been proved a liar about certain parts of his story. It's a virtual certainty he was never in Cambodia, and of course, Nixon wasn't president at the time Kerry claimed to have been sent there by him.
What is known for sure is that Kerry's "tour" was four months, shortened by three pretty shaky Purple Hearts. And, of course, there was that testimony he gave to Congress. And throwing "his" medals away, then later saying they were someone else's.
The guy's whole history is about trying to have it both ways about Vietnam. On the one hand, he was a decorated "Hero". On the other he was the young statesman who played such a big role in bringing the war to an end.
The problem was, he thoroughly slandered the honorable men he served with, the overwhelming majority of whom never forgot it. He built his big career on the backs of those men, and they kept their mouths shut for thirty-five years, until he announced for president.
These guys had little to gain and lots to lose by coming forward. Their own medals would be brought into doubt, and certainly most people, thanks to an incurious media, would brand them as dirtbags. But the only guy proven to lie about Kerry in Vietnam was Kerry.
Post a Comment