• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pentagon denounces new swift-boating of Obama

What is just as disgusting is Fox News supposedly outing one of the members of the SEAL team that took out Bin Laden.
 
This from the linked article in the OP...

Adm. William McRaven, head of Special Operations Command, which planned the raid, took on such criticisms in an interview last month with CNN, noting the great risks involved in the operation.

“At the end of the day – make no mistake about it – it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process,” he said, “because I pitched every plan to him.”
Click to expand...

...Nuff Said.
 
disneydude said:
'Swift-Boating' Obama? Pentagon denounces politics of attack ad - Yahoo! News

The swift-boat liars disgraced the uniform with their lies and propoganda in 2004. Kudos to the Pentagon and the military for standing up for the military and preventing these new swift-boaters from bringing dishonor and shame to the uniform.
Click to expand...

Well, boo hoo, they're disappointed. Those retired servicemen have every right to express their opinions. Or do you give up your right to free speech for the rest of your life once you join the military?
 
MaggieD said:
Well, boo hoo, they're disappointed. Those retired servicemen have every right to express their opinions. Or do you give up your right to free speech for the rest of your life once you join the military?
Click to expand...

No, you definitely have a point, and they don't give up their right to free speech.

But I think the issue here is that people may believe this special interest group speaks for the military, which is clearly not the case.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, boo hoo, they're disappointed. Those retired servicemen have every right to express their opinions. Or do you give up your right to free speech for the rest of your life once you join the military?
Click to expand...

Oh for gods sake....

No one is saying they cannot say whatever they want. Did you read the ****ing article? You might try that before spouting off nonsense. Nowhere does it tell of or say anything about denying these guys the right to say what they choose. “If someone uses the uniform for partisan politics, I’m disappointed in that". Does disappointed means not allowed? Well then your whole argument falls to pieces. There is a large, unsubtle difference between shouldn't, and can't. I understand you hate Obama and want nothing more than to criticize him for everything that happens. However, not everything fits into that hyper-partisan view.
 
samsmart said:
No, you definitely have a point, and they don't give up their right to free speech.

But I think the issue here is that people may believe this special interest group speaks for the military, which is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps the Pentagon (and every other politician in Washington) ought to give the American people just a bit more credit. Jeesh!

By the by, and just 'cause I'm so excited about it:

The former U.S. Navy SEAL who authored a soon-to-be-published book about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden is now facing threats against his life in addition to possible criminal prosecution.

An official al Qaeda website on Friday posted a photograph and the name of the former Navy commando responsible for the book, calling him "the dog who murdered the martyr Sheikh Osama bin Laden."
Click to expand...

The book is titled, No Easy Day. And in this particular situation, the Pentagon has promised to prosecute the so-far anonymous author (though they're already guessing his name) if he reveals secret information -- which they are sworn not to do for as long as they live.
 
Redress said:
Oh for gods sake....

No one is saying they cannot say whatever they want. Did you read the ****ing article? You might try that before spouting off nonsense. Nowhere does it tell of or say anything about denying these guys the right to say what they choose. “If someone uses the uniform for partisan politics, I’m disappointed in that". Does disappointed means not allowed? Well then your whole argument falls to pieces. There is a large, unsubtle difference between shouldn't, and can't. I understand you hate Obama and want nothing more than to criticize him for everything that happens. However, not everything fits into that hyper-partisan view.
Click to expand...

I read the ****ing article three days ago. I was responding to the post, you know? What the poster said??

disneydude said:
Kudos to the Pentagon and the military for standing up for the military and preventing these new swift-boaters from bringing dishonor and shame to the uniform.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

They're preventing nothing. They expressed disappointment. Perhaps you should read the post as carefully as you read the article.

I do not hate Obama. I am not hyper-partisan. I realize you find it hard to believe that anyone can actually be somewhat bi-partisan, but just because I don't want to see him get re-elected doesn't mean I hate the guy. Perhaps you are projecting.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, perhaps the Pentagon (and every other politician in Washington) ought to give the American people just a bit more credit. Jeesh!
Click to expand...

Considering how I've already seen this issue pop up on this forum, and how it has been a rallying point for anti-Obama supporters, I can see why the Pentagon would want to clarify the point.
 
samsmart said:
Considering how I've already seen this issue pop up on this forum, and how it has been a rallying point for anti-Obama supporters, I can see why the Pentagon would want to clarify the point.
Click to expand...

I can, too. But so be it. Those guys are entitled to express their opinions.
 
MaggieD said:
I read the ****ing article three days ago. I was responding to the post, you know? What the poster said??



They're preventing nothing. They expressed disappointment. Perhaps you should read the post as carefully as you read the article.

I do not hate Obama. I am not hyper-partisan. I realize you find it hard to believe that anyone can actually be somewhat bi-partisan, but just because I don't want to see him get re-elected doesn't mean I hate the guy. Perhaps you are projecting.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did the OP say anything about denying these guys the right to speak out. You want to see something so badly, but it just is not there.
 
MaggieD said:
I do not hate Obama. I am not hyper-partisan. I realize you find it hard to believe that anyone can actually be somewhat bi-partisan, but just because I don't want to see him get re-elected doesn't mean I hate the guy. Perhaps you are projecting.
Click to expand...

I'm not a hyper-partisan either, and I don't hate Obama or wish him ill; I just don't agree with him on most major issues, and I think he's done a lousy job as President and doesn't deserve another four years.

But I do think that "using the uniform" is a very strong charge. Which leads me to wonder if the OP has served in the military himself. Just curious.
 
