« David Schippers Tells of Burglary Similar to Kathleen Willey's | Main | Another Bin Laden Video »

General Betray Us?

From Pete Hegseth posted at The Weekly Standard:

Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'

So, MoveOn.org, in effect, calls a highly respected general who was confirmed 81-0 by the U.S. Senate a traitor, but we can't question their patriotism? Hegseth goes on to ask those in congress whether or not they agree with MoveOn and join them in their attack on Petraeus. It appears from the quote above that at least one Democratic senator does.

Kim adds: Those at MoveOn.org are pissed off that their demands are not being met so they threw a mother of a temper tantrum with this ad, making complete fools of themselves. I must ask: are there any adults whatsoever in the Democratic Party or on the left in this country? I fear the answer is no. Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos, the chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, demonstrated his utter childishness today when he said to General Patraeus that nothing the general could say or do would change his mind that the war in Iraq was a failure. He may as well sat there with his fingers in his ears and yelled, "La la la la...I'm not listening to anything you say!" Congressman Lantos proved himself to be nothing but a boy when compared to General Patraeus.

The Veruca Salts of Democratic Party and the left are a complete embarrassment to our great nation.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23971.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference General Betray Us?:

» Wizbang Blue linked with Calling a Spade a Spade

Comments (99)

Wonder what would happen if... (Below threshold)
Steve of Norway:

Wonder what would happen if this were happening under President Kerry. Would they be calling Petraeus a liar? Oh wait, that's right, he would've gotten us out of there by now and the world would be a better place for it.

There they go projecting ag... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

There they go projecting again.

Read Ralph Peters in the Ne... (Below threshold)
kim:

Read Ralph Peters in the New York Post today about how the Dems have already got the spin ready, and they haven't even heard Petraeus and Crocker yet. He calls Senator Schumer a 'Premature Iraqulator'.
===================================

'Premature Iraqulator' - LO... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

'Premature Iraqulator' - LOL

Giving freedom, and liberty... (Below threshold)

Giving freedom, and liberty to all (child predators)
Lifting the moral of (our enemies) fighters.
Shielding (illegal) immigrants (child rapers) so they can (murder more of our kids) and flourish in this country.
Exposing (national defense secrets) truths that must be exposed.
Building their hopes of political victory on (their own) nations defeat in war.
Refusing to meet with or even listen to Americas' military leaders while discounting them out of hand, but still having time to meet with and demand talks with the leaders of nations that commit acts of war against the US everyday.

Working for a sleazier, more cowardly America. We're the democraps! (Oh, and did we mention that we're the right hand of the a.c.l.u., you know, those lovely folks that fight 24/7 to provide more rights for child molesters, murderers, illegals, child-molesting illegals, illegal murderers, etc. etc., and on and on and on ? Oh, and we hate Christianity too and will fight to our last breaths to wipe out the scurge of horrors like a cross, on private property, in the middle of the desert for the sake of your right to enjoy life w/o having to know things like that exist while your raping your neighbors 5th grader.)

'Premature Iraqulator'.... (Below threshold)

'Premature Iraqulator'.

Sometimes juvenile humor is so dang much fun. LOL.

And appropriate, too.

Of course, the cowardly Dem... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Of course, the cowardly Dem Senator can freely malign General Petraeus as much as he wants as long as it is done anonymously.

Liberals like to interjacul... (Below threshold)
Steve of Norway:

Liberals like to interjaculate into your freedoms.

The 'Betray Us' ad in the N... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The 'Betray Us' ad in the NYslimes is not a MoveOn ad. It is an ad spondored and paid for by the democrat leadership. But, they support the troops. I've been looking for a leader to stand up and say enough (civil war begins) and take over the government by force. Gen Petraeus is the man if he decides to do so. Coming to you in living red blood in 2009. 99 44/100% of the military will back him up.

We all know that a highly r... (Below threshold)
Rance:

We all know that a highly respected general, like a Colin Powell, for example, would never give misleading testimony about the situation in Iraq.

Powell was Sec of State whe... (Below threshold)
yo:

Powell was Sec of State when he made his statements. He was no longer an active duty general.

