This time from Dave Rye a Montana con.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/15/montana-conservative-attacks-fallen-soldier-over-op-ed/

home state of Montana, Dave Rye, has chosen to attack him for the op-ed, claiming he and his fellow soldiers weren’t intelligent enough to write it on their own:


I thought Snake was from Texas, not Montana? :confused:


must be the current repub talking point circulating around.

This time from Dave Rye a Montana con.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/15/montana-conservative-attacks-fallen-soldier-over-op-ed/

Just because someone has a better vocabulary than you do, you don't think they wrote what they wrote? Calling the dead soldier a liar? Yeah, that's good supporting the troops right there. Of course, when they "support the troops" they mean, only when they back up the right wing rhetoric. If you come out against it, then you're a free target. Sorry, that's just the way that it is.

It's funny to me that in the article, he talks about the NYT always having an "agenda" as it pertains to the "war". Maybe he should go back, and read the articles and op-eds in the run up to March of 2003, and he would see that just like every other newspaper and news organization in the US at that time, they bent over backwards to cheerlead for invasion, and to back the President. But of course, he wouldn't do that. Stupid arsehat.

Just because someone has a better vocabulary than you do, you don't think they wrote what they wrote? Calling the dead soldier a liar? Yeah, that's good supporting the troops right there. Of course, when they "support the troops" they mean, only when they back up the right wing rhetoric. If you come out against it, then you're a free target. Sorry, that's just the way that it is.

It's funny to me that in the article, he talks about the NYT always having an "agenda" as it pertains to the "war". Maybe he should go back, and read the articles and op-eds in the run up to March of 2003, and he would see that just like every other newspaper and news organization in the US at that time, they bent over backwards to cheerlead for invasion, and to back the President. But of course, he wouldn't do that. Stupid arsehat.

He didn't call the soldier a liar, he said he didn't believe he wrote that piece by himself, that he had a great deal of help. The death of the soldier wouldn't change that fact all that much.

He didn't call the soldier a liar, he said he didn't believe he wrote that piece by himself, that he had a great deal of help.

Didn't he say that he did not think the soldier COULD have written it himself? That goes to capability, not action.

He didn't call the soldier a liar, he said he didn't believe he wrote that piece by himself, that he had a great deal of help. The death of the soldier wouldn't change that fact all that much.

I thought Snake was from Texas, not Montana?


must be the current repub talking point circulating around.



:D

Didn't he say that he did not think the soldier COULD have written it himself? That goes to capability, not action.

It still does not call him a liar, and capability? I don't believe he could have written it in those words either, that isn't to say he couldn't have expressed the same sentiments in a different format. It isn't questioning his intelligence, just saying it doesn't sound like his background.

It still does not call him a liar, and capability? I don't believe he could have written it in those words either, that isn't to say he couldn't have expressed the same sentiments in a different format. It isn't questioning his intelligence, just saying it doesn't sound like his background.

The man called a now dead soldier, his comrade in arms, and his brothers all liars because he didn't think that they wrote it. Keep on believing man, someday you might be right. If you can't see that this guy called these soldiers liars, and well, dumb, then you've missed the point. You also missed the point that also that this guy also said that the NYT has an agenda. Weird how the truth skews towards being liberal. I think Colbert said it best. The truth has a liberal bias. Man, that must hurt.

Again, I reiterate that the republicans LOVE the soldiers... As long as they tout their latest talking point and agree with them 100%. If they don't, well, under the bus they go.

The man called a now dead soldier, his comrade in arms, and his brothers all liars because he didn't think that they wrote it. Keep on believing man, someday you might be right. If you can't see that this guy called these soldiers liars, and well, dumb, then you've missed the point. You also missed the point that also that this guy also said that the NYT has an agenda. Weird how the truth skews towards being liberal. I think Colbert said it best. The truth has a liberal bias. Man, that must hurt.

Again, I reiterate that the republicans LOVE the soldiers... As long as they tout their latest talking point and agree with them 100%. If they don't, well, under the bus they go.

No, it isn't the same thing. the young men injected themselves into the political arena and the question of their writing skills came into question. This happens to fit YOUR agenda so you leap to their defense. They may have told the stories and the ideas may have been their own but I doubt they wrote the piece. Their deaths don't change that. Didn't the story about the Congressman mention that they died in a vehicle accident? You say a bus hit them? In Iraq?

The man called a now dead soldier, his comrade in arms, and his brothers all liars because he didn't think that they wrote it. Keep on believing man, someday you might be right. If you can't see that this guy called these soldiers liars, and well, dumb, then you've missed the point. You also missed the point that also that this guy also said that the NYT has an agenda. Weird how the truth skews towards being liberal. I think Colbert said it best. The truth has a liberal bias. Man, that must hurt.

Again, I reiterate that the republicans LOVE the soldiers... As long as they tout their latest talking point and agree with them 100%. If they don't, well, under the bus they go.

Snake will defend it to the death, because he did the very same thing.

No, it isn't the same thing. the young men injected themselves into the political arena and the question of their writing skills came into question. This happens to fit YOUR agenda so you leap to their defense. They may have told the stories and the ideas may have been their own but I doubt they wrote the piece. Their deaths don't change that. Didn't the story about the Congressman mention that they died in a vehicle accident? You say a bus hit them? In Iraq?

because everyone knows that soldiers are just too stupid to be able to write well. Obviously, if it's well-written and uses big words, and talks something other than the administration party line, then someone must have written it for them.

Cause soldiers could never do something like that. Would never do anything like that.

No, it isn't the same thing. the young men injected themselves into the political arena and the question of their writing skills came into question. This happens to fit YOUR agenda so you leap to their defense. They may have told the stories and the ideas may have been their own but I doubt they wrote the piece. Their deaths don't change that. Didn't the story about the Congressman mention that they died in a vehicle accident? You say a bus hit them? In Iraq?

No, I didn't say a bus hit them. I said they got thrown under the bus, as in this congressman attacked them. It's a figure of speech, please catch up.

No, it doesn't fit my "agenda" it fits the agenda of when someone says something that the republicans don't like, they attack them. Did the Congressman attack their message? Of course not. He attacked them, personally. And then, called them liars and said they were stupid. I'm sorry you're having a hard time reading comprehension and all. Why are you defending what this Congressman said about the troops? I thought you supported them?

Why do you doubt that they wrote the piece? Are you saying non-coms are idiots and don't have a good vocabulary or writing skills? Why do you think they didn't write that op-ed piece? What leads you to that conclusion? Do you know the soldiers who wrote it? You know, it's not hard to believe that they could be educated, and possibly even well read, and they could have good writing skills. Just because they're combat troops doesn't mean they can't express themselves through the written word and all.

As a data point I would just like to note that I began my professional writing career while still an enlisted man in the U.S. Navy. Granted, I was writing for a second-rate motorcycle magazine and not the NYT, and I don't believe I ever used the word "recalcitrant" in my V-Max road tests or helmet law editorials. But I did have better than a sixth-grade vocabulary, and so did plenty of my shipmates.

Oh wait... these guys were in the Army? Nevermind :D