Redress said:
Nowhere did the OP say anything about denying these guys the right to speak out. You want to see something so badly, but it just is not there.
Click to expand...

No, quite the opposite. You want to jump down this poster's throat so badly, you're blinded by your monitor.

OP:

Kudos to the Pentagon and the military for standing up for the military and preventing these new swift-boaters from bringing dishonor and shame to the uniform.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon prevented nothing. "Boo Hoo they expressed disappointment." There. I've said it again. Shoot me.
 
MaggieD said:
No, quite the opposite. You want to jump down this poster's throat so badly, you're blinded by your monitor.

OP:



The Pentagon prevented nothing. "Boo Hoo they expressed disappointment." There. I've said it again. Shoot me.
Click to expand...

Correct, they prevented nothing. What they did was express their opinion. However, what DD was talking about was not denying those people their right to speak out(even though it's turning out to be all lies), but to prevent the damage from idiot groups like this. Nice try though, too bad reality was not on your side.
 
Redress said:
Correct, they prevented nothing. What they did was express their opinion. However, what DD was talking about was not denying those people their right to speak out(even though it's turning out to be all lies), but to prevent the damage from idiot groups like this. Nice try though, too bad reality was not on your side.
Click to expand...

Christ in heaven. Okay, Redress. You win. Happy?? :rofl
 
MaggieD said:
Well, boo hoo, they're disappointed. Those retired servicemen have every right to express their opinions. Or do you give up your right to free speech for the rest of your life once you join the military?
Click to expand...

Free speech may be protected, but your reputation from opening your mouth and saying something completely stupid is not. Freedom of speech also does not mean no one can question what you say, or bring up when you are wrong.

The only enemy of free speech I see are those people who try to say that arguments and debunking should be wrong because they somehow oppose free speech. Free speech not only grants them the right to spout their bull****, but also grants others the right to call them on it. if you want a country where you are not allowed to oppose what is said then may I suggest one of the many countries which may be more to your liking. i would recommend china, north korea, or perhaps one of the many middle eastern countries where freedom of speech is only for those people spoon feeding you your opinion. but if you do not feel like leaving the US fox news is a great place where they never offer up a legitimate rebuttal to their opinions. I think if you lock your TV on that you would probably be much happier.
 
tererun said:
Free speech may be protected, but your reputation from opening your mouth and saying something completely stupid is not. Freedom of speech also does not mean no one can question what you say, or bring up when you are wrong.

The only enemy of free speech I see are those people who try to say that arguments and debunking should be wrong because they somehow oppose free speech. Free speech not only grants them the right to spout their bull****, but also grants others the right to call them on it. if you want a country where you are not allowed to oppose what is said then may I suggest one of the many countries which may be more to your liking. i would recommend china, north korea, or perhaps one of the many middle eastern countries where freedom of speech is only for those people spoon feeding you your opinion. but if you do not feel like leaving the US fox news is a great place where they never offer up a legitimate rebuttal to their opinions. I think if you lock your TV on that you would probably be much happier.
Click to expand...

When I want your advice, Tererun, I'll PM you.

Edit: And don't be checkin' your Inbox on my account.
 
What's "completely stupid" is also a matter of opinion.
 
Redress said:
Correct, they prevented nothing. What they did was express their opinion. However, what DD was talking about was not denying those people their right to speak out(even though it's turning out to be all lies), but to prevent the damage from idiot groups like this. Nice try though, too bad reality was not on your side.
Click to expand...

Can you "prevent the damage" done by "idiot groups"?

The only way to accomplish this is to rely on the truth, whatever that happens to be. So how about more facts before describing these guys as an "idiot group"? Fair enough?
 
MaggieD said:
When I want your advice, Tererun, I'll PM you.

Edit: And don't be checkin' your Inbox on my account.
Click to expand...

Well, since you don't seem to want to move i guess you will have to deal with free speech and showing you are a hypocrite. Don't blame me for that one, it was entirely your doing.
 
nota bene said:
Can you "prevent the damage" done by "idiot groups"?

The only way to accomplish this is to rely on the truth, whatever that happens to be. So how about more facts before describing these guys as an "idiot group"? Fair enough?
Click to expand...

I actually linked to fact checking done on the groups claims. Those claims have not held up well to fact checking. You are right, the best counter to lies is facts. The groups is made up of birthers and Tea Partiers, so I think calling them an idiot group is pretty safe.
 
samsmart said:
But I think the issue here is that people may believe this special interest group speaks for the military, which is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...

This is PC run wild. Since you said "that people may believe ..." isn't it also possible "that people may believe" the opposite of what you say. Paul Simon's song, 'The Boxer' ... "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" ... is exactly what you saying here.

One of the beginning paragraphs of the article which begins this thread says this:

“The US military is pushing back against the campaign of a group of former Special Operations Forces officers who have spoken out against President Obama in what some have described as a latter-day “Swift Boat” campaign.”

Notice the phrase “in what some have described …”. As is typical of the MSM (and Harry Reid) we have some anonymous person/group making a ‘claim’.

Maggie is totally correct.

Unfortunately, all of the political innuendo being hurled around is silly.

A L
 
samsmart said:
Considering how I've already seen this issue pop up on this forum, and how it has been a rallying point for anti-Obama supporters, I can see why the Pentagon would want to clarify the point.
Click to expand...

If what you say is true ... about the Pentagon ... we are in big trouble. The Pentagon is supposed to be apolitical and hopping on an issue for "anti-Obama supporters" is totally WRONG. The ONLY "right" that the Pentagon has is to insure that no classified information is in the book. Taking sides, as you suggest, is totally VERBOTEN.

A L
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom