You will just have to get the quote yourself...
The question that I TRIED to ask before that couldn't make its way past the CENSORS is: now that even Pet's military peers and colleagues know him to be Bush's lapdog, can we all embrace the FACT that Pet does not serve the USA and its people but rather the interests of his employer President Bush?
2007-09-24 03:28:10 · 18 answers · asked by Free Radical 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
*fight censorship*
2007-09-24 03:28:26 · update #1
the admiral called him a "chickensh*t @ss kisser". maybe with it in the detail Y! will leave it be, since there are plenty more posts that quote him that WERE NOT removed.
2007-09-24 03:36:01 · update #2
oh i get it jrldsmith...one gets to pick and choose as to whom one thinks is the credible military source....let me take this opportunity to pull the neocon line on you, ahem :"how dare you suggest that an honored and high ranking military mans opinion isn't credible, you should show some respect, anyway, how can you challenge his opinion, do you know petraeus? hmmmm?"
2007-09-24 03:57:35 · update #3
i wonder what this "dog" does in the president's lap....
2007-09-24 05:38:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it was YA censors that did it but some uber righty who can't stand the truth and dissent from his opposition who flagged the question. I doubt YA looks at every question that gets flagged. It seems more likely that it is an automatic sort of thing that is set up by Yahoo to try and keep things the way that the community wants them.
This article is of a more neutral nature criticizing and supporting MoveOn and Petraeus supporters alike.
2007-09-24 10:45:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
We can forget about Petraeus and his affinity for politics. There were 2 other reports out at the same time, including one from the Pentagon, that said the surge was not meeting its goals. If Petraeus didn't support the President's agenda, Bush would simply have found some other general to pronounce the surge a success.
2007-09-24 10:43:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
While it is undoubtedly censorship, it is not an ongoing CONSCIOUS censorship. Yahoo has merely installed a bit of technology on this form that filters out questions with "objectionable" words - don't use the words in that (probably fairly long) list and your question will be published.
2007-09-24 10:49:38 · answer #4 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I find this whole Petraeus thing.......well, peculiar. Why do people take up for somebody just because they're wearing a uniform?
It's not a magic suit, guys. If the guy's lying, he's lying.
2007-09-24 10:56:06 · answer #5 · answered by Crossing the Rubicon 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Fallon didn't say any such thing. This is the kind of nonsense that urban legend is made of. Flag officers don't talk like little children about each other. While they may not agree on everything, they don't reach into the gutter to describe subordinates.
2007-09-24 10:40:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, we can embrace the fact that Pet is a Bush lapdog.
The President is the Commander therefore his word should have been enough but since he isn't credible he had to find someone who was. Sadly, Petraeus was involved and he now isn't credible anymore, either.
2007-09-24 10:37:23 · answer #7 · answered by aalbe003 2 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Admiral Fallon must be a loony left treasonous cut and run defeatocrat commie socialist.
2007-09-24 11:14:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you think capitalizing words makes you right? Like capitalizing "FACT" when it's not a fact?
Do you think your opinions are above us and we should all bow down to you? lmao
2007-09-24 10:45:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I got it and copied the link in my answer. Anyone who doesn't see the reality of Bush and his yes man are blinded by partisan politics.
2007-09-24 10:38:30 · answer #10 · answered by kenny J 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I didn't know Admiral Fallon worked for moveon.org
2007-09-24 10:39:44 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