Strange Bedfellows
Despite much controversy over the decision to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, give credit to the institution’s president for pulling no punches:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the stage at Columbia University on Monday to a blistering reception from the president of the school, who said the hard-line leader behaved like “a petty and cruel dictator.”
Ahmadinejad smiled as Columbia President Lee Bollinger took him to task over Iran’s human-rights record and foreign policy, and Ahmadinejad’s statements denying the Holocaust and calling for the disappearance of Israel.
“Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” Bollinger said, to loud applause.
He said Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.
“When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous,” Bollinger said. “The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history.”
Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after a religious invocation, said Bollinger’s opening was: “an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here.”
“There were insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully,” Ahmadinejad said, accusing Bollinger of falling under the influence of the hostile U.S. press and politicians.
“I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment,” he said.
During a question and answer session with the audience, Ahmadinejad appeared agitated. In response to one question, Ahmadinejad denied he was questioning the existence of the Holocaust.
“Granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestian people?” he said.
But then he said he was defending the rights of European scholars, an apparent reference to a small number who have been prosecuted under national laws for denying or minimizing the Holocaust.
“There’s nothing known as absolute,” he said.
Yet it’s no secret how progressives square their love affair with Mahmoud with his Holocaust denial and gay-bashing: he hates Bush and America!
I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding.
When the ‘calling out’ of U.S. foreign policy is a turn-on for you, you’ve got issues, my dear. Lest I be accused of singling out one nutjob, read the comments…yes, yes, this is the Daily Kos, but as we have seen from the spineless performance of Hillary Clinton regarding the now-notorious General “Betray Us” ad (now admitted by the New York Times to have been cut a sweetheart deal it didn’t deserve, by the way), the Nutroots® largely call the shots in today’s Democratic party, at least during campaign season.
Does every progressive embrace this clown? Of course not…but enough do to seriously question the alliances between these extremist (dare I say anti-American? In this case, I do) elements and the Democratic leadership. If more reasonable Democrats and progressives find themselves continually infuriated by the eagerness of the far right to paint them as unpatriotic, they hold the key to combating this in their hands: condemn the extremism, even if the extremists are good donors, and express your outrage that there are large numbers of progressives who embrace a bigoted Holocaust denier over an honorable American general…
Today is Vertical Day! To learn more, go to:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=VerticalDay.Home&l=0A8242CD3D2CBFD6D6C0957CD339A949
Hmmm — another Peter? Maybe I should change to Pete — or, for those who remember it, Rocky Rococco…
Mark: because some idiot on dailykos says semi-kind things about Ahmadinejad, therefore “enough” Ahmadinedjad lovers are polluting the Democratic leadership? Have you heard anybody of any importance say anything good about him?
And why should Hillary Clinton get involved in a brouhaha over an ad she had nothing do do with? Would you expect Republican candidates to disavow everything Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Rush Limbaugh says?
A crush on Ahmadinejad… nice huh?
Peter #2: Read the comments after the post. This isn’t some random nut the rest of TDK opposes. The comments are running 9 to 1 in favor of the post, easy.
“And why should Hillary Clinton get involved in a brouhaha over an ad she had nothing do do with?”
Over 70 other Senators did.
And I recall the GOP leadership condemning the remarks by one of the preachers about God striking down Ariel Sharon before anyone asked them to do so.
BTW, Falwell is dead.
Actually Peter, if you read the full post, you would know that the reason many progressives “embrace” Ahmadinejad (a characterization that I would take exception with, and for which only anecdotal evidence has been provided, but let’s leave that aside for the time being) is that they possess an ability that, among conservatives, seems increasingly rare, if not non-existent: the ability to view a situation in something other than black and white terms.
Ahmadinejad has said and done much that is worthy of condemnation. He has also expressed views on the Bush administration that ring true with millions of your fellow countrymen. The mere inclusion of those two facts in the same paragraph seems to send many conservatives into a mouth-foaming frenzy, to the point where they are incapable of responding with anything other than animalistic grunts that sound vaguely like “You hate America!” This, of course, says far more about conservatives than it does about progressives.
In the face of those sorts of sorry attempts at civic discourse, let me assure everyone reading this that standing up in this day & age and expressing dissent is hardly a “turn-on”. It is, in fact, often an exercise in futility and frustration to be confronted by people with the gall to tell you how you feel about your country based on your views on its current leadership. Bush and his decisions do not equal America, and any attempt to suggest so should be treated with the most serious of skepticism.
