So how will the usual suspects spin Petraeus as a "RINO", or an appeaser, or soft on terrorists, or uncaring about national security?

I wonder how long before Dick Cheney mounts an attack against Petraeus? Also can't wait to hear what Rush has to say about this.

OCU

#2 | Posted by oldCADuser

You listen to rush????

The righties are embarrassingly conspicuous by their absences here today.

Guess its easier to pick on a lady judge and call her dumb and a bitch.

#4 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Who is calling her that?

BTW, she is a racist.

Why does Gen. Petraeus hate America?

Who is calling her that?

#5 | Posted by chickenrancher

Ish Kabibble2 for one.

She is a racist and you all know it but are afraid to admit it.

Chicken shit

So are you so you shouldn't have a problem

"So how will the usual suspects spin Petraeus as a "RINO", or an appeaser, or soft on terrorists, or uncaring about national security?"

No need to "spin" Petraeus. Those with any sense understand that he's loyal to the CIC as he SHOULD be. You did notice that he didn't make any statements about closing Gitmo when Bush was the CIC didn't you? Fact is, we don't KNOW what his opinion actually is.

Liberty University spends 99.9% of it's funding for science labs on a cure for the RINOvirus

"Those with any sense understand that he's loyal to the CIC as he SHOULD be."

So are you saying Obama ordered him to make that statement?

"Fact is, we don't KNOW what his opinion actually is."

Besides, Bush was starting to talk about the possibility of closing GITMO before he left office. Given Petraeus' status and clout at the time, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think he may have been one of the voices behind the scenes calling for that.

No need to "spin" Petraeus. Those with any sense understand that he's loyal to the CIC as he SHOULD be. You did notice that he didn't make any statements about closing Gitmo when Bush was the CIC didn't you? Fact is, we don't KNOW what his opinion actually is.

#10 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2009-05-27 07:46 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

So what You are saying is when Petraeus went before Congress a Year or so ago He was just spewing what Dubya wanted Him to say. Is that what You are saying Jest??

Larry

You did notice that he didn't make any statements about closing Gitmo when Bush was the CIC didn't you?

He didn't make any about keeping it open, or the use of EIT. Should we then imply his silence then was his personal endorsement?

His support for Bush as the CIC was in keeping his mouth shut. He's under no compunction to speak now. If it was contrary to his personal opinion, he'd remain silent now.

You can't have it both ways. You can't use his words about the surge, etc. then and now dismiss his remarks as fealty.

"His support for Bush as the CIC was in keeping his mouth shut. He's under no compunction to speak now. If it was contrary to his personal opinion, he'd remain silent now."

Exactly what I was thinking. He didn't contradict. Was he required to speak out now? I can't imagine. But I've been wrong before.

Now, could someone please explain the suggestion or assertion that Justice Sotomayor is a racist? (Just as I've asked, btw, for evidence of the assertion that Rush Limbaugh is a pedophile.)

Wow, just think not that long ago when his opinion was different the left was calling him things like General Betrayus. How quickly things change huh?

BTW, she is a racist.

#5 | Posted by chickenrancher

You saying that because Rush told you to?

CHENEY lost this argument in the BUSH ADMINISTRATION BACK IN 2005, when the Bushes stopped WATER BOARDING. CHENEY IS A FUCKING WAR CRIMINAL, that should not be listened to...The man is become a pimple on the Ass of American Society.....

BTW, she is a racist.

#5 | Posted by chickenrancher

You saying that because Rush told you to?

#18 | Posted by ProudLiberal

You're giving him too much credit.

He says it because he read where Aflac Kabibble2 said it on another thread.

Aflac Kabibble2 said it because Rush told him to.

"a pimple on the Ass"

Rush's pilonidal cyst?

I have read the article and numerous others and still can't see the rational behind the headline.

He does and says what he is ordered to.

#20 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I do not listen to rush.

Nice try at deflection though.

