Bradky on October 16, 2007 at 8:13 AM

Look, if you quote the time tag from my latest post, any thinking person is going to assume you’re responding to what I said in that post, not the one three posts ago and a day earlier. And no, I originally questioned why Sanchez would say what he said. Which is kind of why I said ‘Sanchez’ and not ‘Bradky’ in that post. Or perhaps you’ve got a new definition of ‘original post’ that defaults to someone’s second post in a thread, where I did address your comments.

(Since you don’t seem to get the quoting conventions around here, this was in response to your post of October 16, 2007 at 8:13 AM…just like I quoted.)

James on October 16, 2007 at 7:27 AM

You are being childish now. You originally questioned why I said what i did, which I explained. If you want to imagine I said you said those things have at it.

Bradky on October 15, 2007 at 6:26 PM

What point about my post were you trying to make with those ‘examples?’ That people here were indeed questioning why he would say something like that and not calling for any punishment? OK…thanks for making my point, I guess.

The past four years has been a constant stream of dishonest reporting. As victory in Iraq becomes more obvious, the American public and the military will become more outspoken in questioning the media’s motives and behavior. Just as the far-left was strengthened by their success in causing America to lose Vietnam, the military will be emboldened by our success in Iraq.

Prior to the war the military officially viewed the media as impartial, apolitical. But during the war most journalists dropped any pretense of fairness. They gambled their reputation for impartiality and honesty on the war in Iraq failing. If Iraq did fail, they could maintain they were right and had been reporting the truth all along. But they lost, because Iraq is becoming a democracy and Al-Qaeda is on the run.

Now they have a lot of questions to answer and it will increasingly be the military asking those questions. Why did they lie about the war? Why did they say we were losing? Why did they say Iraq was unrelated to the war against Al-Qaeda? Why did they oppose freedom for Iraqis? Why did they act as a mouthpiece for our enemies? Why did they risk soldiers’ lives in order to support their political party, instead of reporting the truth?

Many more questions to follow, for many more years.
Regards,
LT Nichols

The general spent nearly half his time bashing the media. Has the NYT printed about that yet? Or the rest of the pack?

Entelechy on October 15, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Good question, but the “flip side” would also be a good question.

Ninety percent of the commenters here spent all their time bashing and some even slandering General Sanchez for not sis-boom-bah’ing Bush’s policies. How many praised him for bashing the hated MSM?

James on October 15, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Some examples…a phony general, trying to surrender, angling for a joint chiefs position, etc. you get the picture.

Absolutely not! A Phony General, Yes!

How many generals did Lincoln go through till he found a real one.

Kini on October 13, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Gen. Sanchez is postureing for a position in a democrap administration, possibly a joint chief seat.

2theright on October 14, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Anybody else catch a strong whiff of Wesley Clark’s perfume in the air?

paragon27x on October 13, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Perhaps this is a last ditch effort in the Dhemocrat grand strategy of surrender at any and all costs. Our current strategy is working so we MUST abandon it immediately.

Thank you for your service.

Mojave Mark on October 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Bradky on October 15, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Yes, because if he didn’t agree with what he was doing, maybe he should not have been doing it.

Criticize his views all day long and that is fine. but bringing up the “phony” garbage or innuendos is wrong.

Bradky on October 15, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Who the hell said you get to write all the rules?

I didn’t read anyone saying he ought to be, “penalized,” for voicing his opinion. They did say he ought to consider the impact of what he has said, even if he BELIEVES it.

I would further state that it ought to be made clear that this is indeed his OPINION, and, as he is no longer, “in theater,” his remarks ought to be treated as such.

The way the media has treated this is disgusting. They completely misrepresented what he actually said. This is not new, but it’s disgusting nonetheless.

He spent thirty years obeying the orders and directions of his civilian and military bosses. He did it professionally without consideration of his personal opinions. Now that he is out he is not allowed to speak unless it is a “Rah Rah Ciscoom Bah everything is happy happy joy joy” speech??

