Dem lawmakers being "slimed in the Green Zone"

[Measure_for_Measure]

@brazil84

I didn’t pick that up from your OP, which simply said “Who the fuck is behind this?!” That made it sound like you objected to the flyers themselves.

But now I see . . . what’s REALLY got you incensed is that U.S. soldiers (you assume) are engaging in free speech.

Here’s a web site that apparently includes a lot of anti-war statements by active duty soldiers:

http://www.traveling-soldier.org/

I trust that you are outraged that armed forces personnel would engage in this sort of activity.

:rolleyes:

Is anybody here claiming that these flyers are the equivalent of an underground newspaper?

It was my impression that they were produced and distributed by someone in authority. After all, their dissemination was pretty well synced with the arrival of visitors from Congress.

I submit that brazil makes an odd and misleading point.

[magellan01]

@Brain Glutton

Dem lawmakers being “slimed in the Green Zone”

…by their own words.

It doesn’t get any better than that.

[mobo85]

@Squink

Probably The Green slime.

I think you’ve just been whooshed. I was thinking of an entirely different green slime, one that is summoned by the words “I don’t know.”

[brazil84]

@mhendo

Actually, when it comes to discussion of the President and his foreign policy decisions, there are, i believe, specific restrictions on the sort of comments that active-duty armed forces personnel are allowed to make. Our own Airman Doors USAF has been quite clear about this in the past.

Right, which is why BrainGlutton is no doubt outraged about the web site I linked to.

:rolleyes:

[brazil84]

@Measure for Measure

Is anybody here claiming that these flyers are the equivalent of an underground newspaper?

I am. BrainGlutton’s point (Actually, his Plan B) is that soldiers are “supposed to be nonpartisan and apolitical.”

It was my impression that they were produced and distributed by someone in authority. After all, their dissemination was pretty well synced with the arrival of visitors from Congress.

Yeah, because a few low ranking soldiers would never have access to an exotic piece of eqipment like a high speed laser printer.

:rolleyes:

[Measure_for_Measure]

So, just to be clear brazil contends that these flyers were not produced by someone in authority. This is new.

And doubtful. When an official military escort clutches a cleverly biased profile of a visiting dignitary, and this occurs with some frequency, this suggests to me that it was not done on a voluntary and sporadic basis.

This is not a hardware issue; it’s a logistical one. Brazil’s evident ocular problems ( :rolleyes: ! ) are not much of an argument.

Back in reality, Petraeus has been plotting his September evaluation with a concerted PR campaign. Hey, at least the man is competent.

[brazil84]

@Measure for Measure

So, just to be clear brazil contends that these flyers were not produced by someone in authority. This is new.

Lol. Want some extra straw for your strawman?

[Ravenman]

Nobody ever went wrong by not listening to Brazil84’s nonsense.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Er, ok, what are you saying Brazil?

If they were produced by someone in authority, then they are not the equivalent of an underground newspaper.

I asked: “Is anybody here claiming that these flyers are the equivalent of an underground newspaper?”

Brazil said: “I am”, followed by a claim about Brain Glutton.
Do we misunderstand each other or are you not saying anything?

[mhendo]

@brazil84

Right, which is why BrainGlutton is no doubt outraged about the web site I linked to.

:rolleyes:

You’re an idiot.

I was making no comment about BrainGlutton’s motivations.

You made a reference to military personnel engaging in free speech, and i merely pointed out that, when it comes to issues of government policy, military rules (i’m assuming the UCMJ) mean that armed forces personnel don’t operate under quite the same free speech rules as American civilians.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

Nobody ever went wrong by not listening to Brazil84’s nonsense.

I couldn’t even understand what she meant by her post. (**Brazil84 **is a woman, right?)

[brazil84]

@Measure for Measure

Er, ok, what are you saying Brazil?

If they were produced by someone in authority, then they are not the equivalent of an underground newspaper.

Sure they are.

It would be different if BrainGlutton had something like “I am outraged that somebody in authority is distributing this stuff.” But that’s not what he said.