If 70 Senators cast a dumb vote, why should Hillary make it 71?
Senate Republicans refused to allow an up-or-down vote on the various Iraq bills but were happy to bring this bill to the floor. They don’t have the guts to go on record supporting a continuation of the war, but are delighted to pass a meaningless bill condemning an advocacy ad.
Given the disaster in Iraq, one would hope that their priorities would have been different.
So people who think that character assassination is bad are dumb.
BTW, would you mind not trying to spin everything?
Aaron, go look at the other comments in the other discussion about this very issue. Take a look at Andy’s comments about Senators Kerry and Cleland. Take a look at the fact that the Republicans filibustered a resolution condemning all such attacks. Then come back and try to defend your principled stand on character assassination, wouldja?
Fargus, please – the Democratic ‘alternative’ resolution was an absolutely transparent attempt to ’spin’ the issue and avoid the vote at hand, which was specifically about condemning the MoveOn ad…no one was fooled, and I suspect you weren’t, either…
Eric, the Kos poster who admitted her crush on Ahmadinejad specifically admitted that it was NOT only about the current American leadership, but ‘generations’ of American foreign policy. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension is in order before you come slinging stones – but the ad hominem diversion is part and parcel of progressive tactics, so I’m not surprised you come here not to condemn Ahmadinejad, but rather conservatives…
Peter, think I’m conjuring a strawman, perhaps? Here’s the ‘learned’ Professor Juan Cole at Salon:
…[T]he U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran’s 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament.
There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran’s rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.
If you can find a more craven example of ’sympathy for the devil’, so to speak…well, here’s a contender, our old friend Glenn Greenwald:
All of the hysteria over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speaking at Columbia University is so tiresome for so many reasons, beginning with the fact that it is all rather transparently motivated by exactly what Juan Cole says: “The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.”
In their minds, we are at war with Iran — even though, in reality, i.e., according to our Constitution, we are not — and all of the ensuing hysteria is rooted in the fantasy world they occupy in which Iran is our Enemy at War. By their nature, such fantasies cannot be reasoned with.
You see, it’s not about Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust denial, execution of homosexuals, and calls for the destruction of Israel – no, it’s those damn neocons again.
Sheesh…
And if you want to see more apologetics in action from the DKos crowd, read this ‘progressive’ try to convince the world that Bush and/or conservatives are more ‘anti-gay’ than the Iranian president who has them summarily executed…this diary is current high on the ‘recommended’ list…
Mark: I really don’t care what Juan Cole or dailykos bloggers have to say — your statement was that “the Democratic leadership” is sympathetic to Ahmadinejad — can you name a single person in the Democratic leadership who has said anything remotely positive about him?
Not to threadjack, but what exactly is the point of this exercise? Mark, you claim a number of progressives hate America/American values. I’ll grant that, and raise you “a number of conservatives – like the aforementioned Jerry Falwell, who is dead but whose views are certainly shared by many on the right – hate America/American values”. Where do we go from here? If Hillary has to denounce MoveOn, how come the President never has to denounce all the batty things people like Falwell and Dobson said/say? Who cares what nutty people are doing? And why in the world should we “question the alliance” between people who think Ahmadinejad has a point about American foreign policy (which is, you know, TRUE) and the Democratic leadership, but just sort of accept the alliance between the Republicans and the people who want all-out war with Iran, who support unwarranted surveillance and torture, and who would like nothing more than to be able to agree with Ahmadinejad when he says gays don’t exist? When the President is meeting with people who are as certifiably insane as Norman Podhoretz and who happen to also, you know, be American citizens, why isn’t that a bigger problem?
And since when does the New York Times count as an arm of the Democratic Party? I understand you dislike that it’s liberal – although its liberalism pales in comparison to the all-out conservative onslaught that is Fox News – but how does the NYT granting a sweet deal to the MoveOn count as some deep problem for the Democrats? (Please note: I am as happy as anyone to see a paper like the NYT – which supported the patently unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law it seems to be running up against – get their comeuppance, but that doesn’t stop me from defending their right – which we both acknowledge – to print whatever the hell they want.)
