It's a sad day in America when our privacy in church is so egregiously assaulted, and so many otherwise thoughtful Americans cheer it on.
Yes, that's a good point. There are a number of good points in this and that is one of them. My impression of Bill's issue with this is the dirty-tricks aspect of obtaining the story. That's a valid issue. I can acknowledge them yet still assert that the general was wrong.
As a retired Fed, I recognize the special responsibilities Feds have. We do not have the same freedom to express ourselves that ordinary citizens do, not while on active duty. Every department has specific rules. Whether or not the general broke any of his explicit ones, I don't know. But I do know that he clearly broke the general rule about not doing anything to negatively affect public confidence in the government. There is to be no appearance of a conflict of interest. Not just a conflict of interest but an appearance of a conflict of interest. I was careful about that despite the cost to me. The general should have been as well.
Often hereabouts I see people fussing about leakers. Often I see the loyal opposition called traitors. Yet here we have a general who publicly contradicted his commander and chief and put his country at risk and yet there's no mention of the t-word, no recognition of the wrong he did.
You and I have had discussions in the past about "black and white." Well, here's a perfect example where the situation is complex and there could be multiple wrongs. That the guy may have been ambushed or that his words may have been distorted can be wrong without giving the general a pass on his wrongs. That is my point and has been all along. The general was wrong, whether or not anyone else was wrong, in addition.
Well, we have left wing newspaper reporters for major newspapers manipulate his church speeches with phony quotes, then provide small snipits of the rest of his speech in order to denigrate his career and call on him to be fired.
This General has probably risked his life for the freedoms we enjoy more often then we can imagine. He's probably worked long hours, under many arduous conditions for decades for little reward, except the knowledge that he was doing his duty to America.
Since when does having risked one's life and worked long hours give one a pass for life? We have cops who do that yet get prosecuted when in one instance they abuse a suspect. The guy can be both devoted and wrong in this instance. That's my point. I do wish you could acknowledge it.
Shall confessionals be secretly taped and snippets of them broadcast to the world as major news events?
Go ahead and finish up with a dash of hyperbole. I take your point on that, I really do. I just don't think that one's distaste for the methods of the press, even the leftie press, excuses the actions that the press reports, although I acknowledge that hyperbole and misdirection like that tend to obscure it.
And he was still wrong no matter his distinguished career. One can acknowledge his distinguished career and still find him wrong on this count. You attribute this all to a scheme to discredit a distinguished general's career. Maybe people sit around in news rooms around the country dreaming of opportunities to find some general they can denigrate but that seems far fetched to me. It could have been that they heard about a general who was behaving inappropriately and found it newsworthy. That the general was a religious rightie may have sweetened that discovery and it may have triggered this effusive piling on, but I seriously doubt that the intent of the story was to discredit anyone's distinguished career. Ill intent may make us angry or sympathetic but it does not change the facts.
Others judge him instantly in the most negative way, even going so far as to call into question his patriotism.
I am not questioning his patriotism in the sense that he loves his country and wouldn't intentionally do anything to hurt it but I sure am questioning his judgment and his loyalty as an officer in this instance, which is a component of patriotism.
In summary, this is a complex issue with the potential for multiple wrongs. Some people just see the wrongs done by the "other side." Some see all of them and assess each objectively. Some see all of them but focus on the one or two highest in their hierarchy of values. I think that disloyalty in a general is more important than the privacy of a giving a speech in a church. Others may differ and I have no problem with that. That is not the case, though for blindness to or excusing what the general did.
But what's even more astounding is to witness how quickly people are willing to by the entire story hook-line-and sinker, when all we've seen is a few snippets from a known manipulator of news.
If the Times and NBC were wrong on the facts, then they have a lot to answer for and owe a monster apology, and a lot of bucks, to the general and they should lose their jobs. In the meantime, I'm assuming that the news reports are more or less true. |
