How many times are we going to let them get away with this shit?

[11 Bravo]

It's not like the Republican playbook is a secret anymore. They probably hold the patent on this move. First, latch onto a random statement or event. Then, with the complicit help of a lapdog media, inflate the non-event into a national scandal. Next, insist that Democrats who had nothing to do with the statement repudiate it. Finally, enlist 22 spineless Democrats, so afraid of being labeled non-supportive of the troops that they would vote for damned near anything, and there you have it, Democracy in action.
Does anyone remember the execrable Michelle Malkin going on Hardball during the '04 campaign and accusing John Kerry of giving himself a self-inflicted wound? (And trust me, folks, there is pretty much NOTHING worse that a combat troop can be accused of). And what about dough-boy chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss conflating triple-amputee and Silver Star winner Max Cleland with Osama bin Laden? Or maybe the swift-boat liars, whose every word was systematically disproven, by not only the men who actually served on Senator Kerry's boat, but by official US Navy records? Remember the Republican outrage at those contemptible attacks on American warriors? Me neither. If one wished to go on the record in opposition to disrespect for an American serviceman, each of those instances would seem to eclipse a simple "Petraeus/Betray us" play on words.
But not if you're a Republican. To Republicans grunts are nothing more than tools, nice to stand in front of if you need to make a speech. Otherwise, fuck 'em. Cut their benefits and vote against giving them sufficient time between combat tours to decompress, all in the name of "supporting the troops", of course.
And they get away with it. THEY FUCKING GET AWAY WITH IT!

Sometimes I want to hurt someone.

[Gabi Hayes]

1. how about a list of media people (limit it to TV?) who're calling bullshit on this:

they're VERY few and far between:

Olbermann

Abrams

Joan Walsh

not Mark Shields, that's for sure

I'm having a hard time finding any other 'journalists' who disagree with the idea of the damage this does to dems. I'm sure there are some pundits that are connected with the reality based world (that involves dealing with the truth of Petraeus's testimony, rather than killing the messenger), but they don't get so much air time

Shields is much more the rule than the exception: fat, loathsome, apologetic bucket of Vichy smegma that he is

[rusty quoin]

2. I haven't really watched Jim Lehrer since the 90's,

but Mark Shields was good back then.