At this point, Fred, you're starting to sound a little desperate.
I mean, seriously, it's like you're writing 3 or 4 editorials a week pleading with us to support Bush in spite of his being a liar and a failure and the worst president ever. What gives? You that worried about Bob Woodward not getting another tell-all book just in time for the next indictment?
Every day brings a new twisted angle in your shut-up-and-salute logic. Today, it's the "we're a nation at war so we'd better listen to the commander in chief and not those mean old generals criticizing Rummy" crap. Oh come on, Fred. That is SO six minutes ago. Most of us stopped buying that line somewhere between duct tape and the 2,000th dead American soldier.
Then there's your classic move - the old "change the subject by dropping a full-blown lie in the middle of the editorial." To wit (or witless):
Anyone who protested the pushback of uniformed military against President Bill Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve ought to also object to generals who criticize the decisions of a president and his defense secretary in wartime.Wow, uniformed generals have stood up and challenged George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld? I haven't seen that anywhere. Please do share with us your super secret source for that one. The only former generals reported on in the media were all retired, and thus not "uniformed" at all. And putting aside the fact that you claimed they were uniformed, they're civilians now and entitled to the same rights of free speech that you are, Fred (I mean, you get to lie on a daily basis, but they don't get to at least tell the truth?). Or is anyone who ever served in the military no longer permitted to voice an opinion in America, "while we're at war?" Is that the new standard, Fred? Shut up, vets?
Getting back to your claim that uniformed generals are openly criticizing Bush, we'd like to see some names. Or are you just lying to your readers, again?
But don't worry, Fred. Sure, we caught you yet again. Lying to your readers, making shit up, whoring for the Bush administration and for a war that you should have spoken out against years ago. But fret not. I'm sure you can give your personal Katherine Harris, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell, a call and get her to pen another article about how the truth doesn't apply to Tinkerbell editorials.
PS One more thing, Fred. Since it's so so so bad for the uniformed military to try to influence the political process, I assume the Washington Post has as strict standard for never accepting leaks or interviews from the uniformed military, right? Oh, but then again, you said that leaks are pretty much per se good, even when they're outright lies like when Bush intentionally leaked false information about the supposed "bio labs" in Iraq. So, uniformed military leaks would be okay but not if the leaker goes on the record? I'm so confused. Help me, Fred.