Just what do you hope to accomplish here, Mark? I want a simple statement of purpose that lays out exactly what the productive effects of out-and-out character assassination are. Because that’s what you’re doing here. You take up plenty of space condemning the character assassination of the MoveOn ad but then engage in roughly the same thing yourself. What is the value of an exercise in questioning the patriotism of your opponents (from either side)? Please explain it, because it seems like the “politics of destruction” to me.
Jeez, Mark, usually you’re more reasoned than this. The Republicans wanted to talk about anything but the war, so they seized on the Moveon thing. And not content to give up on slamming anyone and everyone who disagrees on me, they filibustered a resolution that would call them out as the hypocrites they are.
Get that? They filibustered a resolution. A non-binding resolution condemning political attacks on members of the military. Because they don’t care about principle, they only care about their member of the military, and about distracting from the disaster that is the war.
I’m awfully disappointed in your responses here, Mark. I expect that kind of crap from Andy, but from you it’s a huge let-down.
Mark? Mark?
Bueller? Bueller?
Be it far from me to pile on to our gracious host. I’ll simply refer to gooses and ganders. What is a gander, anyway?
Here’s some red meat for you:
There was enormous pressure on Columbia University to deny Ahmadinejad a forum. Sidney Silver, the Speaker of the New York Assembly, threatened to withdraw state funding due to his speech. In my view, this is shameful — freedom of speech ought to be absolute, even if the views expressed are abhorrent — but his threats were warmly received by many,
As a result of the invasion of Iraq, tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocents are now dead. This is exponentially worse than anything Ahmadinejad has ever done. Should George Bush be denied a forum to speak?
Sorry, guys, very busy day at work (they’re all like that nowadays – one reason I had to start blogging less).
Fargus, Ryan, peter, you guys are all valued friends of this blog, and I’m sorry to disappoint you – but I have to once again tell you, whether you believe me or not, that from my own personal experience, many, if not most, self-described ‘progressives’ were treating the speech yesterday like an appearance from a rock star. I got in a heated argument this morning with a group who were practically writing love letters to the man because they fell for his transparent smoke screen about “the Holocaust having nothing to do with the Palestinians”, as if it were the Palestinians and not his Holocaust denial that was the issue.
I then pointed out that he also said there were no gays in Iran – then was lectured on how this country also doesn’t like gays. My response, reasonably enough, was “True, but we don’t summarily execute them”. I was then assured that we do!
Why am I going to all this trouble? To illustrate the incredibly absurd pretzel logic employed to ‘justify’ this great, great man’s utterances, great for one reason only – he hates Bush and Israel.
Does that bother me? Yes, it does, enormously…in fact, it downright pisses me off…This man is, as I said, a bigoted Holocaust denier. Look at the leading ‘progressive’ lights and their response to Ahmadinejad, and tell me that I’m wrong – but give me some hard samples, please. I’ll be glad to be proven wrong, I’m just not seeing it.
Peter, I never stated that the leading Democrats embraced Ahamadinejad – I said that they are cozy with extremists who do, simply because they are big donors who make a a lot of noise. Am I wrong? Look at George Soros’s contributions to some of these groups, contributions that are literally their lifeblood – should he be bankrolling “Betray Us” ads? Follow his money sometime and see where it leads.
Let me make one thing clear – I WANT a strong Democratic Party, unlike some of my fellow conservatives. Our democracy is stronger when we have two strong alternatives. I point out these associations not out of glee, but out of anger that people who should know better, such as Hillary Clinton, are silent when their voices could have the most impact. The “Sister Souljah” analogy is way overused, but that doesn’t make it wrong…
Mark: your prayers have been answered — we have a strong Democratic Party. That’s why the GOP got a “thumping” last fall.
I’ll support the Democratic Party refuting moveon.org ads once the GOP refutes what Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and other like-minded idiots have to say.
Do we get to count Markos as a progressive, Mark? Because he says: “The best weapon against Ahmadinejad is ridicule. This is a guy that claims there are no gay people in Iraq. And we’re supposed to quake in our boots? Laugh at the guy.”
How is that supportive in any way? Agreeing with Ahmadinejad that American foreign policy in the region has something to do with the way angry young Arabs interact with the US isn’t treason – unless you’re calling me a traitor too.
Ryan, I’m glad to see Markos say that – seriously. That’s the kind of thing I hope to hear from progressives on this issue. Truly, I hope there is a lot more of that – because he’s right in this case.