Thanks for playing

I have read the article and numerous others and still can't see the rational behind the headline.

#22 | Posted by fishpaw

You're kidding, right?

I do not listen to rush.

Nice try at deflection though.

Thanks for playing

#24 | Posted by chickenrancher

Read my post again, dummy.

Nice try.

Thanks for playing.

General Betrayus

-The Right

Petraeus has to back Obama because Obama out-ranks him. That's the way the military chain of command works.

It seems like the military as well as the majority of americans are against gitmo and torture. The only ones advocating these reprehensible acts are the political war hawks that formed the last administration and the extreme righties that squawk at anything that is different.

General Betrayus

-The Right

#27 | Posted by truthhurts

Sorry truth but that was a chant from the left.

"Petraeus has to back Obama because Obama out-ranks him."

And good old FWTHOM calles Petreus a liar.

same people who were trashin Petraeus when he was backin bush and the surge -are suckin up to him cause he supports obama view of gitmo-----you know that some of these guys (inmates) will grow old and die before this issue is settled
jasman

"Petraeus backs Obama on Gitmo, torture"

And now we are suppose to believe Petraeus after Hillary told us Petraeus was a liar.

You liberals are confusing me.

Lint confuses you, Oozie.

Why does Patreaus' opinions have to be 100% fallible or 100% infallible depending upon who he works for and what the person he works for says and advocates?

This is the most circular thread on this blog right now - one-big game of 'gotcha'.

Because JeffJ to take the words of Petraeus as fact during one Administration and not the other screams of hypocrisy. Either He is a bullshitter 100% or He isn't. Can't be 50 50

Larry

The placement of ToiletPaper confuses Ozzie. Do I put it over or under what do I do oh what do I do.

Larry

The righties are embarrassingly conspicuous by their absences here today.

#4 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-26 08:32 PM | Reply

What's this thread for, anyway? For clowns like you to regurgitate and vomit up the same old shit, day after day.

I know it's more comfortable for you to sit in your own dirty diaper, but others are weary of the smell.

#38 | Posted by vernon

So then, you CAN'T address the point?

The placement of ToiletPaper confuses Ozzie. Do I put it over or under what do I do oh what do I do.

Larry

#37 | Posted by LarryMohr

There's TOILET paper?

- Oozie

BTW, she is a racist.

#5 | Posted by chickenrancher

You saying that because Rush told you to?

#18 | Posted by ProudLiberal at 2009-05-27 08:57 AM | Reply

Actually, she admitted that she is a racist, and actually thinks it makes her a good judge:

"In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered .... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

So then, you CAN'T address the point?

#39 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-27 10:10 AM | Reply

I did address the point, dumbass. The point is that threads like this only exist so you can whack off once again on your pathological Bush hatred.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in watching. You have nothing new to say. Nothing fresh to argue. Just the same old whacking material, and the same sticky paper towels. Ick.

So because the left goes back and forth in saying that Gen Petraeus is a liar you feel the need to slam Oozie?

I remember many on the left saying that Petraeus was going to lie to them even before they heard the report.

So if the left feels that Petraeus lied then, why do they feel he's telling the truth now?

"You have nothing new to say. Nothing fresh to argue."

So the fact that General Petraeus, anointed hero to the right, architect of the surge, shares the same feelings about torture and closing GITMO as the President is "nothing new"? Or maybe more like something you don't want to hear.

"your pathological Bush hatred."

I don't think anyone said anything negative about Bush. In fact, he's barely been mentioned.

"Sorry, but I'm not interested in watching."

Good. Then begone.

So because the left goes back and forth in saying that Gen Petraeus is a liar you feel the need to slam Oozie?

#43 | Posted by mikemcdon321

No, I feel the need to slam Oozie because he's a moron, reviled by left and right alike for his asinine posts.

I don't think anyone said anything negative about Bush. In fact, he's barely been mentioned.

