As far as I can tell, Petraeus cooked his stats to achieve a particular end.

As far as I can tell, Bush made a decision to hide behind the skirts of this general.

So, let them carp about the ad. It's all they've got.

Wouldn't be so much fuss if the republithugs didn't think it was so powerful.

And as far as I can tell, the Neoright just has a STFU attitude towards any sort of critique, and genuinely perceives anyone that doesn't STFU as a traitor they'd be glad to deal with if they had the power.

Just to make sure, I visited the Red Staters this morning----Yes, yes, we're all still traitors. Good Americans STFU.

"Cooking the Books for the White House?"---the subtitle of the ad Moveon.org ran---yes, obviously. What's the fuss about? Oh, right, attack the messenger who tells you the WH messenger is full of shit. Got it. Thanks.

Vietnam was the first war ever fought without censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.

~General William Westmoreland

Two to one say Iraq is a failure. Petraeus isn't a sacred cow - and Bush put him up as the face of his policy. Bush has his nose out of joint because Petraeus got called out.

I had thought the ad was poor form, but now after Bush's little press conference and the Senate vote I'm not so sure.

Bush gave more legitimacy to the questions asked in that ad than if he'd kept his mouth shut.

This has already backfired on the rethugs. Moveon's getting big bucks in contributions from people who never considered donating to them before all this. It is also shining an unwelcome light on the 2006 dirty campaigning of the thugs.

The latest Moveon ad re. Guliani's skipping the meetings of the Iraq commission is great. Here's hoping they keep flipping the lights on a new cockroach every week up till the 2008 election.

'Betray Us' Becomes MoveOn's Macaca

To the extent that it has forced people like Hillary to show their true colors and defend the indefensible -- it certainly is MoveOn's "macaca" moment.

On the FOX morning show today Hillary refused to denounce the MoveOn ad and refused to denounce Columbia University for honoring Ahmadinejad by giving him a prestigious forum to speak at.

A rude awakening for anyone who thought that Hillary had moved to the center.

MoveOn a few years ago said they "Owned the Democratic party" and they certainly have proved that to be true.

Now America has to decide if they want to have this nation run by politicians beholden to a group whose agenda takes its marching orders from Joe McCarthy

"Whose agenda takes it marching orders from Joe McCarthy....."

Who has been dead for quite some time.

Bowa, perhaps you're not old enough to recall Tailgunner Joe. He would have had Move.On locked away as Communists who took their orders from Moscow.

Hell, he'd have locked up you, given a few of the things I seen you say here.

Loki, you must have overdosed on the kool aid this morning. You have to mix it with water before you drink it. (And remember, use water not vodka.)

Joe McCarthy is the guiding light for the NeoCons.

Anything short of murder as far as dirty tricks, misleading ads and smearing veterans and I dont think the GOP has any right to say shit.

Joe McCarthy was a Republican.

The Rethugs have found another boogeyman to deflect attention away from the real problem. The real problem is that Iraq is a situation where it has become disastrous to be in but extremely difficult to disengage from without humiliation. The Bush administration and their GOP allies in Congress is responsible for that. Not the Democrats, not General Petraeus and not MoveOn.

The military is not there to act as a political ally of whoever is in power and Bush has used Petraeus as exactly that. Bush has put Petraeus in the impossible position of having to modify his military judgement to fit his administration's political needs.

MoveOn could have made this point without being inflammatory but that's not what they do. Agreed they are pains in the ass but nowhere near as big a pain in the ass as Bush for trying to make political capital out of their irritating tactics so that his own record of unrelieved incompetence and failure in Iraq is not the focus that it should be.

TeeHee, MoveOn has set the Heffalump trap right where the Heffalump is, get out the barbeque sauce.

"To the extent that it has forced people like Hillary to show their true colors and defend the indefensible..."

Bowa, she's not defending the war and the bullshit piled up in defense of it. You are.

"As far as I can tell, Petraeus cooked his stats to achieve a particular end.

As far as I can tell, Bush made a decision to hide behind the skirts of this general.

So, let them carp about the ad. It's all they've got."

It was MoveOn's foolish decision to focus on the messenger rather than the actual issues. Plays right into the Bushies' hands.

Tempest, meet the teapot

MoveOn a few years ago said they "Owned the Democratic party" and they certainly have proved that to be true.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-23 10:39 AM |

SO WHAT!!!


Just look at the hateful attacks against Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. This wouldn't be happening if Murdoch wasn't so pigheaded and "gave back to the community" more often. The few thousands he gave to Hillary, Schumer, and other Democrats are a joke - he can't be that nave. If he really wants the vitriol to stop, he should be more like George Soros, a billionaire who shovels cash at the progressives on a daily basis, like a coal heaver on the locomotive of revolution. That's why not even the communists at the International ANSWER Coalition ever accuse Soros of being a shameless capitalist pig disrupting the world's economies. Which, frankly speaking, he is.

You don't fool around with the progressive protection racket. Just recently Murdoch had brazenly refused to comply with MoveOn's reasonable request to place their member on the board of News Corp. Shortly afterwards, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann released a statement that "Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda."

Olbermann's exact quote:

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda - worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

Surely this attack could be easily avoided. There are many ways a corporation can appease the Bag Man. They can donate cash to progressive charities and campaigns, or they can give food, free space, advertisement, product placement, or product itself. The New York Times will usually "give back" our product - news, opinions, and commentary that validate progressive beliefs. This time it happened to be a $102,000 ad discount SO WHAT!!!.

Professor Bates
Poor Professors For Radical Handouts

The "actual issues" involve deceptive information. I think Bush hoped to slide that by through choosing a general to do it for him.

Move.On is guilty of a bad pun. But you couldn't possibly take aim at what Petreus said without involving the man.

well i think it might have been more effective if the add had been AFTER the testimony not BEFORE it

"The war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. That was a selling point, a salesman's phony and now fatal excuse to sell a war to a frightened nation. The war was also never about spreading democracy. That was an afterthought. The Iraq war was really about oil, money, and rearranging geopolitical boundaries in the Middle East. But that wouldn't sell on Fox News so they made up reasons that would.

"The blunder now called the war in Iraq was conceived and instigated in the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney prior to 9/11. And, Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton Corporation made sure Halliburton would do quite well when the invasion took place--for Dick Cheney and Halliburton are part and parcel of the military-industrial complex, those responsible for the disappearance of America's gold, its priceless freedoms, and the consequent problems we now face.

"When Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, Halliburton's tax payments went from $302 million in 1998 to zero in 1999, a year in which Halliburton also received an $85 million refund from the IRS. During his first five years as Vice-President, Cheney's stock options in Halliburton increased in value 3,281 %, from $241,498 to over $8 million.

"With Cheney as Vice-President of the US, Halliburton was awarded billions of dollars in no-bid US government contracts for supplying food and oil in Iraq and for reconstruction work in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

not to mention the billions of dollars allotted to the rebuilding of Iraq that just dissapeared.

well, it didn't just disappear. it was all a calculated move.

maybe the Democrats should embrace the Betray Us motto and keep pointing out specific, detailed, accurate and documentable examples of betrayal and do not let up.

time to lock horns!

"Move.On is guilty of a bad pun. But you couldn't possibly take aim at what Petreus said without involving the man."

Yes, but the name calling gives an easy out to people who have repeatedly responded to war criticisms faux-patriotism. Now the debate is about the traitor headline rather than everything else. This response was entirely predictable, making this a poor decision on MoveOn's part. They can discuss a guy's actions, in this case telling lies, without diving headfirst into the trap of throwing around the "traitor" accusations.

well i think it might have been more effective if the add had been AFTER the testimony not BEFORE it

Posted by cheka at 2007-09-23 11:12 AM

MoveOn was right, and I'm told that truth is a defense in these matters. herm

MoveOn was right, and I'm told that truth is a defense in these matters. herm

Damn! herm

"Everyone knew days before the session, what he was going to report."

True.

With one exception.

Bush.

He was busy, hard a werk, investigating the murder of Nelson Mandela.

"MoveOn was right, and I'm told that truth is a defense in these matters. herm"

That is why you focus on facts (aka the truth) rather than name calling or the highly subjective game of dissecting one's motives. Is Petraus a "traitor"? I don't know. He could believe the lies he's telling for all I know, that would only make him delusional. He could be ignorant and lazy and relying on others who are misinforming him. He could be lying in belief that it is in the best interest of the country (and I'm not sure if that would make him a traitor or not, I tend to think it does but its up for debate).

What I do know for sure is that much of what he says is inaccurate and making decisions based on his faulty reports would lead to more highly costly mistakes. So my first concern would be to correct his inaccuracies because that is the easiest to debate to win - and the most important. Once that is resolved, we'd have plenty of time to dissect his motives.

Could you imagine working for the guy in a business?

Move on does need to move on. The far left is giving the center left a black eye.

To the extent that it has forced people like Hillary to show their true colors and defend the indefensible -- it certainly is MoveOn's "macaca" moment.

On the FOX morning show today Hillary refused to denounce the MoveOn ad and refused to denounce Columbia University for honoring Ahmadinejad by giving him a prestigious forum to speak at.


Of course, Hillary NEVER defended the ad, so you are once again either misrepresenting her position, or you are deliberately full of shit. What a surprise.

She was just on Tim Russert, during which she spoke out against ALL such ads while defending General Petraeus, and said VERY CLEARLY that talking about such ads is a diversion from the real issues at hand. Thus, she is the adult to the right-wing's screaming child, as usual.

Columbia was within its rights in a free country, and I for one don't need political candidates being the watchdogs over the types of free speech which can be exercised.

You are truly a tool of the worst sort, and are making yourself into somewhat of a predictable joke.

Absolutely accurate on all points, Midiman.

So Congress condemned this ad? What does that mean, that they REALLY REALLY don't approve?
Way to go congress, voting to say you don't like something instead of doing just about anything else that could be useful.

I can see three ads coming from this matter:

Imagine each line of the senate resolution being read one at a time, followed by the Hildebeast casting her vote.."NO" One can imagine the line "We fully support our troops." Hildebeast "NO"

A second possible ad - crazy red diaper doper baby telling an unknown person on the phone, "We own you, you better get out there and vote against this or there will be no more money. Honey, Hsu is gone, you don't have a choice." Fade to Hildebeast casting her vote, "No."

There is a third possibility of running a profile of the folks known to control Moveon and simply ask "Do you want these people controlling the president? Tell them to MoveOn....vote Republican!"

Sometimes, the crazy left is kind enough to sew the seeds of its own destruction.

I see no one remembering this over a year from now.

The Rethugs will still be swimming so deep in American troopers blood in Iraq that none of this will matter to American voters.

Corky -- I have a sad prediction -- The GOPs will probably win the White House in '08.