You have a strange concept of ‘not allowed.’ He’s allowed to say anything he wishes. Just as we are allowed to ponder about his motivation for saying it. What he’s ‘not allowed’ to do is say questionable things without questions being raised by his former comrades-in-arms, and others. Decorum is supposed to be enough to keep you from being a buddy-f’er. It used to be that way, anyway.

He is exercising his freedom of speech which he willingly didn’t fully enjoy while in uniform. And you want him to be penalized for that???

Where did I say I wanted him to be penalized? I just noted that he did it when he couldn’t be penalized for doing it…to make the distinction that it’s still mystifying, but not as mystifying as if he’d done it while on active duty. You give parentheticals (which are meant to provide explanation without changing the main sentence structure) way too much import.

entagor on October 15, 2007 at 11:49 AM

The “phony soldiers” description was orginally related to people who tried to get benefits for which they weren’t entitled.

Now you and Rush are trying to expand it to mean “disagreement with those not on the “right” side of the political fence”

Criticize his views all day long and that is fine. but bringing up the “phony” garbage or innuendos is wrong.

I feel pretty confident that Rush will not be calling Sanchez a Phony Soldier come this Monday.

MB4 on October 13, 2007 at 8:58 PM

Missing the context

To find a soldier who will state he was involved in atrocities you have to find either
a. a soldier willing to be tried in a military court for confessed war crimes
b. a man who did not commit or witness such crimes and therefore a loser nut case

The hiring pool for ‘b’ is bigger. Job candidates from ‘b’ are eager willing hard workers. It matters little if they are discredited later as long as the MSM can use them for about 15 minutes. Long enough to put a sound bite on the car radio that will leave traces at election time. Few people in theaters read the credits, but most remember the promos.

To find a General who will state the war effort is a failure you have to find
1. a retired general who wants to say it

Of this group any of the following can be recuited:
a. they are certain it is true and can prove it
b. they feel it is true in their heart
c. they know it is not true
d. they do not care if it is true but have an axe to grind

I cannot classify this General but I do not like him because he is stretching out his evidence to maximize the PR.

Therefore I can understand why is is being cmpared to the ‘phony soldiers’ not because he was not a real officer or big shot, but because he is playing a PR game.

About once every two months the strategists have to implant a new anti-war sound bite on the car radio. The General was right on schedule to pick up the slack when the phony soldiers were unmasked, thanks to the blogs not the MSM

James on October 15, 2007 at 10:52 AM

He spent thirty years obeying the orders and directions of his civilian and military bosses. He did it professionally without consideration of his personal opinions. Now that he is out he is not allowed to speak unless it is a “Rah Rah Ciscoom Bah everything is happy happy joy joy” speech??

He is exercising his freedom of speech which he willingly didn’t fully enjoy while in uniform. And you want him to be penalized for that???

MB4 on October 14, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Good points. It is a sad day when someone like Sanchez can have a 3 decade career ignored because he says something the “neocons” don’t like. Whether it is 4 or 40 years of service, if a Vet doesn’t have the right to speak their opinion without having their service questioned we have truly reached a new low and all the “support the troops” rhetoric is just that – rhetoric.

This week there was a fairly harsh criticism of the Iraq war from Lt Gen Sanchez.

The liberals have gleefully seized it as a chance to poke the noses of the Republicans, and as expected some Republicans have taken issue with the speech.

My fi…

Horse Hockey.

It’s nice to see MB4 getting his arguments shredded.

He’s mistaken, and his words are reprehensible because from the first half of his speech he apparently knew that attacks on our mission put soldiers at risk.

Jason on October 14, 2007 at 8:13 AM

Don’t just make the slanderous accusation against someone with thirty years of distinguished service as an American Soldier, that General Sanchez has put soldiers at risk and knowingly to boot, the accusation of which has become such a pitiful overused bromide, show how he has done that, otherwise you just sound like John Murtha with his accusations or Mike Nifong with his.

BTW, You have heard the term “Tip of the Iceberg” haven’t you?

Sure seems to be a number of folks here who hate the troops.