#44 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-27 10:30 AM | Reply

The entire context of Petreous is his connection to Bush, and his support of Bush policies at one time. That's the only reason this subject gives a creep like you such a boner.

"Ooooo ..... Ooooooooo ..... Oooooooo .... One of Bush's boys is now on our side .... Ooooo ..... Ooooo.... Oooo.... SPLAT!"

Now wipe off your screen before your mom sees it

#46 | Posted by vernon

You have a rather unhealthy preoccupation with masturbation there Vernie.

I support Obama's stated position on Gitmo. I just wonder when real action will be taken.

And on torture, I'm holding out to see what his admin's review of harsh interrogation techniques to be added to the Army field manual produces.

"The entire context of Petreous is his connection to Bush..."

Oh, by the way. May you can explain how this somehow equals "Bush hate"?

Besides, Bush was starting to talk about the possibility of closing GITMO before he left office. Given Petraeus' status and clout at the time, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think he may have been one of the voices behind the scenes calling for that.

#13 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I think its just easier for you to dodge the issue and not have to actually think by indulging in your special fantasies.

And on torture, I'm holding out to see what his admin's review of harsh interrogation techniques to be added to the Army field manual produces.

#48 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Is that being reviewed? My understanding is that he has ordered all agencies to conform to the current field manual procedures.

"Oh, by the way. May you can explain how this somehow equals "Bush hate"?

If it had not been for your pathological hatred of Bush, you would have never heard of or cared about BetrayUs.

The only reason you care now is because he SEEMS to be now going contrary to the Bush policies. Your ability to screech about Bush diminishes each day. Instead of maturing and growing beyond that, you keep clinging to the past. Your 'glory days.'

how sad. Tell the truth, you're one of those mid-40s guys, divorced, paying 70% of your income in child support. Your big night each week is payday, when you can afford some beer and a few hours with your high school year books. Otherwise, you just hang out online

That's what gets you worked up. It is just so damned exciting to think that the Left has turned a general, like a vampire turns a human.

Is this what your life is all about? Arguing silly gotcha points online with people you don't know?

----------------

"You have a rather unhealthy preoccupation with masturbation"

You are the loser who has dominated this thread, breathing hard, making silly assertions and false accusations. Anything to keep it going hot.

I find you amusing, and pathetically sad

you are tiresome.

I hope the rest of this thread gives you some sense of .... joy? ....... comfort? ........peace?

Hell, I don't know what you can get from it besides anger and frustration. Good luck with that.

"Tell the truth, you're one of those mid-40s guys, divorced, paying 70% of your income in child support."

None of those things. You really haven't been paying attention.

"You are the loser who has dominated this thread, breathing hard, making silly assertions and false accusations."

Such as?

"The only reason you care now is because he SEEMS to be now going contrary to the Bush policies."

Really? Then I wonder why I would have posted that he may well have been an influence on getting Bush to change some of his policies? I made NO criticism of Bush whatsoever, but rather credited him with moving in a positive direction.

Your reading comprehension skills are about as bad as your math skills, apparently.

Is that being reviewed? My understanding is that he has ordered all agencies to conform to the current field manual procedures.

#50 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-05-27 10:45 AM

Thanks for that!

General Dave agrees with Obama that closing Gotmo and adhering to the Geneva Convention is the right thing to do from both a moral and military stand point?

Spud does too.

Join the club.

Most sane and moral people do.

One of Bush's boys is now on our side .... Ooooo .....

Actually, Spud has never put Dave in the BushCo Cheerleader Club.

Dumbya wanted Iraq to FAIL in order to ensure an inability to leave. That's why people were fired fer using the words "exit" and "strategy" together in the same sentence. Dave was brought on board afterwords when the FAIL got so large you could see it with the naked eye from the moon.

Spud sees Dave, like Barack, as being a good actor in a bad play.

If it had not been for your pathological hatred of Bush, you would have never heard of or cared about BetrayUs.

~Vermin

LOL.