There's a difference.

Oh, because you think Colin... (Below threshold)

Oh, because you think Colin Powell gave misleading testimony, that means Petraeus must be giving misleading testimony as well?

There's a nice leap of logic for you.

Ken,Using lib logi... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

Ken,

Using lib logic, it means that since 1 Dem politician lied under oath(Klinton), and was was found by FBI taking bribes(Jefferson), and 1 aided and abetted the enemy(Hanoi John Kerry), they all are guilty of the same.

Well, I guess thats pretty much true anyway.

Colin Powell, the poor suck... (Below threshold)
kim:

Colin Powell, the poor sucker, did not exaggerate the threat of Saddam, but he grew to believe he had. If that belief contributed to his opposition to our effort there, and the continuation of the war longer than it otherwise would have, then the blood of all those soldiers be upon him.

The warriors over there know about Colin, don't you worry about that.
=====================

The military officer corps ... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

The military officer corps has forgotten more about honesty, integrety, and self-sacrifice than the sum of all our elected, former lawyer congressmen and senators, not to mention the retrobates from MoveOn ("Isn't Tony Snow dead yet?"). When an institution such as the military is reviled it's little wonder the opposition has such little knowledge about it's makeup, beliefs, history, and all things that comprise it.

All officers are lying, body-count inflating, self-promoting murderers who use their troops to do their bidding. It's real easy (and lazy) to embrace this view, tie it up with a string, and start screaming your fool head off. It fits your agenda so it's justified, truth be damned.


WAZZU Army ROTC Class of 1983
Proud classmate of Colonel John Charlton, Commander of Coalition Forces in Ramadi, and the man that's made it safer than New Orleans or Detroit.

Anti-American left Democrat... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Anti-American left Democrats (not all Dems are anti American) are so heavily invested in American defeat as opposed to an American victory which they see as a Bush or Republican victory they will do or say anything to insure defeat. I am suprised no group of citizens has taken up arms, gone to Washington and removed these traitors from office. Great nations fall from within, no because of outside forces. Our greatest enemy lives among us as the liberals who would destroy this nation from within.

"So, MoveOn.org, in effect,... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"So, MoveOn.org, in effect, calls a highly respected general who was confirmed 81-0 by the U.S. Senate a traitor, but we can't question their patriotism?"

This site calls people traitors daily. Can you not spoon it in?

jp2, so you understand the ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

jp2, so you understand the difference between the U.S. Senate and this website? Is it a possiblity you belong in that catagory we call traitor here? After all, it is not the world that hates America it is the left that hates America.

What did the neoncons say a... (Below threshold)
Florida Guardsmen/Former Republican:

What did the neoncons say about General Eric Shinseki?

Both sides have politicized the military and only a rare individual political activist will admit it.

Senator Tom Lantos calls Ge... (Below threshold)
kim:

Senator Tom Lantos calls General Petraeus a liar before he even opens his mouth.

Lieberman, stop the music. They are going to destroy your party, and we need it.
===============================

So, MoveOn.org, in effec... (Below threshold)
Florida Guardsmen/Former Republican:

So, MoveOn.org, in effect, calls a highly respected general who was confirmed 81-0 by the U.S. Senate a traitor

Your quote deserves a higher level of fisking. MoveOn is not calling him a traitor, they are implying a betraying to the troops under his command. Actually many of those in his command are not very happy with the "Princeton General" also known as the "Perfumed Prince" and the man in a combat zone who has the best pressed uniforms.

When you say "highly respected" you do mean "highly respected" among Republicans and neocons. There is a long list of Generals with equal confirmation support that you would quickly snipe are not "highly respected." Shall I start with retired General Wesley Clark whose book is now required reading at the Army's Command & General Staff College. How about a repeat of Eric Shinseki who was ridiculed by members of the Administration and neocons as someone who did not know how to plan for Iraq. How about Colin Powell who is frequently attacked on neocon blogs.

Members of the military that you agree with are "highly respected." Members of the military that agree with Moveon are "highly respected" by them.

"Senator Tom Lantos call... (Below threshold)
Florida Guardsmen/Former Republican:

"Senator Tom Lantos calls General Petraeus a liar before he even opens his mouth.

Once Petraeus was appointed to the position by the President he became simply another political appointee.

He is no different from that point forward than Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice or any other appointee.

The "members of the militar... (Below threshold)

The "members of the military that agree with MoveOn" are rather a tiny minority, principally consisting of aggrieved former officers. Wes Clark, you will recall, was FIRED as NATO commander only weeks before his term was scheduled to end - BY Clinton. Later, when Clark's retirement party was held at the Pentagon, neither Clinton nor his SecDef attended, even though both were in town at the time.

MoveOn even opposed the Afghanistan invasion, remember kids? Americans would be "coming back in TENS OF THOUSANDS of body bags," they said, because Afghanistan was "where Empires go to die." They were crying "quagmire" after only three weeks.

This is a reflexively anti-American organization, born and bred out of the far left. That so many elected Democrats feel they must kow-tow to such a nest of traitors is simply pathetic, but the public spotlight on their lack of decency is the best solution, sort of like switching on a light causes cockroaches to scatter.

So Guardsman, according to ... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

So Guardsman, according to your logic George Patton was "simply another political appointee" of FDR's? And US Grant "another political appointee" of Lincoln's. That's sensible. I guess they were just never told by enlightened soldiers such as yourself.

btw, Shinseki was attacked more for being a weak leader than anything else. This view was prevelant throughout the senior Army officer corps at the time. Wanna know what the corps also thought of Wesley Clark???? Book at C&GS regardless. I'll be you don't.

jp2:This site ... (Below threshold)
marc:

jp2:

This site calls people traitors daily. Can you not spoon it in?

Do you see any "donkey logos" on this site? Have you seen this site actively as a group raise money for a political party like moveon?

Have you seen this site exchange correspondence and hole video teleconferences with either political party?

If you fail to see the difference between this site an moveon it explains a lot.

Whoa, Joltin' Joe did exact... (Below threshold)
kim:

Whoa, Joltin' Joe did exactly as I asked in my 1:33 comment. I don't have a link but his statement is a humdinger. And he charges the powerful in the Democratic Party with co-ordinating this message with Moveon.org.

Devastating.
===========================

1:31 comment, instant.<br /... (Below threshold)
kim:

1:31 comment, instant.
==================

Fighting for Democ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Fighting for Democracy in Iraq,

While bleeding America dry.


Fla Guard, fool, Clark was ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Fla Guard, fool, Clark was removed from command. Do you know what that does to a military career? David Petraeus wrote the book on counter isurgency fighting. Wesly Clark wrote a book about Wesley Clark. One question for you. Did you not have the intelligence to remain a Republican? In the state I live in, we only as that you love your country to be a Republican. Guess you would be a Dem here too.

Florida Guardsmen/Former Re... (Below threshold)
marc:

Florida Guardsmen/Former Republican:

Actually many of those in his command are not very happy with the "Princeton General"...

And you know this how? You claim "many" how many is "many" and what are your sources?

There is a long list of Generals with equal confirmation support that you would quickly snipe are not "highly respected."

First of all not every member of the military are or have been "highly respected." But it would be instructive of you provide a list to see just who you might classify in the category.

However your inclusion of Clark may have tipped your hand. As Jim A points out he was summarily shit-canned by clinton for taking orders from clinton then turning around and telling NATO commanders something directly opposite of what he was ordered to do.

Clark is also the "highly respected" general who refused to denounce Michael Moore as he made despicable remarks about Bush as Clark was standing next to The Fat Man on the same stage.

I question your judgment on what "highly respected" really means.

"While bleeding America dry... (Below threshold)
yo:

"While bleeding America dry."

How, exactly?

civil's in a funk. The war... (Below threshold)
kim:

civil's in a funk. The war in Iraq is over, and he doesn't know how to behave.
=========================

I question your judgment... (Below threshold)
Florida Guardsmen/Former Republican:

I question your judgment on what "highly respected" really means.

The US Army Command & General Staff College considered GEN Clarks book to be extremely valuable in teaching senior officers. It is now a required text.

This commentary proves an i... (Below threshold)
Florida Guardsmen/Former Republican:

This commentary proves an important lesson. It is acceptable to smear members of the military that you disagree with politically. You do not love and appreciate the military. You only love the members of the military that you agree with.

I am a former Republican because I thought actions like that were beyond Republicans.

The Democrats are no better by the way.

The US Army Command & G... (Below threshold)
marc:

The US Army Command & General Staff College considered GEN Clarks book to be extremely valuable in teaching senior officers. It is now a required text.

And so.....

How does that mitigate the fact he was fired for not following orders?

Today, Monday, Septembe... (Below threshold)
marc:

Today, Monday, September 10, 2007, US Army General David Petraeus, Commander of Multi National Forces - Iraq will be publicly persecuted by some members of the US Senate. Not all will join in the attacks, only those Senators more politically vicious and partisan will participate. They will be the same Senators who only months ago voted unanimously to appoint General Petraeus to run the Iraq war. Remember this is the war that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) recently told American troops and their families, "We have already lost." That statement creates a major problem for defeatist Senate Democrats, like Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), Ted Kennedy & John Kerry (D- Massachusetts), and Hillary Clinton (D-New York), who claimed Democrats were swept into power in the election of 2006 because the American people were tired of the war. The change of strategy or "Surge" that General Petraeus developed and implemented is showing positive signs that we can actually win this struggle. Instead Democrats attack General Petraeus' report as untruthful, misrepresenting the facts, manipulating and/or "cherry picking the numbers." All this before General Petraeus even delivers his report to Congress.

As they say... read the rest.

Guardsman, see FM 3-24 "Cou... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Guardsman, see FM 3-24 "Counterinsurgency Field Manual". Patraeus wrote mauch of it and is the father of the current Counterinsurgency Field Doctrine used by the US Military.

Now I know having your book used as CGSC is a feather in your cap. I do wonder if General Patraeus might qualify for your "highly respected" moniker.

I see Lee, resident of Wizb... (Below threshold)
marc:

I see Lee, resident of Wizbangs subbasement, has jumped on the bandwagon and uses the words of Richard Clarke and Rand Beers to denounce General Petraeus before the hearing started.

Dickweeds one and all.

NOAM CHOMSKY"S</b... (Below threshold)
Rory:

NOAM CHOMSKY"S Failed States is on the Army War College's 2006 suggested reading list.

That does not mean that they AGREE with Noam Chomsky.

Army officers are capable of critical thinking.

Reading lists aren't frickin' bibles they are to b discussed and CRITIQUED.

Have you even had one introductory course to any logic, philosophy, debate or political science class?

Ghee Marx is on the reading list-the prof must agree with him....

{Well in Boulder and Berkeley perhaps...}

But now do you see what SIMPLETON logic you are using?

Holy ccccrrrrrrraaaaaapppp.

Have you seen this site ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Have you seen this site actively as a group raise money for a political party like moveon?
marc

Yes, albeit probably not as successfully as MoveOn.

Have you seen this site exchange correspondence and hole video teleconferences with either political party?
marc

Not quite teleconferences, but conference calls, which coincidentally happen to be predominantly with one political party. Care to guess which one?

Lieberman, stop th... (Below threshold)
jim:
Lieberman, stop the music. They are going to destroy your party, and we need it.

The Democratic party is no longer Lieberman's party. We kicked him out because we were tired of him shafting the Dems on important issues, to gain favor with the GOP and kisses from George Bush.

As for Petraeus - he's just started speaking, and apparently he's already been caught making statements that aren't true.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/10/petraeus-anbar-six/

Petraeus today before Congress:

When I testified in January, for example, no one would have dared to forecast that Anbar Province would have been transformed the way it has in the past 6 months.

What Petraeus said 6 months ago at his confirmation hearing:

"You've seen it, I know, in Anbar province, where it has sort of gone back and forth. And right now, there appears to be a trend in the positive direction where sheiks are stepping up, and they do want to be affiliated with and supported by the U.S. Marines and Army forces who are in Anbar province. That was not the case as little as perhaps six months ago, or certainly before that."

So, please people - enough with the fake indication. It seemed like a good guess that Petraeus was hired by Bush to put the best possible spin on the Iraq occupation for his boss - and it turns out that this is almost certainly the case.

Also, some other plain talk... (Below threshold)
jim:

Also, some other plain talk that you probably won't hear from Petraeus or the Bush administration any time soon: Anbar could have been turned starting 4 years ago, but the Bush administration turned down Sunni help until now.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/03/acd.01.html

WARE: Well, certainly one of the -- one of the president's war council -- I believe it was Secretary Gates himself -- said that, really, the success of Al Anbar Province predates the surge. It is really an Iraqi initiative. And what that is, is that the Sunni Baathist insurgency turned on al Qaeda and it offered America the same terms of negotiation that it first offered four years ago, in 2003, in that it was willing to work with America, but not with the Iraqi government. And America, after four years of bloodshed, was finally ready to accept those terms. So, it is the Sunni insurgency that has turned all Anbar around and made it safe.
sean nyc/aa - some comparis... (Below threshold)
marc:

sean nyc/aa - some comparison you have there, rightroots that is just a month old and movon that was born in 1998 and wholly owns a good portion of the dem party.

And as you have noted the conference calls here do include something other than "the right."

When has movon done something similar?

And finally... wonder why the following loonbats won't listen to the generals testimony now and if they do have gone on record as not believing it previous to it being heard?

Sen. Reid held a conference call for far-left bloggers in which he called Gen. Pace - one of the Generals to whom Bush had supposedly "not been listening" - "incompetent" and "a yes-man for the President."

"Listen to the generals." - Sen. Harry Reid, 01/19/2007

"If the President won't listen to generals, he won't listen to the American people, who have spoken for a new direction, then perhaps he will listen to us, Congress, when we send him a supplemental bill that acknowledges reality in Iraq." - Reid, 03/26/2007

"Just listen to the generals." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 02/27/07

Jim:The Democr... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

The Democratic party is no longer Lieberman's party. We kicked him out because we were tired of him shafting the Dems on important issues, to gain favor with the GOP and kisses from George Bush.

What issues would those be other than Iraq? Please, provide us with a list.

And BTW, what's "fake indication?"

And really, a link to Ware's thoughts? The same reporter that has such close ties to terror elements within Iraq he gets hand delivered videos from them?

Surely you jest.

jim, I agree the sheiks wer... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, I agree the sheiks were turning before the surge started. I believe they saw us protect their city mouse cousins from the Shia deathsquads. Sistani also did his jiu-jitsu on Sadr, and Abdullah, King of the Sauds, awoke to the Persian march to the Mediterranean Sea, and spoke to his Sunni brethren just over the border.

The war in Iraq is essentially over, and all the madness the Democrats are displaying in Washington is the ugly face of disloyal opposition.

Joltin' Joe Lieberman, in unnecessarily referring to himself as a member of the Democratic Caucus, directly challenged his party's leaders to repudiate Moveon.org. He is trying to save your party, you poor deluded fool.
===================================

Lieberman's alleged "concer... (Below threshold)
jim:

Lieberman's alleged "concerns" are noted. However,

a) he's not a Democrat.

b) according to all polls, the public is siding with the Democrats, and is upset with the Democrats only to the degree that they aren't doing more to get us out of Iraq.

As for deluded, whatever. We'll see what history says...in the meantime, I have to go with what I see as the facts.

Pardon for "Fake indication... (Below threshold)
jim:

Pardon for "Fake indication" - I meant "fake indignation".

As for Lieberman, besides his selling out his own party, his constituents and the entire country on the Iraq occupation - which is really several different issues right there - there was also his attempts to sell out all of the above re: Social Security.

In any case, the bottom line is: he was kicked out of the Democratic party. Therefore, he no longer speaks for the Democratic party.

Joltin' Joe Lieber... (Below threshold)
jim:
Joltin' Joe Lieberman, in unnecessarily referring to himself as a member of the Democratic Caucus, directly challenged his party's leaders to repudiate Moveon.org.

Kim - Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. He's an independent.

Therefore they're not his party's leaders.

Lieberman no longer represents the Democrats in any way, shape or form.

As for Ware, getting videos... (Below threshold)
jim:

As for Ware, getting videos and other other information straight from the the sources is reporting.

The sources in this case are scum. But at the same time, you have to be in contact with scum in order to get clear information about them.

Once you get this information, you have to weigh it critically and against other sources in order to get the clearest picture possible, and filter out lies, deceptions, and simple bias - that's where the next part of a journalist's job comes in.

Jimmy, your mind does fine ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jimmy, your mind does fine through about three fourths of a thought then it stops. Kims point is the dems need Lieberman. We want him. The dems with Moveon worked so hard to get him out of the party, but the electorate in Conn. wanted him anyway. So, at least in that state, they don't want liberal dimmers in their state. To stay on point, which is SOOOOOO difficult for the lefties, Moveon, a liberal democratic tool,smeared Petreus and the dimmers won't distance themselves from it. That is fine with me. I can see the ad's now. Oh yeah! I forgot. When the democratic leadership sent the opinion of Congress to a historic low, you lefties still think America is behind you. Can you say "denial." ww

Jim,Four posts in a ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jim,
Four posts in a row? Getting carried away trolling I see.

As for:

It seemed like a good guess that Petraeus was hired by Bush to put the best possible spin on the Iraq occupation for his boss - and it turns out that this is almost certainly the case.

This is not a good guess, but just a stupid attempt to slime Petraeus. He's been associated with counter-insurgency theory for some time and clearly had different policy prescriptions from Abizaid. Trying to discredit the General with no basis only discredits you further.

jim, you need to read Liebe... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, you need to read Lieberman's statement. He is with the Democratic Caucus, and because of it, the Democratic Party controls the Senate. In his statement he is talking to his party's leaders. You can inhabit your fantasy world all you like, but someone in your party has to wake up.
==============================

Jim:In any cas... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

In any case, the bottom line is: he was kicked out of the Democratic party. Therefore, he no longer speaks for the Democratic party.

No, he left because he couldn't put up with the non-sense by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, murtha and their masters at movon/DKos/code pink and media matters.

And BTW just how is that guy they all touted to replace of Lieberman? Seems to me most of the Dems in his State saw thru the idiocy. And it's just a plain you haven't.

Jim - Lieberman no longer represents the Democrats in any way, shape or form. - so that means what, that you will repudiate each and every vote he takes that is on your side?

Jim STILL

It seemed like a good guess that Petraeus was hired by Bush to put the best possible spin on the Iraq occupation for his boss - and it turns out that this is almost certainly the case.

Lets get you on record right now.

The Gen. started his testimony by saying it was written by him in his own words and without outside influence.

Soooooo, again, and for the record are you calling him a liar?

And BTW Jim - in the me... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW Jim - in the meantime, I have to go with what I see as the facts. - you wouldn't know a fact if it crawled up your ass and died.

No, he left becaus... (Below threshold)
jim:
No, he left because he couldn't put up with the non-sense by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, murtha and their masters at movon/DKos/code pink and media matters.

No, Marc. You're simply wrong.

Lieberman tried to stay in the Democratic party, but he *lost* the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

The only way he could continue to run for office, was to run as an Independent.

That's the facts of the situation. It's really that simple.

so that means what... (Below threshold)
jim:
so that means what, that you will repudiate each and every vote he takes that is on your side?

No, it means exactly what I said - Lieberman no longer speaks for the Democratic party. Any more than Hillary Clinton speaks for the Republican party.

See, you definitely can't speak *for* a group if you're not a part *of* that group.

Marc, and for the record - ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Marc, and for the record - when Petraeus says things which are out of whack with known facts, and contradicts his own previous statements, I suspect him of being a liar. Or, at best, of "spinning".

What would *you* consider someone who says things which are out of whack with known facts, and that contradict their own statements?

Kim, he's caucasing with th... (Below threshold)
jim:

Kim, he's caucasing with the Democrats. That still doesn't make it his party.

Any more than if you make a business deal with another company, you automatically become a member of the company.

