Guest blogged by David Edwards of Veredictum.com
Video in Streaming Flash format…
Video in Windows Media format…
Audio in MP3 format…
I’m having a hard time understanding the logic of the Bush Administration on the appropriateness of retired military leaders speaking out about civilian leadership. On the one hand, they are saying that it is inappropriate for retired (and especially serving) military officers to criticize Rumsfeld. On the other hand, military officers who are retired or currently serving are encouraged to speak out in Rumsfeld’s defense.
I just don’t understand a policy that only allows the expression pro-Administration propaganda but deems all criticism – even by retired generals who are now private citizens – “inappropriate”. On last night’s edition of MSNBC’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann posed this question to Howard Fine:
FINEMAN: Yeah. There’s a hole large enough to drive an army through and that’s what we’ve done.
If anyone is interested, I’ll be glad to post the clip from Countdown.
Anyway, Jon Stewart did a humorously “fair and balanced” report on the General’s criticism of Rumsfeld. “It’s not really very fair to attack Secretary Rumsfeld without giving the Secretary an opportunity to respond to thes charges that are being leveled”, says Stewart. “So, here are some of the general’s criticisms of Rumsfeld and his replies which in no way have been manipulated to make Rumsfeld look foolish or out of touch.“
UPDATE: Countdown Asks If Generals Can Only Express Approval of Rumsfeld
Video in Streaming Flash format…
Video in Windows Media format…
Audio in MP3 format…
Here’s the video clip where Keith Olbermann asks Howard Fine, “Is this the response from the White House really that retired military personnel cannot comment on civilian leadership if they disagree with it but they are entitled to comment on leadership if they agree with it? I’m just thinking… Is there a hole in that logic somewhere?”
Typical hypocrisy of this White House …
They have lost all touch with reality.
I have a new name for them: The Holy Hypocrisy Brigade, led by the Hypocrite in Chief.
I like that "War Wars" background motif.
How about a War on War?
"appropriate", "inappropriate", "that would not be appropriate" — God, how Ron Ziegler liked those words. Anyone familiar with the Nixon era will remember how the Nixonians were in love with those words and how the closer they got to an accounting, the more they used them — when all arguments had failed and were shown to exist on nothing but lies and hypocrisy.
There are many times I fantasized about wringing Ziegler’s scrawny little neck. "I’ll show you inappropriate!"
When Nixon’s excuses became self-contradictions, Ziegler would say "…(the earlier statement) is no longer operative." That’s fancy language for, "We got caught in a lie."
Bush isn’t even that subtle. "Anyone involved in leaking (Valerie Plame’s name) will no longer work in this administration." That became, "Anyone breaking the law will no longer work in this administration." By his own standard, Bush should resign…but Scottie McClellan (the 21st-century Ron Ziegler) says no laws were broken.
Kafka couldn’t have written a better script.
"A whole page of arguing points in 16pt. font with 3" borders and Ziggy cartoon at the bottom"
Love it!
Where’s Ricky been lately? I wanted to show him this, after he posted how "generous" Dick Cheney was about donating to charity:
See Ricky? You were listening to Rush Limbaugh too much again…
Cheney’s "Katrina" Charity Tax Loophole
Big Dan
I posted the link also at the other thread where Ricky had poked his head in on Cheney’s generosity.
It’s amazing, how these neo-con followers "drink the Kool-Aid" (or Kook-Aid)
Pleasant phrase for cutting down forests:
Healthy forests
Pleasant phrase for polluting the atmosphere:
Clear Skies
Pleasant word for Armaggedon:
Rapture! :crazy: