Say Anything Blog

Rob, check out 2H9’s post, or the one over on Captain’s Quarters.

As usual, the media is spinning what he says.  He is very critical of the Administration in a number of respects, but I don’t think any of that criticism is unfair (blunt, but honest).

One of the main points of his commentary was actually on media bias and distortion of news.  Funny that they distort this in their characteristic way.

Another is how partisanship has prevented an effective strategy.  I could give a link to the transcript of his speech, I won’t though because it’s pretty unreadable since it’s in all caps, and not well punctuated transcription....

Thanks Carrick.

I found my self disagreeing with some of the General’s comments, but I didn’t find any of them to be unfair.  My only point was to note that Lt. Gen. Sanchez isn’t exactly objective in all of this either.

He’s still pretty bitter about Abu Ghraib, and the criticism over the lack of progress in Iraq he’s gotten since his command was taken over.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ah,as I predicted the “swiftboating” and “frosting” of Sanchez has begun. Right on cue,Rob.

As long as you are smart enough to realize that “Swiftboating” means to reveal the truth about the speaker, you are right.

---

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Ah, again,the seriously BAS-afflicted R108 never ceases to amaze.

Just another disgruntled former General attempting to exploit his service to our country to support the Dems by lying about his own lack of accomplishments, like Kerry and all the other “soldiers” who wish to contribute to the destruction of the war against terrorism.  Just another “useful idiot” for the neocommunists to use.

---

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Puzzlefeet--

Do you want to know why only 13% of American’s trust the media? Keep reading.

As the General said in his speech, the media are a bunch of unethical, agenda driven, uncaring about the truth if it doesn’t fit their agenda, deceivers of the American people and responsible for the deaths of our servicemen and woman.

And that’s just what I’m taking from memory. There’s a lot more were that came from. Now I bet you don’t like that part of his speech. Do you? 

Thank god for “swiftboating.”

Coffee260, assuming arguendo you are right.  Now the rest of his comments, hmmm.....

Oh R108, is seriously suffering from BAS, it never fails when general or other ranking official says something bad about the war and its leaders, you can always count on R108 to lead the frosting and swiftboating of said person.  along with Rob, R108, right on cue.  Must have gotten your talking points bright and early this morning.

Must have gotten your talking points bright and early this morning.

Actually, unlike lefties, I don’t use any “talking points”; I read the entire transcript, and then read up on the General’s history.  It was easy to see what was really going on.  No organization of veterans was necessary to get the truth, in this case.
I realize you are required to spread the leftie lies, P.

---

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Thank god you’re here, R108, to give the rest of us a lesson on “what’s really going on.” Suffice it to say that BAS has gotten such a hold on you that you can’t even admit your disease.

Did I say something in my post that is inaccurate, Puzzled?  If so, can you point it out please?

Are you suggesting that I’m trying to impugn Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s record?  Are you going to use, as evidence, the part where I called the General “accomplished?”

Did you even read the post, or are you just going to go with your initial knee-jerk reaction?  Did you read the parts of Sanchez’s speech that accused the media of killing soldiers and acting as enemy propagandists?  Or do the parts of what he said not fitting with your preconceived notions get ignored?

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob writes:

Are you suggesting that I’m trying to impugn Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s record?  Are you going to use, as evidence, the part where I called the General “accomplished?”

That part about not impugning him or his being “accomplished” most have gotten lot in between the parts where you called him “the equivalent of a spurned disgruntled ex-employee” or “cantankerous” or “pessimistic” or “his professional ego is no doubt smarting from it” or that “so he has an ax to grind.”

Yeah, Rob, you’re definitely not impugning him.

Rob writes: 

Or do the parts of what he said not fitting with your preconceived notions get ignored?

Right back atcha, Rob.

P: Just keep on spouting the nonsense your handlers feed you.

---

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

What about Sanchez’s assessment of the war is wrong?

Well, the part where he said we’ve made no progress, for one thing.

But back to your critique of my post, Puzzled, I’d still like to see you point out what parts were factually inaccurate.

What’s that?  You can’t?

Yeah, thought so.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

rob writes: 

Well, the part where he said we’ve made no progress, for one thing.

Obviously you didn’t read his comments because you are wrong.
This is what he wrote:

Our commanders will continue to make progress(emphasis mine) and provide time for the development of a grand strategy.  That will be wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the meantime our soliders sailors airmen and marines will continue to die. Since the start of this war America’s leadership has known that our military alone ccould not achieve victory in Iraq. 

Starting in July 2003,the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never achieve “victory” in Iraq.  Our soliders, sailors airmen and marines were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without the focused,synchronized application of all elements of national power.  This was a necessary condition to stabilze Iraq.  Any sequential solutions would lead to a prolonged conflict and increased resistance.

The fact that you claim to not be denigrating the general by using a single word “accomplished” in your diatribe and then go on and spend six full paragraphs impugning his integrity is indeed swiftboating and frosting him.  That you deny it is typical.

How did I impugn is integrity?  He is bitter over a perceived scapegoating after Abu Ghraib.  He has been criticized by his peers for failing to recognize the insurgency and develop a unified military response to it.  And he is just one voice among, literally, thousands of generals both retired and active.

These are the points I made.  I hard think that bringing factual context to the issue is a “swiftboating.” Not that you’re capable of admitting you’re wrong.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I will apologize, though, for implying that the general said there is no progress in Iraq.  He said there is “no end in site.” Pretty much the same thing in my mind, but for the sake of placating Puzzled’s pedantry I prostrate myself before you all and beg your forgiveness.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob writes: 

I hard think that bringing factual context to the issue is a “swiftboating.”

What you wrote is your opinion Rob, not fact.  You said he is bitter, he didn’t say it.  You said he was the equivalent of a spurned employee, again, your opinion.  You have not shown any facts to prove he is a spurned employee, much less anything else.  Simply your assumptions.  He stands up for the military throughout his speech and the progress and quality of the military. 

That you find your opinion to be factual and call me pedantic for pointing out a glaring error in your post which was the point of your response is typical as usual for the righties here. And the snarkiness at the end fits with the rest of your diatribe, Rob.

Puzzelfeet thinks that reporting on what the General actually said instead of media accounts of it is “swiftboating”.  Pretty hilarious.

She right of course, if she means “reveal the truth hidden behind the media agenda”.

Rob:

I found my self disagreeing with some of the General’s comments, but I didn’t find any of them to be unfair.  My only point was to note that Lt. Gen. Sanchez isn’t exactly objective in all of this either.

Well I didn’t agree entirely either.  I’ve brought up the issue in the past about “what ifs.” All we can say is if we were to have increased our resource allocation at the start, that we would have avoided the problems we are having now.

That isn’t the same thing as saying it wouldn’t have made things worse in another way.  For example, it’s completely conceivable that we might have had wide Arab support for the insurgency, and the insurgency might then have avoided some of the bigger mistakes they’ve made that has alienated them with the general population.

I also agree that Sanchez is bit bitter over his treatment by the press regarding Abu Gharab.  He says as much in his speech.  So technically he’s a “bitter ex-employee” but I don’t think particularly bitter towards George Bush.  I really think he’s just calling things the way he sees them.  Given the failure that his war policies were, you can take that for what it’s worth though.

Puzzlefeet:

You said he is bitter, he didn’t say it.  You said he was the equivalent of a spurned employee, again, your opinion. 

If you actually read his speech, it will be very clear that he was bitter over a number of things. Mostly towards his unfair treatment by the press.  Possibly over not being listened to more in the lead-up to the war, and also feeling like he was a “fall guy”.

I suppose you will also stand behind him on this, which was also in his speech?

America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their soveriegnty in achieving a solution.

[Reformatting due to the Captain]

Carrick: So, it turns out that it is the MSM that is being Swiftboated here, in that their heavily biased and inaccurate report of what he said is being refuted by the truth.

---

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Possibly over not being listened to more in the lead-up to the war, and also feeling like he was a “fall guy”.

The “fall guy” feeling is what led me to say that he’s bitter with President Bush.  I got the feeling that he felt the Bush administration hung him out to dry.

But that’s just my take.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Robert108:

Carrick: So, it turns out that it is the MSM that is being Swiftboated here, in that their heavily biased and inaccurate report of what he said is being refuted by the truth.

That’s completely correct!

It obviously is just wrong to either use their own words against them, or to include part of the omitted text that they intentionally left out as inconsistent with their narrative.