Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Originally Posted By: whomod
Was it also far game the way they attacked Max Cleland? "Support the troops" all right. Jut so long as they ain't liberal. if so then they're "fair game".


Point of information: Cleland was a sitting member of congress who was criticized for his record. He was not attacked for being a former member of the military or for his disability.

I'm a little surprised, whomod, that you are advocating for a system in which we can't criticize our elected officials if they have military experience. That sounds a bit like you're advocating for some sort of "junta."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland

  • VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR
    Cleland was one of the 29 Senate Democrats who backed the authorization to go to war in Iraq. He later claimed he had misgivings about the Bush administration's stance, but said he felt pressure in his tight Senate race to go along with it. In 2005, he said "it was obvious that if I voted against the resolution that I would be dead meat in the race, just handing them in a victory." He characterized his vote for war as "the worst vote I cast."[7]


    POST-SENATE CAREER
    Cleland was originally appointed to serve on the 9/11 Commission but resigned shortly after, claiming that the Bush administration was "stonewalling" and blocking the committee's access to key documents and witnesses. During his time away from politics, Cleland taught at American University.

    In 2003, Cleland began working for the 2004 presidential campaign of Massachusetts senator John Kerry, also a Vietnam veteran; Kerry went on to win the Democratic nomination. Cleland often appeared at campaign events with Kerry, and was considered by many to be one of his most important assistants, partly as a symbol of the sacrifices made by soldiers for wars. He went to Bush's Texas ranch to deliver a swift boat ad complaint, but the event failed to have much impact. On July 29, 2004, Cleland introduced Kerry with a speech at the Democratic National Convention.


And a public figure who openly criticized Bush, and publicly campaigned for Kerry in 2004 using his public-figure status, should not be open to public scrutiny and counter-criticism... why?