It was only after I observed his lack of principle that the authority/non-authority distinction was raised.

And the fact is that you don’t know who produced these flyers.

Do we misunderstand each other or are you not saying anything?

What I’m saying clear enough.

I’ll lay it out for you:

1. Either BrainGlutton is making a principled argument, or he’s just another partisan idiot who thinks that he is principled.

2. Earlier, he said this:

This is almost certainly the work of someone in the U.S. armed forces, which are supposed to be nonpartisan and apolitical.

3. Thus, the principle he has espoused is that people in the U.S. armed forces should be “nonpartisan and apolitical.”

4. The web site I linked to clearly violates that principle.

5. Thus, if he is principled, he will also condemn that web site.

6. If he doesn’t, he’s just an idiot who is blinded by his own partisanship.

[brazil84]

@mhendo

You made a reference to military personnel engaging in free speech, and i merely pointed out that, when it comes to issues of government policy, military rules (i’m assuming the UCMJ) mean that armed forces personnel don’t operate under quite the same free speech rules as American civilians.

That may be true, but it’s irrelevant to my point. My point is not that the person who distributed the flyers had a legal right to do so. My point is that BrianGlutton seems to be selective in his outrage.

[BrainGlutton]

@brazil84

That may be true, but it’s irrelevant to my point. My point is not that the person who distributed the flyers had a legal right to do so. My point is that BrianGlutton seems to be selective in his outrage.

Certainly I am, and I have a right to be. Officers of the U.S. armed forces, acting in their official capacity, do not. But the individual soldiers who (presumably) set up the website you linked do.

[Measure_for_Measure]

So, if I understand you correctly brazil, you don’t see a distinction between a military officer or administration representative distributing partisan opposition research in an official capacity and posting one’s thoughts on the Iraqi war (whether pro or con) on a website?

Depending upon the content and the law, both may be illegal. But only one constitutes an abuse of authority.

[brazil84]

@BrainGlutton

Certainly I am, and I have a right to be. Officers of the U.S. armed forces, acting in their official capacity, do not. But the individual soldiers who (presumably) set up the website you linked do.

Ok, so what you are really outraged about is that the flyers were the work of 1 or more officers acting in their official capacity?

[brazil84]

@Measure for Measure

So, if I understand you correctly brazil, you don’t see a distinction between a military officer or administration representative distributing partisan opposition research in an official capacity and posting one’s thoughts on the Iraqi war (whether pro or con) on a website?

You don’t understand me correctly.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Ooooookay.

I guess brazil would have a problem if Karl Rove or his representatives distributed partisan literature to marines escorting members of Congress. Possibly. You see, brazil is a rather slippery poster.

Either way, I fail to see BrainGlutton’s hypocrisy: surely there’s a problem if military officers acting in an official capacity are pushing a partisan agenda. OTOH, it is conceivable that partisanship has altered brazil’s perceptions, leading to confusion between the speck in BrainGlutton’s eye and the plank in her own.

[elucidator]

We should be grateful that our heroes don’t simply mow down those liberal pansies right on the spot! Of course, they wouldn’t know what their targets looked like, because they don’t…

Uh oh.

[brazil84]

@Measure for Measure

Ooooookay.

I guess brazil would have a problem if Karl Rove or his representatives distributed partisan literature to marines escorting members of Congress.

Want to know something funny? I have no idea who Karl Rove is.

surely there’s a problem if military officers acting in an official capacity are pushing a partisan agenda.

I don’t disagree with this statement. If the first post in this thread had been a complaint about military officers acting in an official capacity and pushing a partisan agenda, I doubt I would have posted. At most I might have questioned the apparent assumption that the flyer was the work of of “military officers acting in an official capacity.”

Re-read the first post. BrainGlutton seemed to be complaining about the flyers themselves. He doesn’t say anything about officers pushing a partisan agenda.

OTOH, it is conceivable that partisanship has altered brazil’s perceptions, leading to confusion between the speck in BrainGlutton’s eye and the plank in her own.

Nope. Actually I don’t have a strong opinion about the War in Iraq.