Thanks for the thoughtful response kholt, I enjoyed reading it and it gave me a far better understanding of where you stand. Interestingly, I largely agree with this version, but do believe the invasion of privacy far outweighs anything the General may or may not have said. Which I point out we still don't know, and which I further point out has already been manipulated with unfounded quotes by the writer in question.
I also don't believe the issue is that complex. We are war with muslim fanatics. They murdered thousands of our citizens in cold blood. The last thing we should be doing as a nation is attacking our generals and giving the enemy ammunition from which to engender more support. Not only did the writer invade the generals privacy in a church setting, he also purposefully denigrated a military leader in a time of war, for what appears to be no other reason then to spit on christian fundamentalism in general.
He's free to do this because we have people like the general willing to spend their lives defending America's values. He's also free to be held up as some kind of hero by those on the radical left who despise the military in practically all its forms. Just as I am free to criticize his criticism, and call into question his patriotism as an American citizen. I mean really, what was the point of manipulating his quotes by adding in "Jihad" where it never existed? Do you think it's likely he hadn't considered it might be used by our enemies to engender more support for their cause of killing Americans?
The general may have been wrong in regard to what he said if some of the transcripts are accurate. I acknowledged that from the very beginning and still acknowledge it. However, if the shoe is to fall on one side of the aisle or another, my shoe definitely falls toward giving the general the benefit of the doubt, especially, since the writer in question has already been shown to manipulate quotes, and for some strange reason is unwilling to release the full transcripts of the church speeches. |