We should all prefer a moderate to slightly left of center presidency that adheres to rule of law rather than a GOP presidency that adheres to the "GOP's political golden rule" (i.e., "who gives the gold gets to make the rules").

I think that the average voter won't buy the total package the DEMs are offering -- big government programs, higher taxes, and a weak will to win the GOP's War on terrorism. It's a difficult process for the DEMs to master -- the mistakes are all the GOPs (Cheney and W's exactly), but the GOPs can easily campaign against the common perception of DEM metrosexual weakness, vacillation, and big-government ("tax and spend"). In fact, all the GOPs need to do to score with 50.1% of the voters, is to put down the DEM proposals and indulge in character criticism.

Ipso facto -- Any well-financed milquetoast GOP will be able to use this attack approach to defeat the DEMs, and they will probably succeed.

Another phenomena that I think we are seeing here is the traditional media pounding on the new media whenever they get a chance, trying to make this a bigger deal than it is.

Fortunately, their memory is about as long as the last news cycle.

I think most of American voters support the sentiments of Moveon.org. I certainly do, and I support the sentiments of this ad. Petrauos lied. I'm glad we have American organizations like Moveon.org, and the ACLU to protect America from the conservatives who have always hated Americas' freedoms.

I respect your view, TC, and hope you are dead wrong.

Without the war, I think you may be right, but the Repubs have underestimated the impact of the war on their popularity, blaming most of their problems on the "values" issues within their Party.

Also, Hillary will be difficult to paint as as a "Socialist" with her tough image and her Bob Dole health care plan.

So far, the core of the GOP doesn't have a dog in this race, and will likely vote with their feet, ie; not turn out for marginal true believers.

Joe McCarthy served a purpose for the good of America. He killed Communism in America. But he kept on and went too far, and that was his undoing.

But I will never forget his contribution to this great nation. Death to liberal Communism! hehehehe........

Now, moveon.hate has proven to be just that: hate. They hate the nation and wish to demolish it for spineless people who surrender to threats from Islamofacists.

George Bush came at the right time and smashed al queda and put them behind caves, gitmo, and into pain and hiding.

Now that his presidency is coming to an end, he will oversee a wonderful Thanksgiving in America and a glowing Christmas. His presidency will end on a positive note.

Get with it, moveon.

Townandcountry

big government programs,

I haven't heard of these programs----care to name them? Can you name the expansion of government under the republicans? Can you tell how they have shrunk government?

"higher taxes"

I have seen a proposed tax cut of 80 billion for the middle class from Obama. If taxes are raised, it will be a roll back of the tax cuts Bush gave his buddies. GOOD---we need those taxes raised on the rich---put it on the ballot and see how it flies.


"and a weak will to win the GOP's War on terrorism."

At least you got that right---it is the GOPs war--not Americas war. Most want to stop us from bleeding out our cash in a war that has no opposing army--no country to conquer---no one to surrender to us---no one to tell us we've won---no one to tell us it's over except ourselves. Most Americans aren't fond of the fact that 4000 Americas have died for nothing, that we have invaded a country that was no threat to us, and we've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. I don't think those facts will be a deterrent to pulling the lever for dems in the next election.

Macaca moment my ass. A reasonable comparison would be the savaging of Howard Dean by Fox and the usual gang of idiots that provide our daily news.

A play on words that hit a Republican Achilles Heal, requiring a multimillion dollar barrage of bullshit coordinated responses. The coordinated aspect is evidenced by the repetition of exact phrases on radio and television by the usual gang of well paid idiots.

Corporate interests in the media are more than happy to provide the bullshit free to Republican lowlifes, who support their secret Un-Democratic agendas.

TakieTurd, Why are you still using this handle? Your ban expired a week ago. You can go back to posting as Rob_?hole.

By the way, please read the "Do Not Mix With Vodka" warning on the koolaid packets.

"A reasonable comparison would be the savaging of Howard Dean by Fox and the usual gang of idiots that provide our daily news."

Agreed.

"His (Bush's) presidency will end on a positive note."

Of course it will: He won't be president any longer.

Sounds pretty positive to me.

Hans

"His (Bush's) presidency will end on a positive note."

Of course it will: He won't be president any longer.

Sounds pretty positive to me.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-09-23 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:


ROFL! FF for dat.

His (Bush's) presidency will end on a positive note."

Of course it will: He won't be president any longer.

Sounds pretty positive to me.

Hans


AWESOME flag for that.

Joe McCarthy served a purpose for the good of America. He killed Communism in America. But he kept on and went too far, and that was his undoing.

Takeitez


I suppose you would say the same thing abut the Salem witch trials. Hasn't been a reported witch in Massachusetts in years.

This yahoo shows such a breathtaking lack of understanding of what this country stands for it would be hard to know how to begin. If it weren't for the fact that he is obviously an intellectual "DNR", somebody might feel like making an attempt ...

Important to Congress:
General Betray us
Freedom Fries
Vacation

Not Important to Congress:
Bush/Cheney lying to the American People to go to war
Escalating body count in Iraq
Ending the war in Iraq
What the average American thinks

George Allen directed his infamous, racist comments to a young American at an exclusive gathering of like-minded people who would get his "joke" and the recording of the incident spread like a virus throughout the Web, much to his and his supports' chagrin. MoveOn.org's full page ad in a newspaper read around the world intended their message to be a widely-publicized statement of protest against a popular, public figure. Allen was a coward in what he did because he'd NEVER have said that in a truly public setting whereas MoveOn.org put their message out for EVERYONE to see.

Which one is really insidious?

Please!

Ok, How 'bout Gen. Portreyesman.

I'd never question any of their integrity going into the job as Lil' Buddy's lil' buddy. But the "after" pic never looks as good again.

I don't hold Petraus responsible for anything. He is there to serve the civilian leadership as they see fit. Thats the way its been and that the way it should stay.

However everyone has to realize that he IS there to serve the civilian leadership and be it's mouthpiece if necessary.

However, since he did sing the administration's tune, I do believe that he has shot himself in the foot ala Colin Powell.

She was just on Tim Russert, during which she spoke out against ALL such ads while defending General Petraeus,

Midi, Who really cares about what she says to deflect the issue -- she was asked specifically about Petraous and the Moveon ad and she deflected into political vagueness.. On FOX, she was asked 3x to specifically denounce the Petarous ad and she waffled all 3x. Bottom line: When she had a chance to vote and denounce the ad in a way that counted -- she voted against it. That is Hillary's position regardless of what she "says" on the morning news shows.

Since we're talking about fringe groups going too far -

When will the Republicans denounce the extremist group Values Voters? At the Presidential debate the group held for GOP candidates this week, event organizers invited the Church of God Choir, from Springfield, Ohio, to sing "God Bless America" -- except the lyrics were rewritten. Instead of a song about "the land that I love," and "home sweet home," this version condemns the country, saying we've all turned against God, and that He won't bless us.

Twisting and distorting the words of "God Bless America" is disgusting and an insult to all Americans. The GOP should be ashamed for supporting a fringe group like Values Voters.

Hillary might just as well wear a Strawman outfit around Bowa and the GOP.

She doesn't have to say anything, because no matter what she actually says, they will just tell us all what she means anyway.


"What a maroon!"
- Bugs Bunny

He would have had Move.On locked away as Communists who took their orders from Moscow.

Joe McCarthy is the guiding light for the NeoCons.

Joe McCarthy was a Republican.

Boy, the Lefties on this site always pretend to be so smart and then they can't even understand a simple analogy between Mccarthy and Moveon.org

The fact is that the way McCarthy demonized Communists is exactly the sam way that moveon.org demonizes anyone who doesn't embrace their anti-war agenda "hook, line, and sinker" -- and they will use the same kind of attacks and smears to destroy anyone who stands in their way just as Mccarthy did.

And furthermore (lol!)....


Rudy showed just the same kind of hubris and arrogance running NYC as Bush as shown running the country.

Rudy Bushiani
More 'O the Same 08!

Since we're talking about fringe groups going too far

Moveon.org is not a fringe group, so obviously we are not talkign about "fringe" groups.

Twisting and distorting the words of "God Bless America" is disgusting and an insult to all Americans.

Why?

Song parodies have a long and established history in our political history. Calling a 4-star general a traitor to his country (which is what "Betray US" suggests) does not.

Moveon used a pun of dubious taste.

Joe McCarthy terrorized people's reputations and destroyed their lives, not to mention shaming the Nation.

Oh yeah, I see the resemblance.

Hillary handled this as well as she has handled every other effort to push her train off the track.

It happenin' Bozo.

awww!

It ain't happenin', Bozo.

Song parodies have a long and established history in our political history. Calling a 4-star general a traitor to his country (which is what "Betray US" suggests) does not.

Posted by Bowa

Wonder what John Lennon would say about that, Bowow?:>)

What's Mr. Soros' game. Is he interested in money manipulation.

There's a rumor afoot that one billion dollars in Puts have been bought that "bet" on a stock market collapse before the end of October. If not the bettor has lost the money. A great deal has been bet on one airline's decline in value.

Didn't the same scenario occur in relation to the 9/11 episode? Didn't people who may have ahd an awareness buy futures which would decline because of the attack?

Is Mr. Soros in the money manipulation business? What does he know?

Does Mr. Soros have another agenda with MoveOnOrg just being a tool? Or is he sincee in his beliefs?

When "There's a rumor afoot", we can depend on "Johnson" to have it in his mouth.

What is the continuation of the story if the U.S. were to pull out of Iraq. Of course, a couple of million would probably be slaughtered in internecine strife. But so what? The left didn't flinch when a million Vietnamese were murdered by the communists consequent to our pullout there. (Good old "Bloody Hands Jane Fonda," the poster girl for that slaughter.)

What is supposed to occur that is so beneficial if there is a pullout from Iraq? What good consequences will ensue?

Oh! Is disengagement supposed to indicate that there is no conflict?

May all the opponents of the war be reduced to using shanks mare for transportation, and heating their homes without fuel, and ...

Well, lefties never claimed to be equipped with prescience.

The true "Bigfoot?"

That is Hillary's position regardless of what she "says" on the morning news shows.



Posted by Bowa


So, let's see. It doesn't matter what she says, becasue YOU will tell us what her true position is. I gyuess thta kind of work requires a special kind of tool, huh?

She SPECIFCALLY criticized the ad (she's under no obligation to do so - it's a trivial matter when kids are getting killed, don't you think?), and if you deny it, then you are a liar - or an idiot. That's it for me.

"a million Vietnamese were murdered by the communists consequent to our pullout there"


Link, please.


"What good consequences will ensue?"

Live American troops.

Of course, they would then become Dem voters, so I kinda see your point. You'd rather see them dead.

She SPECIFCALLY criticized the ad

No she didn't. Check the transcript on both shows.

YOU will tell us what her true position is

Hillary told us her true position by voting against the bill condemning the moveon.org ad. Or do you believe what a politician "says" is more important then how they "vote"?

Wonder what John Lennon would say about that, Bowow?:>)

Happiness is a warm gun

I love his "Happy New Year" the most...

Joe McCarthy terrorized people's reputations and destroyed their lives, not to mention shaming the Nation

And moveon hasn't done the same to Petraous? or Baird? to name just two.

"Happy Xmas" (war is over) is the correct title of John Lennon's song...excuse me:>)

"What is supposed to occur that is so beneficial if there is a pullout from Iraq?"

American soldiers, sailors and Marines stop dying for no reason whatsoever.

"What good consequences will ensue?"

American soldiers, sailors and Marines stop dying for no reason whatsoever.

"May all the opponents of the war be reduced to using shanks mare for transportation, and heating their homes without fuel, and ..."

Sort of like opponents of stem-cell research should be denied its benefits?

Hey, wait a minute! We invaded Iraq so that we don't have to use "shanks mare for transportation"?

You mean we invaded Iraq for its oil? So much for WMDs, or "liberation," or any of the other shifting reasons given for the invasion.

Hans

"And moveon hasn't done the same to Petraous? or Baird? to name just two."

Perhaps we need to run that one by Max Cleland.

Hans

Petreous is terrorized and destroyed so easily?

No, most people saw it for the too-tempting pun on his name that it was.


As long as the GOP doesn't have to talk about dead Americans in Iraq or their "members" in Men's Rooms, they will latch onto a silly story like this one and suck until they think they taste blood.


That's YOUR Party, Dudley.

"What's Mr. Soros' game. Is he interested in money manipulation.

There's a rumor afoot that one billion dollars in Puts have been bought that "bet" on a stock market collapse before the end of October. If not the bettor has lost the money. A great deal has been bet on one airline's decline in value.

Didn't the same scenario occur in relation to the 9/11 episode? Didn't people who may have ahd an awareness buy futures which would decline because of the attack?

Is Mr. Soros in the money manipulation business? What does he know?

Does Mr. Soros have another agenda with MoveOnOrg just being a tool? Or is he sincee in his beliefs?

Gee, move told the truth again...from what I can tell

Yeah, that's the same thing they said about McCarthy too at first.

CNN: The war with Iran has begun

We have been in a proxy war with Iran for a while now.

But it won't escalate unless the Iranians make an overt attack on our troops in Iraq

Petreous is terrorized and destroyed so easily?

I think his career and impeccable reputation has been forever tarnished.

How can that even be in dispute.

Here's a fun and telling game to play

Yes, it is telling that Hans buys into the worst stereotypes of anti-semitism that he would make the connection between a passage about Soros and connect it to "the Jews"

Has everyone forgot the 2000 Presidential election? Bush, Rove and his band of ruthless aids called John McCain (A decorated Vet who did his time I might add, unlike W.) everything from a deserter to having 3 illigitimate black kids in South Carolina, and that is a memember of the same party!
Where was the outrage in the Republican Party?

If McCain's dick is the same lentgh as his memory he's in big trouble.

The recent ad by Move on may have needed a little rearrangement. But overall, the content of the add was right. I think the personal attacks should go and we should stick to the facts. The average voter also needs to be able to discern what is bullshit or not.

"Yes, it is telling that Hans buys into the worst stereotypes of anti-semitism..."

Should have expected bowwow to be too stupid to recognize ridicule, even when it is staring him in his face.

Hans

She SPECIFCALLY criticized the ad

No she didn't. Check the transcript on both shows.





Read this, eat shit, and disappear.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you an ad that has caused a lot of controversy in this debate about Iraq. MoveOn.org took this ad out, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?: Cooking the Books for the White House." Do you believe that General David Petraeus has betrayed the American people?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely not. He is a man of great honor and distinction who has served admirably. I don't condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don't believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that. I didn't think it should've been said about Senator Cleland or Senator Kerry. I think it's important that we end this kind of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country.

Sorry ... my last post was for Bowa.

I think the personal attacks should go and we should stick to the facts.

Sticking to the facts would be devastating to the Neocons. That's why we're going to see almost nothing but deflections from them for the next 14 months.

"I think it's important that we end this kind of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country."




Posted by midiman at 2007-09-23 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Nuff Said

Sticking to the facts would be devastating to the Neocons. That's why we're going to see almost nothing but deflections from them for the next 14 months.

Posted by Whatsleft at 2007-09-23 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The right has spent a lot of money setting up a network to take care of their dirty work.
Take Fox News for example or the the Junkie on the radio daily whats his name, oh yeah Rush. Sean Insanity and the like.....

U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."


From TedBaxter's post above ~ Bowow to your superior?:>)

Midiman, I guess I missed it. Where did she specifically say she condemned the MoveOn.org ad by name.

You are a victim of political trickery by a Clinton, and you wouldn't be the first.

you actually believe that she specifically denounced the moveon.org ad when she didn't mention the ad or moveon.org specifically at all.

She never said the words "Moveon.org" on russert or on Fox. She did not vote to condemn the moveon.org inthe bill which specifically named it either.

Bottom line is she is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

But her vote does not lie -- she is against condemning moveon.org for their Betray Us ad.

"The right has spent a lot of money setting up a network to take care of their dirty work."


In two words the right has Rupert Murdoch.

If there was ever a case for dispersing media outlets, its the last 6 years.

But her vote does not lie -- she is against condemning moveon.org for their Betray Us ad.

If that's true then maybe she's starting to grow a pair. Good for her!

"...she is against condemning moveon.org for their Betray Us ad."

And the problem with that is?

Good for her.

Meanwhile, more evidence that our resident reichwingers get their talking points directly from Faux News:

Bill O'Reilly Fearing Democratic Victory Resurrects George Soros

"Moveon.org is not an official government entity, so the comparassion to Joe McCarthy is such a stretch of logic, not to mention base, inflamatory, appeal to the lowest common and intellectual denomenator that it defies the imagination. Are you people really that fragile? Are your positions really that precarious that you have to sling reality negative comparassions in order to defend yourselves from words?"


Trees to Bowow

Bowow down for the knockout?:>)

Ah. Condemning Hillary for not casting an affirmative vote on the most undemocratic, unamerican resolution?

You sure got her, Bowa.

The people that introduced that Resolution? Where were they when the GOP did worse? Same place as always:

Ms. Boxer's proposal, which failed, called for the Senate to "strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism" of anyone in the United States armed forces. It did not name MoveOn.org, but criticized the ad that appeared in The Times. Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Clinton also voted in favor of Ms. Boxer's proposal.

All attacks means Republican attacks, too. Can't have that!

Oops!! Appears Hillary is consistent with what she said. She voted against ALL attacks, but when the GOP put forth a specific resolution condemning ONLY Moveon she said "Bullshit!"

GOP - party of hypocrites.

GOP - party of hypocrites.

Posted by YAV

with 22 Dems in the senate...

with 22 Cowards in the senate...

with 22 Cowards in the senate...


What does that make Obama, who didn't vote?

I think he expressed a similar point of view as Hil, but had to differentiate himself on the point somehow. Though I doubt that was the best way.

Dems, and everyone else for that matter, need to understand that only rarely in real life can we turn the ship of state without votes from both Parties.

The smart money knows that and has infiltrated the Dems, already having bought the Republicans outright.

It's something we need to keep in mind, but if in the Dem primaries we select a Moderate candidate now, one that can win a general election against a weakened, dis-organized, unmotivated GOP, the likelihood of getting a more Liberal Dem in office in the future is enhanced.

Dennis the K and Elizabeth the Red Giant '012!

Corky,

I don't know the circumstances behind why he did not vote, however, I have heard that he walked out of the vote.

Now, I can draw conclusions, but they are biased conclusions because I happen to support Obama.

Without knowing all the facts, what I think is that he might have felt the entire thing had become an asinine and fruitless exercise.

What I do know for a fact is that he did what I would have done.

I would have walked out too.

Personally, I think all the Dems should have abstained from voting on either measure. The whole thing has been a waste of the Senate's time and Taxpayer money.

Why should they have to condemn an ad which they had nothing what so ever to do with?

"a million Vietnamese were murdered by the communists consequent to our pullout there"


Link, please.

Posted by Corky at 2007-09-23 05:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Moveon.org is not an official government entity, so the comparassion to Joe McCarthy is such a stretch of logic, not to mention base, inflamatory, appeal to the lowest common and intellectual denomenator that it defies the imagination.

Just because Mccarthy was a Senator and Moveon.org is a PAC doesn't make the comparison invalid.

McCarthy never achieved a majority of support by the American people during his Communist "witch hunt" (which is sort of a misnomer since at least some of the people who were caught in his investigation were actually communist spies) and his abilty to raise money and use his position to target specific political opponents who disagreed with him was nowhere near the amount of resources that MoveOn.org can bring to bear to effect any race for elective office they choose to target -- be it a State Senator, Governor, US Senator, Congressman or President.

Like McCarthy, MoveOn's aggressive tactics in promotion of their political agenda stayed within bounds for a while -- but with their suggestion that the general, who had received a unanimous vote of confidence by the Senate is a traitor, MoveOn went too far and was rightly denounced by the Senate for their ad.

I think their attacks on Dem. congressman Baird for telling the truth about what he saw in Iraq is also pretty disgusting and heinous.

When a singleminded group like MoveOn exists for one reason, to end the war in Iraq, and will do or say anything they can to destroy the careers and reputations of those who disagree with their agenda -- then comparisons to McCarthy are bound to be made.

CNN) -- The public editor for The New York Times slammed his employer Sunday in a column, saying the newspaper violated its policies by cutting MoveOn.org a deal on a controversial ad criticizing the top U.S. military commander in Iraq.

Posted by jihahahahad


meanwhile

U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."


From TedBaxter's post above

ANALYSIS: I'd say the most likely total would be 430,000. That's 65,000 executions + 165,000 camp deaths + 200,000 boat people. It's unlikely that VN alone caused 460+87T democides in Cambodia + Laos since estimates of the total deaths in these conflicts only run to a half million or so.

Posted by Johnson at 2007-09-23 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

When a singleminded group like MoveOn exists for one reason, to end the war in Iraq, and will do or say anything they can to destroy the careers and reputations of those who disagree with their agenda -- then comparisons to McCarthy are bound to be made.

I should have said, "When a singleminded group like MoveOn exists for one reason, to end the war in Iraq by withdrawing prematurely and hand America a defeat and our enemies a victory"

Otherwise the bloggers here who love to jump on any word will say that I don't want the war in Iraq to end. I do. But not before we complete the mission -- which is to leave an Iraq that can govern itself and is not a puppet of Iran or al-qaeda.

