« Asserting that McConnell "lied" | Main | Buchanan likes Kucinich?! »

September 13, 2007


As I understand it Rudolph "demanded" the equivalent of the fairness doctrine from the New York Times. Considering the amount of unreported money that Murdoch's Fox Propaganda has given Rudolph, in expensive television time, for 'free' with a worshipful host lauding everything Rudolph has done, isn't there some grotesque hypocrisy that such a demand by a Democratic leader of Murdoch's Fox would be assailed by the right?

It's been said that political criticisms of a general during wartime are off limits. That may or may not be, but it doesn't apply here. Petraeus has entered the political arena (not just this week either) and thus has forfeited any such immunity that he might otherwise enjoy. Hilary's doubts are mild in comparison to Guiliani's vitriol.

Does saying that believing Petraeus "require(s) the willing suspension of disbelief" mean "Petraeus is lying"? What else could it mean?

Did Rudy mean voters should not allow Hillary to get away with slandering Petraeus? Who else could he be talking about? Rudy's ad features Hillary's statement, so he is not trying to muzzle her.

Precisely, ERF. Brendan is reading into Giuliani's statement a limit on free speech that isn't there, except for the limit that all politicians who want to win elections exercise on their own speech.

Note, btw, that Brendan refers to Senator Clinton's and MoveOn.org's "criticism" of General Petraeus and to Giuliani's "attack" on Senator Clinton. Once again, Brendan alerts us to his own ideological preferences by his choice of words. When it comes from the left, it's a criticism; when it comes from the right, it's an attack.

Hello Rob,

No matter how accurate you and I are with these lances, the windmills just keep turning as if we hadn't even rode up.

If you guys are done with the high fiving, understand that most of us interpret "you should not be allowed " as a limiting phrase. There's no reading into it at all. Note, too, that Giuliani has a foot-in-mouth problem that is affecting his campaign. He is famous for trying to reinterpret things he has said previously (such as being down at Ground Zero longer than rescue workers).

I would love to see Clinton and Giuliani derail each other's campaigns.

Is thinking Rob's and my efforts are futile "high fiving"?

Isn't the phrase "voters should not allow Hillary to get away with slandering Petraeus?" a type of limitation on Hillary?

Isn't this phrase most likely to be what Rudy meant, since other interpretations of his unclear statement are far-fetched?

Does anyone think Rudy meant "jack-booted government thugs should torture any Democrat who utters the phrase 'willing suspension of disbelief'"?


I don't know what you're talking about. When the Swift Boats went after John Kerry, Hannity sided with them. When 527's go after conservatives, all of a sudden it's a problem. Listen to the audio again if you don't see the context, but stop the subjective nonsense that their conversation is open to interpretation. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Here's a column that shows the absurdity of people such as Hannity who condemn the very over-the-top rhetoric that they use every day:

Glenn Greenwald

I'm starting to understand:

1) Rudy's words definitely mean he wants jack-booted government thugs to torture any Democrat who utters the phrase 'willing suspension of disbelief'.

2) We know this because Sean Hannity sided with the Swift Boat guys (and because any other interpretation is selective nonsense and/or hypocrisy).

Anything is possible in your world, I guess. Don't tell me, you're not a Republican, you're an "Independent", right? Coming here to fight the good fight, eh?

The comments to this entry are closed.