Be Well.

Um, "the Left" did not, in some monolithic voice, call Petraeus by that hateful name. That was MoveOn.org, in a single ad, as far as I am aware. When was this chant of which you speak? And btw, MoveOn hardly speaks for the entire Left (whatever that is). More and more, I don't agree with their rhetoric--they're agitators, who have their place, but I don't have to enjoy that place or share it. I think it's good that they exist, but please don't put their rhetoric on all lefties.

Oh, and the Rush thing on Sotomayor's racism. Funny, that was the quote I saw in a newspaper today (not a liberal newspaper). Only a quote from Rush. Now I see a quote from WSJ. Okay. Interesting. Yes, that quote out of context, does sound racist (not "reverse racism," as Mr. Limbaugh put it, just racism--there's no reverse; racism is racism is racism). But maybe there's context that shows she had some larger point. Or maybe not. And maybe there are decisions she's made that suggest this sort of attitude pervades her jurisprudence.

Oh, and btw, she was a Bush I appointee, no? Isn't that a good thing in Right Wing eyes? Or is he too far left for you righties?

Sorry, but I'm not interested in watching.

#42 | Posted by vernon at 2009-05-27 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

#38 | Posted by vernon
#41 | Posted by vernon
#42 | Posted by vernon
#46 | Posted by vernon
#51 | Posted by vernon

Why does Gen. Petraeus hate America?

#6 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2009-05-26 08:39 PM

Funny thats what the left said when he backed Bushes surge. Now you want to say he is right? Funny thing you flip floppers

Oh, and btw, she was a Bush I appointee, no? Isn't that a good thing in Right Wing eyes? Or is he too far left for you righties?

#56 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-05-27 12:32 PM

It was a token for the left so Bush I could get a conservative on the bench. Read your history and this time try to comprehend it!

Spud sees Dave, like Barack, as being a good actor in a bad play.

#55 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-05-27 11:49 AM

I'm sure thats what you had to say when he told congress he wanted more troops in Iraq!
Shall we look up the record to prove you are full of shit or do we already know this?

I'm sure thats what you had to say when he told congress he wanted more troops in Iraq!
Shall we look up the record to prove you are full of shit or do we already know this?

Along those lines, wasn't it the left who gave him the monicker "General BetrayUs"?

Gotta love consistency

Got to love who they consider as a valid source. It changes based on what they have to say. If it fits their mold your OK if not you dont know shit!

"Got to love who they consider as a valid source. It changes based on what they have to say. If it fits their mold your OK if not you dont know shit!"

Clueless.

Got to love who they consider as a valid source. It changes based on what they have to say. If it fits their mold your OK if not you dont know shit!

The left was the same way with Greenspan. They reviled him for his economic policies. Then one day he came out and said that Bush was wrong with the Iraqi war and the left had him on a pedestal within nanoseconds and clung to his every word.

Funny stuff.

Gotta love consistency

#61 | Posted by goatman

Yeah, I was going to ask if MoveOn had spammed this around yet?

The right was the same way with Greenspan. They loved him for his economic policies. Then one day he came out and said that Bush was wrong with the Iraqi war and the right lambasted him within nanoseconds and dismissed his every word.

And I am sure that all the Bush Lovers agree with the General today right?

Clueless.

#63 | Posted by Danforth

Great post any more words of wisdom from the self retorter

Danforth shall we go back to see what you had to say about Gen Petraus when he was for the surge or would that just confirm you as the fool most know you to be?

How about you tell us what you think of the General's stance as it is today Cheese Hunter.

(Real hunters in Oregon can make fun of you little pea shooters in WI)

Wi Hunter calling Danforth a "fool most know (him) to be"? That's funny shit - the kind of inanity that brings me back here. It's like one long scene from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Gosh, an active duty General seeking a JCS appointment, echoing his superior officer's in this case the President's statement. Why am I not astonished.