"Just because Mccarthy was a Senator and Moveon.org is a PAC doesn't make the comparison invalid."

Bowow

Of course not!

"The Doctor Who novel Mad Dogs and Englishmen features a version of Noel Coward who has allied himself with alien poodles and gained time travel technology. "

Well folks, I thought that I'd conduct a search. I recognize that you should never show a fool half-finished work. Sorry that I goofed in that regard.

And be grateful that I'm doing some research for you rather than looking a gift horse in the mouth. by the way, killings attributable to the government after the conflict, including 500,000 boat people leaving and some 250,000 surviving were given. Sorry that I didn't highlight the over 1,000,000 postwar casualties shown in the material. Look a bit harder.

There are numerous sources. Please note that this one is bolded for you infra. It shows ... Nah, I'll maintain my faith in you. You can find it. Possibly.

Here is one. http:hawaii.edu/powerkills/
NOTE!.HTM

DEATH
BY GOVERNMENT

By R.J. Rummel

New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers, 1994.


Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long
----Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

CONTENTS


Figures and Tables
Forward (by Irving Louis Horowitz)
Preface
Acknowledgments
1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

I BACKGROUND

2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS

8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS

15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
References
Index

However, there is a big difference between 430,000 and 1,000,000.

I agree, 570,000 is a big difference.

But I guess if you don't see anything wrong with 430,000 dead -- then I guess that same amount is totally acceptable for you if we leave Iraq.

Which makes me wonder Trees, if 430,000 slaughtered after we left Vietnam doesn't bother you at all, why are you making such a big deal over the 3800 Americans and 75,000 Iraqis who have been killed so far in the Iraq war to date.

Which makes me wonder Trees, if 430,000 slaughtered after we left Vietnam doesn't bother you at all, why are you making such a big deal over the 3800 Americans and 75,000 Iraqis who have been killed so far in the Iraq war to date.


Posted by Bowa


Gee, i think you are missing a zero...bowowie...750,000 dead in Iraq or so...I believe:>)

When a singleminded group like MoveOn exists for one reason, to end the war in Iraq, and will do or say anything they can to destroy the careers and reputations of those who disagree with their agenda -- then comparisons to McCarthy are bound to be made.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-23 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Midiman, I guess I missed it. Where did she specifically say she condemned the MoveOn.org ad by name.

You are a victim of political trickery by a Clinton, and you wouldn't be the first.

you actually believe that she specifically denounced the moveon.org ad when she didn't mention the ad or moveon.org specifically at all.

She never said the words "Moveon.org" on russert or on Fox. She did not vote to condemn the moveon.org in the bill which specifically named it either.

Bottom line is she is talking out of both sides of her mouth.

But her vote does not lie -- she is against condemning moveon.org for their Betray Us ad.

Posted by Bowa


Bowa, I don't believe that you are a moron. I would be against the US SENATE condemning any sort of political speech in its official capacity, as well. It may not demean your side, but to me it cheapens the institution beyond that which the repubs have already done.

Now, to Hillary: she was responding to a direct question ABOUT the moveon ad. She said that she condemns it, along with all such ads, including the ones run by your boys against Cleland, etc.

I speak English. Fluently, in fact ... along with some Spanish, pretty good Italian, and conversational German. In NONE of those languages is it necessary to repeat the antecedent when responding to a direct question.

You are either a hopeless tool of the right, or one of the most dense people I have ever "virtually" met. Nit picky responses like the one you made damage what little credibility you have, and speak to a lack of integrity when dealing with objective reality.

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong, or at LEAST that Hillary can have an alternate reason for not voting for that resolution -apart from the reasons you ascribe to her?

plus GREENIE says we are in the war mostly for oil.


"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is largely about oil."


Where's the confusion? Stay for who's benefit...Bowowie?

Your employer ~ Rudy's?

"either a hopeless tool of the right, or one of the most dense people I have ever "virtually" met."

Why not both?

I think Rob Thomas said it best

LOL Rob Thomas? Isn't he in some rock group?

I think that continuing this war in Iraq gains us nothing, it does not make us Safer, it is a detriment to our standing in the world, it has inspired many more people to actively hate the policies of this administration world wide and it has cost us four thousand American lives and more money than any of us could count in our lifetimes.

and I fully support your right to hold those views Trees. You are not alone in them by a long shot. It is only when a group like MoveOn decides that it has the right to unfairly destroy the character and reputation of those who disagree with them that I begin to have a problem. Obviously, you think the tactics displayed by MoveOn in their ad, and against rep. Baird are fine and totally within bounds -- I disagree.

Moveon.org does not exist solely to end the Iraq war. Look them up, get informed.

Yes, I know they are liberal through and through on issues across the board. However, the anti-war stuff is where MoveOn becomes completely unhinged and responds to any dissent with Mccarthy-like viciousness

There has been no one to dispute the methodology of the report of 650,000 dead in Iraq. The figure is the most accurate one available, and with the most unbiased base as a source.

750,000 dead by now seems entirely consistent.

Somebody's "Johnson" is apparently quoting his Dear Leader Bush about high casualties in 'Nam after we left, and he is just as mistaken.

The vast majority of deaths were in Cambodia, the results of Nixon GOP interference in that country.

These goat herders in Iraq will, for the most part, go back to herding goats when we leave.

They certainly aren't the types to fight each other to the death by the millions; they have only been at it this long because we are there to "keep them apart".

This fear mongering of an absolutely ludicrous worst case scenario as the only possible outcome is typical of our friendly neighborhood GOPukes.

But I guess if you don't see anything wrong with 430,000 dead -- then I guess that same amount is totally acceptable for you if we leave Iraq.

Which makes me wonder Trees, if 430,000 slaughtered after we left Vietnam doesn't bother you at all, why are you making such a big deal over the 3800 Americans and 75,000 Iraqis who have been killed so far in the Iraq war to date.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-23 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

MoveOn becomes completely unhinged and responds to any dissent with Mccarthy-like viciousness

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-23 07:44 PM


Link? LOL

I thought you loved McCarthy.

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong, or at LEAST that Hillary can have an alternate reason for not voting for that resolution -apart from the reasons you ascribe to her?

Because I am not wrong. If someone asked me if I condemned the MoveOn ad and I did, I would say, "Yes, I condemn that ad, and I condemn all ads that....."

But she didn't say that. She deflected and just said that she condemns "all ads' without specifically responding to the ad in question -- couple that with her Nay vote on the resolution and I don't know how you can possibly say that Hillary wasn't trying to talk out of both sides of her mouth on this issue.

Yes, I know they are liberal through and through on issues across the board. However, the anti-war stuff is where MoveOn becomes completely unhinged and responds to any dissent with Mccarthy-like viciousness

Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-23 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Trees, you have to ask?

Wow, Bowa. Where did I EVER say Idon't see anything wrong with 430,000 dead ?

Trees, if you see a big enough difference between 1 million dead and 430,000 to call out Johnson for his error (even saying he's not too bright) that suggests you find 1 million dead as being somehow unnacceptable, but the lessor number of 430,000 acceptable.

Because if it wasnt' acceptable, then whether 430,000 or 1 million dead after we pulled out of Vietnam, you would have given Johnson a pass on the main point of his argument which was that the number of deaths caused after we left was intolerable and we must not let it happen again.

And if you are now saying that 430,000 deaths is unnacceptable, then why would you support the preamture pullout from Iraq knowing that the resulting deaths could equal that of when we left vietnam or be even worse.

So either way, it seems you should clarify your position as to how many deaths are acceptable for you if we pullout of Iraq preamturely.

There has been no one to dispute the methodology of the report of 650,000 dead in Iraq. The figure is the most accurate one available, and with the most unbiased base as a source.

750,000 dead by now seems entirely consistent.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

but Bowowie clings to his numbers by golly...repeating them enough make them so?

Where is your condemnation of the RIghtwingers that do the same thing to Anti-War Americans by calling them traitors? Where is your condemnation when Fox News talking heads use the same tactics?

Trees, hate to tell you but I don't see it happening on the right to near the extent I see it happening on the Left. And when it does, it's on the fringe not the mainstream like

That said, I think O'Reilly goes too far sometimes. Hannity too. Which is one reason why I don't like them very much and watch them rarely.

What about Rush Limbaugh's original use of the "Betray us" line directed at Senator Chuck Hagel when he took a stand against the war?

Rush was talking about Hagel betraying the GOP not America. I think he made the comment only once. There's no comparison between that comment, and an ad that ran in the NY Times which suggested that the commander during wartime of all our forces in Iraq was a traitor to the American people before he even testified before Congress.

I think Rob Thomas said it best

LOL Rob Thomas? Isn't he in some rock group? Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-23 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bowa

Rush used the line Senator Betrayus in context with Hagel coming out against the Iraq conflict. It has nothing to do with betraying the GOP at all.

Your hypocrisy is evident and obvious.

Trees, if you see a big enough difference between 1 million dead and 430,000 to call out Johnson for his error (even saying he's not too bright) that suggests you find 1 million dead as being somehow unnacceptable, but the lessor number of 430,000 acceptable.

Bowa

From your link on body counts.


"Data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents."

They don't gatheer the numbers themselves. They take their information from news--the morgues and OFFICIAL SOURCES. Official sources are the government.

Lots of bodies never find their way to the morgue.

Media erports? Like CNN?

650,000 is the most credible figure from an unbiased source.

There has been no one to dispute their methodology.

Trees, hate to tell you but I don't see it happening on the right to near the extent I see it happening on the Left. And when it does, it's on the fringe not the mainstream like

if the general didn't tell the complete truth and he yielded to frat boy's coaching then he did betray our great country.

650,000 is the most credible figure from an unbiased source.There has been no one to dispute their methodology.

It is only credible to you Bob.

and I already showed you one place where it was disputed and why it is too far-fetched to beleive.

Bowa

Here is their reutation:


"In the light of such extreme and improbable implications,"


That means---they have no way to refute the evidence so they simply refuse to believe it.


Hardly scientific, and they get their numbers from the government.

Bowa--

You showed a partisan site, with partisan numbers, who get their numbers from the government and reporters. Why not just ask Bush how many died?

I'm simply unwilling to support an action or people who flat out REFUSE to make their own situation any better.

So Trees, are you saying you were initially a supporter of the war, up until they voted for their Constitution and government in 3 elections -- and now 1 1/2 years later you are against the war only because you don't believe that the governemnt has worked fast enough at unifying their own country?

Well, its good to know that supported the war initially at least.

So Trees, are you saying you were initially a supporter of the war, up until they voted for their Constitution and government in 3 elections -- and now 1 1/2 years later you are against the war only because you don't believe that the governemnt has worked fast enough at unifying their own country?

Bowa

Your source is biased.

Your source uses government figures.

My source is unbiased and its methodology is unchallenged by your report execpt to say Nu--UHHHH.


Them's the facts---I am not involved in their construction.

I already told you once that I am not playing this stupid game with you.

Stupid?

You are giving me reasons why you don't support the war.

So when you say you can't support the war saying "I'm simply unwilling to support an action or people who flat out REFUSE to make their own situation any better." then that suggests at one time you must have supported the war but your mind changed due to conditions on the ground.

Otherwise, I guess I'll have to believe that you were always against this war, and you are just looking for any and all reasons to continue to be against it.

Admit it trees, you would be as much against the war today if the Iraqis had met 15 of 18 benchmarks instead of 3 of 18.

Well, its good to know that supported the war initially at least.


Posted by Bowowie

I never supported the war for oil profits for the Bush trillionaire crime family...but at least I don't hate them for their ongoing crimes against humanity!

I, too, had done similar stuff in past lives...

Here's one!

Gandhi actually complimented Hitler on his organizational ability! What is now known in reincarnation circles is Napoleon came back later as Hitler:>)

Admit it trees, you would be as much against the war today if the Iraqis had met 15 of 18 benchmarks instead of 3 of 18.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-23 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...if the Iraqis had met 15 of 18 benchmarks instead of 3 of 18."

Ah, yes, the old numerology of victory.

Just like in Vietnam.

Hans

Bowa

Your source is biased.

Your source uses government figures.

My source is unbiased and its methodology is unchallenged by your report execpt to say Nu--UHHHH.


Them's the facts---I am not involved in their construction.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-09-23 08:41 PM

Being a good and worthy student of the esteemed BuffaloBobShit, I must correct the BobShit Master. All of our rights come from the government (as I have learned from BuffaloBobShit time and again), therefore if Bowa's source is from the government....Bowa must be right....say it ain't so Master BuffaloBobshit!

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong, or at LEAST that Hillary can have an alternate reason for not voting for that resolution -apart from the reasons you ascribe to her?

Because I am not wrong. If someone asked me if I condemned the MoveOn ad and I did, I would say, "Yes, I condemn that ad, and I condemn all ads that....."

But she didn't say that. She deflected and just said that she condemns "all ads' without specifically responding to the ad in question -- couple that with her Nay vote on the resolution and I don't know how you can possibly say that Hillary wasn't trying to talk out of both sides of her mouth on this issue.

Posted by Bowa



And WHOM do you think she was trying to fool? Anyway who heard her today will hear her say "I condemn."

Reread your post, bud. It is PATHETIC how you grasp at straws, requiring from Hillary a precision of language that is beyond the attention span of most - CERTAINLY of most bushies. Anyone as bright as you are or beyond will see through your little word games. Do you apply such rigidity to the responses of your side of the debate? Equal outrage at the slurs and insults hurled by the right wing against honorable men and women on the left?

I'm sorry, but you are a stooge, and no longer worthy of serious rebuttal.

"I'm sorry, but you are a stooge, and no longer worthy of serious rebuttal."

And while the bushbots/apologists are busy condemning MoveOn.org?

Damn, Hans ... das hat der Sache ein Ende gemacht.

"Damn, Hans ... das hat der Sache ein Ende gemacht."

Curious to see if there will be any response to it.

Hans

Curious to see if there will be any response to it.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-09-23 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why is everyone overlooking that "General Betray Us" was coined by soldiers in Iraq???

Oh, and since I wasn't explicit, no Democrats changed sides on condemning ALL such ads. The Democrats that didn't vote YEA to the GOP version did vote for Boxer's amendment - with one exception:

Feingold. He voted NAY to both. The rest abstained.

Feingold. He voted NAY to both. The rest abstained.

Posted by YAV

Feingold has guts! & integrity...like Ron Paul so far & Dennis K...

"Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)"

If Craig is Senator Wide Stance, what does that make Crapo?

Hans

If Craig is Senator Wide Stance, what does that make Crapo?

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-09-23 09:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Feingold has guts! & integrity...like Ron Paul so far & Dennis K...

Posted by Bani at 2007-09-23 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes he does, Bani, and that's why I made sure to post his vote record.

I'm glad you caught that!

PATRIOT Act

Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when first voted on in 2001.[43] At the time, Feingold stated that provisions in the act infringed upon citizens' civil liberties

"Oh man, not while I'm eating!"

Which reminds me:

Life is like a shit sandwich: The more bread you have the less shit you have to eat.

Be sure to ask for pumpernickel bread.

Hans

Be sure to ask for pumpernickel bread.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-09-23 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

sourbough bread is about the only bread I will with green eggs & yam.

I do not like Green Eggs and Ham.

Ah yes, Dr. Seuss, one of the first writers of Rap lyrics.

Ah yes, Dr. Seuss, one of the first writers of Rap lyrics.

Posted by Whatsleft at 2007-09-23 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Robert Preston then was the first Rap artist in film in "Music Man":>)

"Robert Preston then was the first Rap artist in film in "Music Man"

Cash for the merchandise--cash for the button-hooks--

Cash for the cotton goods--cash for the hard goods--cash for the soft goods . . .

Cash for the hogshead, cask and demijohn.

Cash for the crackers and the pickles and the flypaper.

Look whadayatalk, whadayatalk, whada-yatalk, whadayatalk, whadayatalk? . . .

Admit it trees, you would be as much against the war today if the Iraqis had met 15 of 18 benchmarks instead of 3 of 18.


Bowa

I'm not so sure reminding everyone what a failure this has been is the smartest way to make your point.

Look whadayatalk, whadayatalk, whada-yatalk, whadayatalk, whadayatalk? . . .Applies really well.

Thanks, Hans

"I'm not so sure reminding everyone what a failure this has been is the smartest way to make your point."

Ted, too bad that some here won't understand or appreciate what you just said.

And, you're welcome... my pleasure.

Hans

On the FOX morning show today Hillary refused to denounce the MoveOn ad and refused to denounce Columbia University for honoring Ahmadinejad by giving him a prestigious forum to speak at.


Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-23 10:39 AM | Reply

And?

What part of freedom of speech bothers you?

This email from the Advocates says
"Dear friend of the Advocates,

Yesterday the liberal organization MoveOn. was denounced by the U.S. Senate and
called "disgusting" by President Bush, because of their controversial ad
campaign criticizing the War In Iraq.

The result: MoveOn was flooded with donations! In fact, they received over
$500,000 in a single day -- and the money is still pouring in.

Quite frankly, that made me wish that the U.S. Senate would vote to denounce
the Advocates for Self-Government.

Because we could sure use $500,000! And believe me, we would use it for liberty
much better than the liberal Big Government MoveOn." "


I haven't checked it out.

I already told you once that I am not playing this stupid game with you. If the best you can do is put words in to the mouths of others in order to justify your infantile political partisanship than I'll just sit here and laugh at you my little Keyboard Kommando(?) while you continue to play the Jester to this Liberal Court.

Posted by TreesGoneWild


I see that I am not the only one who feels this way about bowa - he is an apt student of the right, which thrives on intentional misrepresentation and straw man arguments ... that is, when fear and wedge issues aren't working.

It's sad that they do it ... sadder still is that it works.

11% approval for demcraps. Ya know, its less than the approval for rethugs. My, my.

Hey better watch it You republicans will be in negative territory soon JMFJ. That being said I hope You kick the shit out of whatever it is that You've got. We may not get along but I still want You around. You dig??

Larry

Very much Larry. Thanks, and actually both sides suck.

Can we do a Total Recall on the house and senate?

"11% approval for demcraps."

Got a link which says Democrats are at an 11% approval?

Meanwhile:

I see that I am not the only one who feels this way about bowa - he is an apt student of the right, which thrives on intentional misrepresentation and straw man arguments

LOL

That's a crock. There's no "intentional misrepresentation" nor have I made any "straw man" arguemnts.

Midi, you are upset because I won't agree with your assesment of Hillary's performance on the talk shows yesterday -- she was asked specifically whether she would condemn the MoveOn.org ad and instead she answered "I condemn all ads" of a certain ilk. She never once said that the MoveOn ad was of that "ilk". In other words, she was speaking out of both sides of her mouth. That is a legitimate position to take. Just because you disagree doesn't make me a "tool" or any other name you want to call me. BTW: I could of course say the same thing about you or anyone here for not agreeing with me -- but I don't. I realize that people can disagree and it doesn't make them "tools" or "trolls" or whatever. Funny how so many people on the Left here fail to be able to grasp that.

As for Trees, she boxes herself into corners with her comments and when one actually analyzes what she is saying, it doesn't fit it into the position she is taking.

So of course she doesn't want to play this "stupid game", it's because she has no answer for saying the things she does. Like most Lefties she is used to having her views just acknowledged as truth without ever being analyzed. To her credit, she is at least on a site like drudge.com where her comments are occassionally challenged. But, of course, when things get too frustrating for her she always has her fall back position -- "I am not playing this stupid game with you"

Can you imagine the derision I would receive if I ever said "I am not playing this stupid game with you" to any blogger here. Immediately, almost every blogger here would be claiming victory and calling me a whiney baby. But when a Lefty like trees does it, then she is lauded for it. Hypocritical and hilarious.

But then it wouldn't be drudge.com if our Lefties here didn't exhibit that behavior 24/7

"I see that I am not the only one who feels this way about bowa"

It is a steadily-growing majority, Midiman.

Hans

The ad has become a rallying cry for Republicans and put Democrats back on their heels as they try to craft something that will change the course of the Iraq war.

Did anyone not see this coming? Honestly? These groups are so freaking extremist it was only a matter of time before they went too far. Sheehan, DKos, MoveOn... The phrase "Inmates running the asylum" has never had a better fit.

"I stand corrected, America hates the Dem controlled house."

One personal opinion post on Craig's List does not America make.

For all anyone knows you put that post there.

"Sorry."

You've got that right.

Hans

"The ad has become a rallying cry for Republicans..."

The oldest soldier, a woman and a doctor, was 32 years old.

Not sure if she was pregnant or not, but that needed repeating.

Hans

Hans,

Its from the Zogby/Rueters poll. Sorry you dont like the numbers.

And no Hans, I didnt write the article.

And regardless of the numbers, once again you have elected the democrats who will not do what you voted them in for.

And now the democrats are not liked by either the left or the right.

Hans,
Your point? Was she more special than the others because she was a woman? A doctor? 32?


The military hero of the left, Wesley Clark seems to be defending Petraeus, and calls him a friend and somebody whose integrity is beyond reproach. I wonder why none of the people bagging on Petraeus seem to mention that?

Hans,
Would you be happy if Gen Petreas didn't outlive the soldiers whose names you keep posting in order to score some political points?

"Its from the Zogby/Rueters poll. Sorry you dont like the numbers."

Reading comprehension problems?

Once again: Got a link which says Democrats are at an 11% approval?

Meanwhile:

Hans,

A historic low for a dem controlled congress.

search Democrats 11% approval.

Again, sorry you dont like the numbers.

And how come they never do what they say?

Yeah Hans I think you do have Reading comprehension problems?

I corrected that statement.

11%, My, my.

He's not General Betrayus. He's General Outlivedus.
Hans


Posted by Hans

Just for shits and giggles are you counted among the 3.3 million members of MoveOn?

"I corrected that statement."

You did?

Once again, got a link which says Democrats are at an 11% approval?

"search Democrats 11% approval" is not a link. If it were you'd be posting it here.

Meanwhile:

Unsure 18%

That's a pretty good sized number... I would suppose if the congress were doing a better job this number would be smaller.

Is this a poll of likely voters or merely registered voters?

Plus we're still over a year away from the Election and during that time, the Iraq war will not end and Bush will not be impeached... Makes me wonder how many of the Democrats who voted the DNC into the majority to accomplish those goals will gleefully line up again to vote for a party who paid them nothing but lip service? Not that they would vote Republican... but if a far left candidate broke off and pulled a Nader would they vote for him, or maybe just not vote at all...

General Petraeaus
General Ursus
General Greivous
General Ulysses (Grant)
General Zod
General Tso

Claiming someone is a liar, before they even speak is the sin here. Then getting a smaller fee to print it is another sin.

I like moveon.org, shows the Democrats rtue colors.

Claiming someone is a liar, before they even speak is the sin here. Then getting a smaller fee to print it is another sin.

I like moveon.org, shows the Democrats true colors.

Bowa: she was asked specifically whether she would condemn the MoveOn.org ad and instead she answered "I condemn all ads" of a certain ilk.

Clinton: I don't believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that.



How stuped ARE you, bowa? Do you know what the word "that" means? Good grief.

were they wrong in their assertions? that is the point, aint it. if they jumped the gun and were wrong, well you would be correct. if they jumped the gun and were right, well one would call them intelligent.

oops - "stupid"

Plus we're still over a year away from the Election and during that time, the Iraq war will not end and Bush will not be impeached... Makes me wonder how many of the Democrats who voted the DNC into the majority to accomplish those goals will gleefully line up again to vote for a party who paid them nothing but lip service? Not that they would vote Republican... but if a far left candidate broke off and pulled a Nader would they vote for him, or maybe just not vote at all...

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole
* * * *

Very good point. Since voting to end the war and impeach Bush, liberal voters have gotten neither. In fact, there are more troops in Iraq now than since November, and the new rubber-stamp Congress is paying for it all. Fast-forward two weeks, and it's possible that the intransigence of the House leadership will result in a shutdown of the federal government, which is what gave Republicans a decade ago such headaches when they presumed--incorrecly--that Clinton was down for the count as a result of the '94 elections.

Count on history to repeat, and for the Dems to screw things up again in the presidential race. Nominating Hillary will be such a screwup--no poll ever conducted has put her positive ratings over her negatives; and it would electrify the right, while angering the hard left. Entre a 3rd party candidate, and Giuliani or Romney will be having his parade.

Still, who knows? Lot of time between now and then.

Since voting to end the war and impeach Bush, liberal voters have gotten neither. In fact, there are more troops in Iraq now than since November, and the new rubber-stamp Congress is paying for it all.

Of course, the answer to that is simple: more democrats in the Senate to overcome the CONSTANT filibustering of the repubs, who are insisting on 60-vote margins for everything.

Okay.

But how many Dems voted to end funding the war? And how many bills of impeachment have been introduced?

Does anyone here eat, sleep or work? Blah blah blah

The Dems were for Petraeus before they called him a traitor.

Of course, the answer to that is simple: more democrats in the Senate to overcome the CONSTANT filibustering of the repubs, who are insisting on 60-vote margins for everything.


What a great rationalization!

"The Dems were for Petraeus before they called him a traitor."

The Dems were for Petraeus before they called him a traitor.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Hans,
Why is it important to mention the female?
What is the point of using the dead for your attempt at a political gain? Would you feel better if the General was dead or died before the names you posted?

Basically, what the fuck is your point in using the soldiers sacrifice in order for you to gain favor with the ghouls here at the retort?

Okay.

But how many Dems voted to end funding the war? And how many bills of impeachment have been introduced?

Posted by rightisright at 2007-09-24 12:53 PM | Reply


You don't think that dumb-fuck will answer do you? She's busy trying to retrieve the bartles and james bottles she drank last night from her snatch.

"The Dems were for Petraeus before they called him a traitor."

Nothing like an attempt at political gain there.

Let's use hurting poor General Outlivedus' feelings as a way to gain favor with the ghouls here at the retort.

Hans

Basically, what the fuck is your point in using the soldiers sacrifice in order for you to gain favor with the ghouls here at the retort?



As I was reading through the post that your are addressing I was expecting to see:

"Posted by truthhurts" at the bottom. I was quite surprised and a bit disappointed to see "Posted by Hans."

Basically, what the fuck is your point in using the soldiers sacrifice in order for you to gain favor with the ghouls here at the retort?



As I was reading through the post that your are addressing I was expecting to see:

"Posted by truthhurts" at the bottom. I was quite surprised and a bit disappointed to see "Posted by Hans."

The oldest soldier, a woman and a doctor, was 32 years old.

Needed repeating.

Of course, for some, poor General Outlivedus' feelings are much more important than dead soldiers, male or female.

Hans

"I was quite surprised and a bit disappointed to see "Posted by Hans."

Not nearly as disappointed as I was as seeing "Live or Die gets a funny!".

Sounds like some are more interested in using poor General Outlivedus' hurt feelings as a way of deflecting any genuine discussion of the Iraq clusterf*ck, and the fact that soldiers are still dying there.

For what?

Hans

Hans,


This has been discussed in the past....


Using the ultimate sacrifice paid by soldiers as political fodder comes accross as quite ghoulish - almost as if the person doing so is dancing on their graves over the use of their death for political gain.

Every Sunday CalifChris posts a thread honoring the fallen - and he does so by naming them all and giving a quick bio. He does so WITHOUT injecting politics into it. He's honoring their sacrifice, nothing more.

Now, if you had made your point without naming names, I don't think you'd get this type of a reaction from the likes of myself, or Chairborne. Pointing to the death of American soldiers (needless death, if one opposes the war) is certainly a fair criticism of policy. However, personalizing it to the extent that you are, really does come accross as ghoulish, in my opinion.

Not nearly as disappointed as I was as seeing "Live or Die gets a funny!".


He was mocking a stereotype and was doing so in a humorous manner.

Couple that with the fact that Petraeous was unanimously (if memory serves, if he got any 'nay' votes, they were VERY minimal in number) voted by the Democrats into his position. Then, we have the likes of Hillary Clinton saying things like, "The willing suspension of disbelief." Which is Clintonian speak for, "You are a fucking liar, General." In short, his comment seemed to be intended as a joke.


I have given my thoughts and opinion of the tack you have chosen. It's your perogative as to how you utilize that information.

"However, personalizing it to the extent that you are..."

Yeah... the ultimate fear of the Bush apologists and the "support the troops" types.

"Let's keep it clean and sterile" seems to be the operative words here. No body bags coming in from the battles, no pictures of caskets coming home, not a single presidential appearance at the funeral of a dead soldier, no pointing out that 19 soldiers have died since poor General Outlivedus' feelings were hurt.

Of course, to the families of those 19 dead soldiers it is very much "personalized."

Hans

"Couple that with the fact that Petraeous was unanimously (if memory serves, if he got any 'nay' votes, they were VERY minimal in number) voted by the Democrats into his position."

And no couple who vowed to "honor, love and cherish until death do us part" has ever gotten divorced.

So?

Hans

Umm BULLSHIT...agin!

Nothing like making a racial slur and Moveon is not running for election. Moveon provides information that is uncomfortable to hear.

I see no where in the ad where is says he is a traitor. The ad is about betrayal. It is more about The General Betraying himself and his oath to defend and protect the Constitution. And it speaks to the Rethugs in their own schoolyard language and it obviously struck a nerve (one of the few functioning nerves left apparently).

The President stooped to hiding behind the General who did a Powell to once again misrepresent the facts in order to further this Administrations agenda (not Americas agenda).

The ad does it job and brings out information that needs to be known by the American people that would NOT be told to you by Bush and it clearly points out some of the lies..

the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there.

Do you want to talk about the facts or engage in name calling...so what about it? Did they lie about this or did General Patreaus lie by misrepresenting the facts? Or are just upset that Moveon usurped the GOPs favorite strategy to get your attention...

-Trashy Schoolyard talk?

"He was mocking a stereotype and was doing so in a humorous manner."

Sort of like Purple Heart Band Aids?

Something like that?

Or mocking Max Cleland? For political gain?

Something like that?

Hans

Hans,
You didn't answer the questions. Would you be happy if Petraeus died ahead of the other soldiers you callously use for political gain? What is the importance of the 32 year old doctor?
Is it because she's a woman?

Of course, to the families of those 19 dead soldiers it is very much "personalized."

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-09-24 01:37 PM | Reply


And those 19 soldiers family's appreciate you using their sons and daughters deaths while attempting to look smart on a blog you fucking cunt.

"And those 19 soldiers family's appreciate you using their sons and daughters deaths while attempting to look smart on a blog you fucking cunt."

Yes, Hans - next time please only list the rank and serial number of each dead soldier. Seeing names, ages, etc. might actually make Jeff think.

If the Dems are so concerned about the casualties--male and female, doctors or no--why don't they vote to end the war?

The Democratic Party isn't mine. But if you're so worked up about the mounting combat deaths, how many votes do you have in Congress to end the war? You've got working majorities in both houses, right now--yet the president hasn't had to veto any Iraq bills, because you haven't given him any to sign. So maybe you're upset with some of the wrong people, eh?

Let's use hurting poor General Outlivedus'

I don't get this name... I get "Betray us" cuz it sounds like his name... its very clever. But what are you trying to say with "Outlivedus." That he should die? I'm not seeing that one...

But please by all means MoveOn, run another heavily discounted ad calling Patreaus, "Outlivedus."

Are you a member of MoveOn hans?

Hans,


Of course, to the families of those 19 dead soldiers it is very much "personalized."


Absolutely it is. And some of the deceased (and their surviving family members) support this effort. Do you honestly think those individuals wish to have their sacrifice used as a means of 'bashing' the very effort that they sacrificed so greatly which they support???


And no couple who vowed to "honor, love and cherish until death do us part" has ever gotten divorced.

So?

The point being that they overwhelmingly supported the guy until he didn't say exactly what they wanted him to say. Then, when he didn't toe the line verbatim, he's been subjected to on-going ad hominem. It makes Live-or-die's comment quite humorous, in context.


Sort of like Purple Heart Band Aids?

Something like that?

Or mocking Max Cleland? For political gain?

Something like that?


No.
No.
No.
No.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but your last post that I've reproduced seems to be an intentional misdirection - pulling up some truly offensive 'jabs' and conflating them with a more apropos (and funny) jab. I look at these things individually, as opposed to lumping all of these jabs into one category based upon my own personal leanings. They are what they are and not all jabs are created equal.

The oldest soldier, a woman and a doctor, was 32 years old.

I don't understand why this is bold either... what seperates her from the group?

"Is it because she's a woman?

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-09-24 01:43 PM"

If it makes more of the morons who still support this fucking clusterfuck of a war think, and think hard about what the fuck we are doing over there, then good on Hans.

"Is it because she's a woman?

Posted by 101Chairborne at 2007-09-24 01:43 PM"

If it makes more of the morons who still support this fucking clusterfuck of a war think, and think hard about what the fuck we are doing over there, then good on Hans.

RiR,

But if you're so worked up about the mounting combat deaths, how many votes do you have in Congress to end the war? You've got working majorities in both houses, right now--yet the president hasn't had to veto any Iraq bills, because you haven't given him any to sign. So maybe you're upset with some of the wrong people, eh?


Some are misdirecting their anger.

Some are truly upset with the Democrats lack of action in this regard (Moneywar, and even Danni).

"Yes, Hans - next time please only list the rank and serial number of each dead soldier. Seeing names, ages, etc. might actually make Jeff think."

Will do, Monte. Apparently, it offends their sensibilites to actually see someone counter their Faux-news sponsored "MoveOn bad, Gen. Outlivedus good" attempt at deflection.

"So maybe you're upset with some of the wrong people, eh?"

I'm upset at the people who got us into this clusterf*ck in the first place. You know, the ones who have mismanaged it to date. The idiots who, for example, fired the entire Iraqi army and police force, even those who were anti-Saddam, and sent them home armed and pissed off.

That's who I'm pissed off at.

Hans

If it makes more of the morons who still support this fucking clusterfuck of a war think, and think hard about what the fuck we are doing over there, then good on Hans.


OK.

What if it makes those who might otherwise be persuaded to turn against this war bristle at the ghoulish tactics??

JeffJ - I don't see that happening.

""ghoulish tactics??""

Oh for crying out loud, get a grip.
Poor General Betrayus, did Moveon hurt his feelings.???
Maybe he shouldn't be a shill for the Bush administration then.
Sychophantic ass kisser.

"The Democratic Party isn't mine. But if you're so worked up about the mounting combat deaths, how many votes do you have in Congress to end the war?

Posted by rightisright at 2007-09-24 01:48 PM"

None. I don't think there are many members of Congress "contributing" to the debate on this site.

Apparently, it offends their sensibilites to actually see someone counter their Faux-news sponsored "MoveOn bad, Gen. Outlivedus good" attempt at deflection.


You are conflating issues.


The following are all seperate issues:

*Betray us ad
*The war and loss of life - is it worth it?
*The use of the names of the deceased to score political points
*The offense of the sensibilities of some for having ghoulish tactics called out.


Each one is a discussion in itself (with some obvious overlap). Calling out the Betrayus ad isn't necessarily a deflection. It happened and it warrants discussion. The fact that it's discussed doesn't take away from legitimate criticisms of the justification for, and handling of this war. However, the fact that it's discussed doesn't mean that it's being used as a deflection either.

But how many Dems voted to end funding the war? And how many bills of impeachment have been introduced?

Posted by rightisright


All the ones who agree with those positions did. The rest did not. Kind of simple, eh?

I, for one, would have voted FOR funding and AGAINST impeachment.

Dems never campaigned on impeachment or to cut funding for the war. They pledged to end the war, and so far the only thing preventing changes in the Iraq policy is action by the republicans in the senate.

So, once again, the answer is more democrats, or some repubs who will vote with them.

This isn't rocket science, guys, the obtuseness of some of you Bushies notwithstanding.

"The point being that they overwhelmingly supported the guy until he didn't say exactly what they wanted him to say."

And David Souter was confirmed with 90% of the vote in the US Senate.

Want to take an opinion poll of conservatives what they think of Souter today?

Or should his conservative distracters shut up about his voting record since confirmation because he was overwhelmingly supported (he got 90% of the vote in the US Senate)?

Hans

I'm sure the General has better things to do that worry about what UnableToMoveOn.org has to say about things. He testified to Congress, and Congress has--again--given him a blank check. So maybe instead of pointing fingers at a general whom you believed "betrayed" you, shouldn't you be making phone calls to your new Congressmen?

Danni,

""ghoulish tactics??""

Oh for crying out loud, get a grip.
Poor General Betrayus, did Moveon hurt his feelings.???
Maybe he shouldn't be a shill for the Bush administration then.
Sychophantic ass kisser.


The ghoulish tactics I was referring to had nothing to do with Gen. Petraeus. You are guilty of assigning a position based upon prejudice.

You've got working majorities in both houses, right now--yet the president hasn't had to veto any Iraq bills, because you haven't given him any to sign. So maybe you're upset with some of the wrong people, eh?

Posted by rightisright



This bespeaks an ignorance of reality. There can't BE a bill if there can't be a vote, and the repubs will not allow it, since they will filibuster every attempt.

They are thereby thwarting the will of the majority of Americans.

""ghoulish tactics??""

Oh for crying out loud, get a grip.
Poor General Betrayus, did Moveon hurt his feelings.???
Maybe he shouldn't be a shill for the Bush administration then.
Sychophantic ass kisser.

Needed repeating.

Thanks, Danni.

Hans

I'm upset at the people who got us into this clusterf*ck in the first place. You know, the ones who have mismanaged it to date. The idiots who, for example, fired the entire Iraqi army and police force, even those who were anti-Saddam, and sent them home armed and pissed off.

That's who I'm pissed off at.

Hans

Posted by Hans a


This is the most bullshit that I have ever read in my entire life...

Not about the mismanaged war and whatnot...

About being pissed off.

He/she won't answer why the woman is highlighted. Clearly he/she's in a catch 22.

Hans, surely you share such ghoulish sentiments outside of the blogosphere right? I mean surely you go around parading those brave soldiers names as some type of a political point scoring system...


Now coward, are you saying you want Petreaus to die? Would that make you feel better?

Gen Clark seems to think pretty highly of General Petreaus, but then again, who the hell is he right?

I hope you make the mistake of believing that what you're doing is some how honoring those soldiers sacrifices, and that you share it with a soldier or the family of a fallen soldier.

"However, the fact that it's discussed doesn't mean that it's being used as a deflection either."

Of course it is being used as a deflection.

Much easier to demonize MoveOn.org than to confront the whole "numerology of victory" shell game being played out by this administration.

Hans

JeffJ - I don't see that happening. - Monte

How do you know?



And David Souter was confirmed with 90% of the vote in the US Senate.

Want to take an opinion poll of conservatives what they think of Souter today?

Or should his conservative distracters shut up about his voting record since confirmation because he was overwhelmingly supported (he got 90% of the vote in the US Senate)?


I never disagreed with this point.

I only disagreed in the sense that you seemed to take real offense to Live 0r Die's comment, which came accross as funny to me. It was a funny play on words in the context of Kerry's speaking gaffe during the '04 election run. That is all.

I believe all Hans is doing is reminding each and every Bush supporter and those who supported and continue to support the Iraq War what their support has wrought not just on the Iraqi people but the AMericans as well. You don't like it because it reminds You of Your culpability in this War of Aggression. You are at the stage where that Cyanide is starting to churn Your guts something feirce and whenever someone reminds You that You partook of that Bush Lemming Juice You wail You gnash Your teeth You lash out. That is precisely what is happening now. Your fucking guts are ripping apart piece by nasty little piece and You don't know whther to shit or go blind because it is THAT painful. I say Kuddos hans Remind them each and every day. This is upon them if they can't stand it maybe they should do some heavy introspections.

Larry

Moveon...still, and will always be, the tool of the American moron. Moveon is ABSOLUTELY another example of why the Dems have yet to win over middle-America, and the middle-class.

Moveon is the mouthpiece of the Liberal Elites, and everyone sees it for what it is. The New York Times is also included in this catergory.

I think the funny thing about Moveon is that they think they are stirring up dissent among middle-class voters (majority of voters in our country). In reality, they are only effective at whipping up excitement within their own ranks and support.

What a bunch of fools.

This bespeaks an ignorance of reality. There can't BE a bill if there can't be a vote, and the repubs will not allow it, since they will filibuster every attempt.


That is mighty convenient. Let's campaign on ending the war, but when it comes time to put up let's not even try to publicly stop the war and in the process accuse Republicans of something they haven't even done yet.


They are thereby thwarting the will of the majority of Americans.


Bullshit!

This bespeaks an ignorance of reality. There can't BE a bill if there can't be a vote, and the repubs will not allow it, since they will filibuster every attempt.

They are thereby thwarting the will of the majority of Americans.

Posted by midiman
* * * *

Are you that ignorant? The Iraq War is being funded via ongoing resolutions. Just don't put forth another one, and the funding stops. The Republicans can't filibuster a resolution that doesn't hit the floor. So just refuse to fund the thing.

Or, you can just excise Iraq from the Defense Appropriations Bill, which the Dems have yet to even have hearings on, let alone pass. Then dare the President to veto it.

Hope I'm not going too fast for you. Is that your strategy, though? "Nothing happens in Iraq until the American people give us 60 Senators?"

Not much of a rallying cry, frankly. But good luck with it anyhow.

"I never disagreed with this point."

When you said this:

The point being that they overwhelmingly supported the guy until he didn't say exactly what they wanted him to say. Then, when he didn't toe the line verbatim, he's been subjected to on-going ad hominem.

"...another example of why the Dems have yet to win over middle-America, and the middle-class."

Hey "Fred," live in the now:

Before November, 2006, it was GOP majorities in:

US Senate
US House
Governorships
State Legislatures

As as a consequence of the November, 2006 elections?

US Senate: Majority Democratic
US House: Majority Democratic (including TX-22: Democratic)
Governorships: Majority Democratic
State Legislatures: Majority Democratic

... and ...

The GOP failed to pickup a single House or Senate seat formerly held by a Democrat - the first time a major party has failed in such a spectacular manner since 1980.

... and ...

Two-thirds of the districts that flipped to the Democratic side of the ledger were carried by Bush on the presidential ballot just two years earlier.

I didn't say I knew, Jeff. I said I don't see it, and I stand by that sentiment. Let's take a poll - any war supporters who were thinking about becoming war opposers who, because of Hans listing the names of recent dead soldiers along with some personal info, are now back to war supporting?