Peter, I mean more than ’strong’ electorally – I’m speaking of a much deeper strength here – I’m talking about the strength to take a stand when one needs to be taken.
And enough with the Bill O’Reilly, Pat Robertson, etc., etc…that’s just a tactic to close debate on the issue – I’m talking specifically about two things: an outrageous advertisement and a visit by the Iranian president. The next time Rush Limbaugh calls a sitting general a traitor in a full page ad in the New York Times, I’ll be right there to condemn it with you…
I don’t want to force a position on Peter, but mine is simply this: why should people in positions of power have to condemn the crazy things that their supporters say? I mean, unless MoveOn or Rush or whoever is saying things that are patently bad – like “black people are inferior” or “kill the Jews” or some such – what difference does it really make? I don’t hold Hillary accountable for MoveOn and I don’t hold the president accountable for Rush. NPod is slightly different, I guess, in that the President physically met with him and had positive things to say about his insanity.
Unless MoveOn is saying things that are patently bad? The commanding general in Iraq is a traitor doesn’t count?…
As for why should people in power “have to condemn crazy things their supporter say”…they don’t “have to”. They “should”. Because it’s the right thing to do…
First of all: the moveon.org ad did not call Patreus a traitor. There was a question mark in the header and in the body of the text it said that he was “likely” to give testimony which was inaccurate. You may call this weaselly — akin to “when did you stop beating your wife?” — but the fact is that they raised a question which they did not answer. No different than what Fox News does all of the time (“Democrats: abetting terrorists?”} — except Fox News is purportedly a news channel and moveon.org is unabashedly an advocacy organization.
Secondly: let’s go back to when Karl Rove said that Democrats give “tea and sympathy” to terrorists and George Bush and Dick Cheney equated a vote for Democrats with a vote for bin Laden. Did you see the GOP (or the right) say anything about that? Why should the Democrats disavow what moveon.org says?
_
Peter, with all due respect, if you want to peddle the idea that the question mark removes the accusation – well, I’m not buying, and I won’t be in the market at any time in the future, either…look, you can throw up smokescreens all day (what about Karl Rove? What about Rush Limbaugh? What about Genghis Khan? What about Big Bird?), and it won’t change the fact that you’re dodging the issue…if it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do. It doesn’t matter what the other guy does…that’s a very dodgy concept of morality, and I expect more from the leaders of both parties. When the issue is the Republicans, we’ll deal with the Republicans…I assume from your constant equivocations that you will abstain from condemning the Republicans when that day does come again, however, since you are quite clearly okay with Hillary’s conduct here.
So be it…we may have occasion to see if your standard still applies when the shoe is on the other foot…
Let me leave you guys with one more thought re: Hillary. It is certainly not Hillary’s obligation to seek out every nutjob on the left and apologize for his conduct. That’s ridiculous on the face of it. It’s quite another matter, though, when the public and major news media outlets are actively seeking Hillary’s view as in the case of the MoveOn ad. She was asked directly about it, in other words, and rather than do the honorable thing and condemn the slur on the man leading our war efforts in the theater, she resorted to a lame formulation of her past support and declined to criticize the ad or the organization that placed it.
When the question has been put to you bluntly, and you pass, you fail, if you get my drift…
Supporters of the war, as I said, who want nothing more than to talk about something other than the war. What’s the real tragedy here, Mark? You can’t tell me you’re really this torn up about this, or that you really think MoveOn was calling Petraeus a traitor. If his name was General Barry Stickings, they would have called him General Cherry Picking. It was nothing but a convenient, if none too clever, phonetic play on his name. Looking at the odious nonsense that Andy, your ideological compatriot for the most part, is willing to say about military members who happen to be Democrats, makes me think this is nothing but politicking on your part, and on the parts of all those on the right feigning such indignation.
As far as Ahmadinejad goes, I don’t know who you think the leading progressive lights are, but I suggest you check out Kevin Drum, or Glenn Greenwald, or Josh Marshall, or Steve Benen, and then come back and try to tell me that the whole of progressive thought is having a love affair with Ahmadinejad. The notion is preposterous.
Mark, you’re holding up pretty well. So I’ll leave you with this
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/theyll_kill_me_.html
(H/T to one of the conservative blogs, IIRC Michelle Malkin or Powerline)
An example of one getting off relatively lightly in Iran. I’d challenge anyone to show me how the horrors of Bush policies even comes close.
You appear not even to know what people are talking about in here, Andy. Do try to keep up, would you?
I’d aimed my link at gay folks, unfortunately the S&M types seemed turned on by Ahmadinejad as a hardcore whipper.
As for military members, heros or otherwise average GI Joes, that happen to be Democratic, I hold plenty in esteem from Andrew Jackson to Scoop Jackson to John Glenn, to my neighbors across the street or at work, even if I don’t agree with some or most of their politics.
Kerry on the other hand was a disgrace to the uniform. Demanding a purple heart for a bandaid? Puleeze. If I had a medal for every scratch, I’d be so weighed down, they’fd have to wheel me around. Plain & simple, he was a brooding sissy boy. Funny how some of his band of brothers had to slink off the stage when records show that they couldn’t have served together at certain points in time as claimed. Kerry’s saga in Nam is full of holes, and they’re aren’t bullet holes. Bottomline is that I have known and met heros and Kerry is no hero in my book.
Cleland was more interesting as a loser than he was as a winner. He did nothing to distinguish himself during his time in office. He won his Senate seat in 1996 by a mere 30,000 votes, with just 49 percent of the vote. Integrity has to be questioned when he continuously allows the media to lead people to believe he lost both legs and an arm during combat in Vietnam. Did Cleland serve in Nam? Yes, but the truth is that his injuries came from a moment of drunken folly. Until he descended into BDS, he was a fairly conservative Democratic. That changed when Kerry picked him as a useful victim to be played for sympathy votes and just as casually discarded when used up. Bottomline is that I have known and met heros and Cleland is no hero in my book.
If that’s odious, then I should accept it as a badge of honor and thank you for the callout.
Andy, all the sources I can find about Cleland being drunk, like you claim, are right-wing hacks, with Ann Coulter lying at the top of the disgusting heap. Please find me an unbiased link for this, or else I’ll be forced to conclude that it’s nothing but a base smear. Nothing new for you. Cleland is a Vietnam vet who was the recipient of the Silver Star and the Bronze Star, for valor in combat. But he’s also the proud bearer of a (D) after his name, so you do your nasty little duty and parrot the lies that help you not have to listen to anything he says.
As for Kerry, there’s serious disagreement, from people who were there with him, about the allegations made by the SBVs, which you’re parroting here. You’d think that in the course of 3 years you could have refined the attacks to something that wasn’t, at the very least, under heavy dispute.
Fargus, all the sources that I can find about Cleland being wounded in “combat” or “about to go on a combat mission” are left-wing hacks, with Molly Ivins at the top.
I couldn’t find an unbiased link as requested, but look no further than the old gray lady as the last word. Then again, having been caught in a multitude of lies concerning the Petraeus ad, I’ll understand if you’re skeptical of this NYT article:
Like I said, Cleland was a decent bluedog until he hooked up with Kerry and got the case of BDS. Continually letting people think that he was wounded in combat, when the truth was that he and his comrades were at a relaxed posture would be misleading. No?
Kerry… Between the SBV & Kerry’s posse, what other way do we have of getting at the troooth? Oh yeah, Kerry could have ALL of his military released to put it to rest, once and for all. Didn’t he promise to do that like back in 2004 and here we are 3 years later. Glad I didn’t hold my breath. I’m still waiting for him to convert & post his Super8s on YouTube.
Then the inconsistencies in his seared, seared recollections and memoirs. I can understand and excuse embellishments, especially when they make for a good story. But the shit Kerry was spinning weren’t yarns or tall tales, he was a Rambo poseur. Then there’s the Winter Soldier saga, full of odious caca. So much for GI Kerry.
And I got other issues with him as a Senator, particularly his role on the MIA and Armed Services committee. There are plausible allegations that he spiked damming evidence of POWs being held after the war, but his efforts to cripple the modernization of the armed forces is undisputed.
As for the media’s complicity in promoting Kerry the battle-scarred hero, I think the Boston Globe takes the prize:
I’m surprised that out of the six writers, not one had the common sense to figure that it’d be hard for anyone to hear them if they’re standing 5 yards away with a stiff wind at his back.
Fargus, stop feeding the troll. Andy isn’t worth the oxygen he wastes.
Fargus, have you read the text of the MoveOn ad? Can you honestly believe that it was not a particularly egregious case of character assassination?