One bad "appraisal" can end a career. The military is more political than civilian politics. Except for Hap Arnold and Rickover, it's curtains to be out of step.

Just like obanana is learning, it's easy to say you want to close GITMO and to treat terrorist with kid gloves its another to make it happen. Great idea now how do we implement it and not let the terrorist have a field day with us?

Real "hunters" in Oregon? Paint balling is not hunting! Is real hunting still approved by the liberal wingnuts or do you only get to shoot rubber bullets?

Real "hunters" in Oregon? Paint balling....

#73 | Posted by WI_Hunter at 2009-05-27 06:55 PM"

Tell that to the Oregon cougars, bears, bighorn sheep, elk, mountain goats, wolves, etc. etc. What a fucking douchebag.

Listen hear to you FUCKS on the Right , where is it written that you can't agree with a person on one issue and totally disagree on another???? That, you dumb fucks is the difference between a thinking Democrat an a fucking brain dead Republican.

Let me see If I got this right on one side we have these fucks on the Right including CHENEY, talking about how the American People is less safe with the policies of President Obama, an on the other side we have GENERAL COLIN POWELL, GENERAL PETRAEUS, ADMIRAL MULLEN (CHIEF OF STAFF), GENERAL JAMES JONES (A McCain Supporter), Yea I'll take these guys every day of the week, FUCK YOU DICK CHENEY!!!!

I wrote: Oh, and btw, she was a Bush I appointee, no? Isn't that a good thing in Right Wing eyes? Or is he too far left for you righties?

#56 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-05-27 12:32 PM

WI Hunter replied: It was a token for the left so Bush I could get a conservative on the bench. Read your history and this time try to comprehend it!

And now I say: Huh? What was a token for the left? Are you suggesting that she was a trade-off? He put her up in trade so he could also get someone more conservative? If so, thanks for the info or perspective and next time try not to be an ass when you offer info. I comprehend my history just fine; I didn't read anything detailed about the time period. I had simply heard this fact and I was asking a question. Okay, I was a little snarky, but I didn't suggest anyone was stupid or sucked at reading comprehension. Yeesh.

And Goatman, again, THE LEFT did not coin the phrase General BetrayUs. That was ONE organization, MoveOn.org, that does not speak for us. Democrats and liberals are really bad at unified action, and that may be because they actually represent a wider variety of opinions and people than do the Republicans and conservatives. So please, stop treating the Left as some monolithic entity. (And please see my earlier post about this, where you will see my disapproval of MoveOn's coinage.)

And Goatman, again, THE LEFT did not coin the phrase General BetrayUs. That was ONE organization, MoveOn.org, that does not speak for us.

I believe moveon.org is a left wing organization

I believe moveon.org is a left wing organization

#78 | Posted by goatman

So by definition, any left wing organization is The Left"? Westboro Baptist Church then, must be "The Right".

Westboro Baptist Church then, must be "The Right".

I think they claim to be.

Goal post shift alert!

Goal post shift alert!

???

I'm agreeing with you!?! LOL

SANOBAMA and LARRY(Give me MO):

Do you guys use toilet paper or the New York Times?

#75 CELISARY: "Thing Democrats"?

Please tell me where there is one. Is that Chris (Special Mortgage)Dodd, Barney (Croaked ACORN Supporter) Frank, or Murtha, Rangle, Buris who are all under federal investigation. Are these your thinking democrats?

For Your information Ozzie. I use Charmin Extra Soft Toilet Tissue. I respect My ass. I don't use the New York Times cause of the way the fibres lay. Oh and I don't use Recycled toiletpaper(ToiletPaper that is made from reclaimed paperstock) Sorry

Larry

P & G strikes again!

She is a racist and you all know it but are afraid to admit it.

#8 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-05-26 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

She's a racist....JUST LIKE YOU. You simply don't like the fact that she doesn't wear a Klan costume like you.

Dear LARRY(Give me MO) Good for you. Because the New York Slim will not be around for long.