That is mighty convenient. Let's campaign on ending the war, but when it comes time to put up let's not even try to publicly stop the war and in the process accuse Republicans of something they haven't even done yet.


They are thereby thwarting the will of the majority of Americans.


Bullshit!

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-09-24 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You need to talk to Danforth about this one. They aren't able to get the necessary votes FROM THE REPUBLICANS to end the debate so they can vote on it(See I learned something Danforth LMAO) So You see it's still up to the Republicans to allow a vote upon the matter.

Larry

"I believe all Hans is doing is reminding each and every Bush supporter and those who supported and continue to support the Iraq War what their support has wrought not just on the Iraqi people but the AMericans as well. "

Thanks, Larry.

Hans

"However, the fact that it's discussed doesn't mean that it's being used as a deflection either."

Of course it is being used as a deflection.

Much easier to demonize MoveOn.org than to confront the whole "numerology of victory" shell game being played out by this administration.


So, let me get this straight...

Some on the right ARE using the Betrayus ad as a deflection - they are taking this ad and are using it to squelch ALL dissidents of this war by lumping them ALL into one group.

This tack seems to upset you.


So, you respond by lumping ALL who wish to discuss the Betrayus ad as deflecting from the war by lumping EVERY individual into one category and thus innoculating ANY voice of opposition from ANY criticism no matter how baseless and offensive the rhetoric?


Look in the mirror - you are becoming what you profess to abhor.

Why don't you Moveon lefties take the next step, and blame the troops. You know you want too. *disgusting*

This is interesting.

I remember how frustrated I was with the Republican Congress for so many years, who campaigned on tort reform, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Then, 12 years on, conservatives got none of those things. It didn't occur to me to say, gee, we shouldn't really expect anything to get done until we have a veto-proof majority--it would have been nice to see actual legislation on the floor. But it never came.

But the Dems work a little differently. They pretent to be exercised about the Iraq War, but apparently they have only used the war as an excuse to aggrandize legislative power. "Sorry guys, we can't do anything about (the war, the environment, illegal wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, tax reform, no-bid contracts, or anything else we promised to fix) because those wascally Wepublicans are bedeviling us at every turn.

And, whodda thought? Their minions and shills are buying into it.

This is a great development. The Senate won't get their 60 Democrats, and so I can expect years of gridlock out of Washington. Which is the best news of all.

"...and blame the troops."

The point being that they overwhelmingly supported the guy until he didn't say exactly what they wanted him to say. Then, when he didn't toe the line verbatim, he's been subjected to on-going ad hominem.
...I took it to mean exactly that you were disagreeing with my point.


The point that I was disagreeing with was one of your apparent indignation with Live-or-die's original post. I explained how his post had relevance and why it had a ring to it in the context in which it was written. You and I are speaking toward different points - for which I shoulder much of the blame for not being more precise in my wording.

The point that rightisright doesn't get is this: just because the dems don't do what HE thinks they should do, then they are doing "nothing". THey are being thwarted from doing what THEY want to do - CLEARLY a majority does not support cutting off funding ... and neither do I.

That isn't ignorant, but it appears to be too subtle for you.

Phased withdrawal, giving them equal time off for time served, etc., would help, but the repubs won't allow it.

And Jeff - read the polls. Americans are OVERWHELMINGLY against the war.

You need to talk to Danforth about this one. They aren't able to get the necessary votes FROM THE REPUBLICANS to end the debate so they can vote on it(See I learned something Danforth LMAO) So You see it's still up to the Republicans to allow a vote upon the matter.


When the Democrats actually try to introduce a bill, and it then gets fillibustered, you'd be correct. To date, that hasn't happened (that I am aware of) in regards to the war.

"...for which I shoulder much of the blame for not being more precise in my wording."

No blame necessary, JeffJ. 'Tis the consequences of using a venue such as this.

Hans

ANytime Hans

Larry

And Jeff - read the polls. Americans are OVERWHELMINGLY against the war.


Which is not even remotely the same thing as immediate and complete troop withdrawal - which seems to be the rallying cry from your side.

This is why I called, "Bullshit."

'Tis the consequences of using a venue such as this.


Very true.


I've gotta run, work beckons.

As always I appreciate the spirited and thought-provoking debate.


Cheers.

"Which is not even remotely the same thing as immediate and complete troop withdrawal "

Some people will argue that performing oral sex with someone who is not your spouse is not even remotely the same thing as adultery.

Those people usually lose in divorce court in those states without no-fault divorce.

Hans

Some people will argue that performing oral sex with someone who is not your spouse is not even remotely the same thing as adultery.

Those people usually lose in divorce court in those states without no-fault divorce.

Hans


I don't think that is a fair analogy hans.

janine garafolo had an excellent point the other day on Bill Maher.

the right is incredibly childish when the show faux outrage over the naming of dead soldiers, or the "insulting" of General Petraeus. It is childish.

They do this to change the subject. They prefer arguing about arguing about the war instead of the the war itself.

I get so tired of the faux outrage.

FWIW jeffj I knew that terry allen kid from Pennsauken. great kid, went to a private HS volunteered for the marines. dead at the age of 21.

fuck george bush and fuck his war.

In the civil war with the advent of the invention of the photograph, pictures of dead US citizen/soldiers inluding faces were shown in the newspapers and books, etc.

In World War 2, pictures of US soldiers were shown, however faces were proscribed (for purposes of taste and protecting the families)

During the viet nam war, pictures of dead us soldiers became rare, yes combat shown injured soldiers shown but dead americans in the field, not, despite the perception that this lead to the decrease in support of the war. This was caused by the pictures of caskets, flag draped and the mounting casualty lists, but not necessarily images of dead american soldiers


Iraq, we dont get any images of us dead, not even pictures of the coffins. If the right had their way we wouldnt even know their names, cause to broadcast their names is to politicize their deaths (whatever that bullshit means-compared to continuing an unpopular war for no purpose).

fuck george bush and fuck his war.

I get so tired of the faux outrage.

Same here... like Libs here saying they are pissed off about this war... B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T, BULLSHIT!

fuck george bush and fuck his war.

Posted by truthhurts


Faux outrage...

sorry rob I am outraged at something real, a war

the right gets outraged at nonsense.

sorry rob I am outraged at something real, a war


Really? What did you do yesterday?

honored a dead marine, what did you do?

honored a dead marine, what did you do?

Posted by truthhurts


How? How long did it take?

What did you do Saturday? Friday?

I'm not outraged... I went to an Eagles game, then I came home and ordered a Gyro from Pats...

And Truth, maybe you are really outraged, I'm just trying to say the majority of people who claim they are outraged about Bush or this war, really aren't acting like it...

They aren't at peace rallies, they aren't writing to their congressmen or senator, they aren't protesting... they're bitching in their circles or on blogs and really that's about it... that's not outrage... that's barely giving a fuck.

fair enough I can agree with that comment.

although if you DO go to an anti war rally, you surely will be pilloried,

or so I hear :O)

although if you DO go to an anti war rally, you surely will be pilloried,

or so I hear :O)

Posted by truthhurts


Its been known to happen on occasion... whether you've been to one or not...

Which is not even remotely the same thing as immediate and complete troop withdrawal - which seems to be the rallying cry from your side.

This is why I called, "Bullshit."


Posted by JeffJ


"seems to be" ???

Please don't tell me what my views are.

You are in error on a few things - the repubs have made it clear that they intend to use the 60 vote strategy. I agree that the dems should FORCE them to filibuster, but it will be enough for now that they have the recorded votes.

In addition - it is simply NOT the case that most dems want "immediate and complete withdrawal". The fact that you rely on what "seems to be" and not what actually IS is more a problem for you than for me.

I took the time to read what they are saying, which is why I support the views expressed by Joe Biden. If you find out what those are, I'd be happy to debate them with you, but you "seem to be" more interested in straw man voting issues and overly simplified views of the positions among the democrats.

""Same here... like Libs here saying they are pissed off about this war... B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T, BULLSHIT!""

Just because you have lost belief in your side of the argument does not mean that we have also. I can very well understand that righties have very little passion or conviction not for this war due to all we have learned about it but, if anything, the left is angrier now than we were before. The only thing that has changed for most of us is that we have realized that most of the remaining supporters of the war will not change their minds no matter what evidence or facts are presented. The Repulbicans are cynically playing politics now with the war some even admitting they will switch positions after the primaries because in the election they won't be able to continue support this disaster. It is all about running out the clock for them now and handing off responsibility to an incoming administration.

Hans -- I am not a fan of the administration that snookered the public and that has a hidden agenda in the War. But, you cannot use soldiers deaths as some sort of proof of any inarticulate point.

Soldiers serve in combat zones and sometimes die. That some soldiers died, proves what? Its like saying we shouldn't cut down trees because logging is dangerous and sometimes loggers die, and we shouldn't eat fish caught at sea because fishermen drown. And farmers shouldn't harvest wheat because sometimes farmers die while farming. It goes with the territory.

The better point might be to ask what are they dying for. From the best I can tell, it is to help establish a better government in Iraq than existed under Saddam and than is likely to exist if we upped and left right now. (I've never felt that that should be solely the US responsibility, but like Colin Powell said -- "You break it, you're responsible to fix or replace it".)

"Its like saying we shouldn't cut down trees because logging is dangerous and sometimes loggers die, and we shouldn't eat fish caught at sea because fishermen drown. And farmers shouldn't harvest wheat because sometimes farmers die while farming."

It's not like saying that. We need food and shelter. We don't need this war.

Just because you have lost belief in your side of the argument does not mean that we have also

I haven't lost belief in anything...

But if you claim to be full of "outrage" over this war, then I'm likely going to call bullshit on you... unless of course you spent the weekend protesting outside the White House or Capital Building, or wrote letters to all your representatives and senators and state legislators and governor, or marched in a peace rally, etc, etc, etc...

When people are outraged they act... and from what I can see the only acting is liberals' pretending to be outraged... they're not.

Prove me wrong. Detail out for me your past 4 weekends.

But if you claim to be full of "outrage" over this war, then I'm likely going to call bullshit on you... unless of course you spent the weekend protesting outside the White House or Capital Building, or wrote letters to all your representatives and senators and state legislators and governor, or marched in a peace rally, etc, etc, etc...

When people are outraged they act... and from what I can see the only acting is liberals' pretending to be outraged... they're not.

Prove me wrong. Detail out for me your past 4 weekends.



It's the possibility that you are NOT outraged by the conduct of this war that is harder to believe.

Mostly, though, I find this admin to be a national embarassment and source of enduring shame to this country, and its supporters to be either blindly loyal tools, or wishful-thinking loyalists who just can't bring themselves to concede the inevitable.

Time will tell.