Since you’ve been so free to characterize my motivations as politically driven, I hope you don’t mind if I return the favor – and if I suggest to you my strong belief that no thinking person could read that ad and read it as anything other than a piece of slime. The ad says Petraeus is constantly at war with the facts. It rhymes his name with Betray Us not once, but twice. It says that if he suggests a long presence is needed, he will become General Betray Us. That is in fact what he suggested. It says he is ‘cooking the books’ for the White House.
No, my friend, let’s not play the fools. The ad speaks for itself. I’m tired of the acrobatic apologetics. Read the ad, once, twice, three times slowly, and tell me again that you don’t think it accuses the general of being a lying, traitorous toady.
Enough of the b.s., my friend – seriously…
And you tell me why it’s OK that the Senators who agree with you don’t want to speak out against doing that in general.
Are you saying that there’s something that says it’s somehow wrong to criticize a general in a time of war? Where is that in the law, Mark?
Fargus, fine…yes, call a general a traitor because of policy differences, and a liar, and a toady…marvelous.
Thanks, but no thanks…I’m officially done…
The treason angle is your frame, Mark. I understand that you need to keep parroting it to make it seem more legitimate, but that doesn’t make it more true.
Ooooh. Now I’m a troll
Trolling since Mark began blogging.
BETRAY:
tr.v., -trayed, -tray·ing, -trays.
1.
a. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one’s country.
b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one’s better nature.
3. To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
4. To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
5. To reveal against one’s desire or will.
6. To lead astray; deceive. See synonyms at deceive.
General Petraeus = General “Betray Us”
Any questions?
Fargus, truly, you’re way off base here…read 1(a) above again very closely, then Google the MoveOn ad, then see if you can connect the dots…you’re a smart person, and I’m finding this exercise a bit humiliating…for you…
Yeah. Read 2, also. I don’t know if you know this (I would have assumed you did, but your comments show otherwise), but words sometimes have more than one definition. Read 3. Read 6. Betray != Treason, as you’d have it. This is embarrassing for me? You’re the one who has to abandon knowledge of homonyms to bolster his position.
Methinks the ordering of homonyms is ranked by common/popular usage. IOW, ask 99% of the people to define “Betray” and they’d pick #1 and so on. #s 2,3 & 6 come to mind less readily or not at all.
It is a stretch for those carrying water for MoveOn to insist that they meant #6 in referring to Petraeus. OK, fine! Now, I’m intrigued by the definition of the fourth use of “Betray”.
What are we to make of the sudden spate of laughing fits as Hillary made the talk-show rounds. What ideas are being betrayed here?
I’m just saying…
Are you saying Hilary’s a traitor? How dare you Andy? That’s beyond the pale. I’m going to write your Congressman and demand he decry your remarks here about a sitting US Senator.
This conversation gets sillier by the second. Interestingly, though, by definition 1a, “To give aid… to an enemy of,” I think we’ll probably have to count the President as a traitor. It’s hard to think of a lot of ways to give more aid to our so-called enemies (them durty turrurrists) than the Iraq War. Of course, that also makes most of the Senate and a good bit of the House traitors. Not that that’s the least bit surprising.
[inner voice: 'This is your cue to laugh, 3. 2. 1.']
[/cackling]
Haha, Fargus, now you’re cracking me up
H/T Jon Stewart
You may contact Mary Fallin, my Congresswoman, whom I met last week btw at one of her VRWC meeting. And she’s definitely against the DREAM act and HillaryCare 1.0 and HillaryCare 2.0
BTW, here’s that Jon Stewart video link
http://jameshudnall.com/blog.php/site/the_first_robot_american/
Mark: So, let’s make this clear. Your position is that when a reporter asks a question of any public figure, it is that public figure’s duty to answer the question directly? At least, that’s what this sounds like:
So, the ONLY honorable thing to do is xxx. When all else fails, make your argument contain certitude and you win! Hooray.
Seriously though, just because a news organization asks a question doesn’t mean it needs to be dignified with a response. News organizations create drama, especially when it involves other news organizations. It’s always been like this. One paper comments on another paper and then all of that paper’s “enemies” pick it up and out burps a disgusting story that doesn’t affect anyone in any way. All it does it put all of this in the public’s eye, when most of them don’t read the NYT anyway and now village idiots everywhere are saying “yeah, Petraeus sucks!”
Yea America!