The only way Lieberman is a member of the Democratic party - is if he is a member of the Democratic party.

Since he is an Independent, he is not a member of the Democratic party.

Clear?

This is not a good... (Below threshold)
jim:
This is not a good guess, but just a stupid attempt to slime Petraeus.

Just because you say it, doesn't automatically make it true.

He's been associated with counter-insurgency theory for some time and clearly had different policy prescriptions from Abizaid.

So?

Exactly what about that, means he definitely isn't going to spin for his boss?

And exactly how does that rectify that, as I've quoted above, he's **already** been caught spinning?

Jim:What would... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

What would *you* consider someone who says things which are out of whack with known facts, and that contradict their own statements?

Obviously you're basing that on your quotes from his previous testimony from 6 months ago.

And just as obvious you avoided my specific question... so here it is again: The Gen. specifically said of todays testimony that he wrote it, in HIS words and wasn't influenced by outside sources.

So without recalling any PAST words are you calling the Gen. a liar based on his opening statement of TODAY?

More Jim spin:

As for Lieberman, besides his selling out his own party, his constituents and the entire country on the Iraq occupation - which is really several different issues right there - there was also his attempts to sell out all of the above re: Social Security.
IS that so? He sold out the party on SS? Really???!!!

Lieberman Joins Senate Democrats in Opposing Bush Social Security Privatization Plan

That's some "sellout."

So Jim, are you woefully ignorant of the facts.... or a liar?

Jim spinning faster than a... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim spinning faster than a whirling dervish:

Lieberman tried to stay in the Democratic party, but he *lost* the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

WOW... who'd a thunk it losing an election gets you tossed from the party. Where is that election rule written?

Funny, I still see a "D" after Kerry's and Gore's names.

No asshat... he left no matter how much better it makes you feel to assert otherwise.

This thread, and some other... (Below threshold)

This thread, and some others ...HH for example, have the liberal's contempt, hatred, ignorance and arrogance about our Armed Forces on full display.
I have not seen such hostility to the uniform since the early 1970's. There is a full throated cry among liberals to destroy our millitary. A week ago I would have chalked this up to just politics...no longer.


Sorry to say I'm beginning ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Sorry to say I'm beginning to believe the same thing HughS.

I haven't seen a single Dem distance themselves from the despicable moveon ad.

The closest I've seen is a sorry assed excuse given that the Dems didn't run or pay for the ad. Forgetting many of the Dems get large sums of cash from them and some write diaries at DKos that is funded in part by movon.

Not to mention dingbats like sen. Reid hold conference calls with movon over policy.

Here is the specific quote ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Here is the specific quote I ref'd above: "Nobody has to distance themselves from something they weren't associated with," snapped Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii.

OK asshat don't "distance" yourselves from the movon ad.

But how about saying it was Waaaaay out of line both in context and timing considering it was conceived and printed prior to his testimony being heard.

Jim..... Oh JIM where fore art thou Jim? Can't defend you Lieberman social security BS and are avoiding the thread now? (like usual)

Marc, I have a job, and occ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Marc, I have a job, and occasionally I have to do some work at it.

Altho I'm really wondering how much of this is worth my time.

I mean, what do you think you're actually proving?

Your comments in # 60 and # 61 boggle the mind.

As re: # 61 - Gore **doesn't** have a 'D' after his name any more. And that's because he's not in office. He stopped being in office over six years ago!

Great fact-checking there, Marc...

As for Kerry retaining a 'D' after his name - that's because, as I should think you know, he remains a Senator and was elected as a Democrat.

Whereas Lieberman, you see, was NOT elected as a Democrat.

Come on, man - what are you even trying to argue?

As re: Lieberman and sellin... (Below threshold)
jim:

As re: Lieberman and selling out on Social Security:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/07/politics/07lieberman.html?ex=1267938000&en=9c4ea5f10f7a9786&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

Now some in Mr. Lieberman's home state wonder if he qualifies as a Democrat at all.

In recent weeks, he has angered Democratic activists nationwide for expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to change Social Security. Critics say that is just his latest act of disloyalty to the party. He already had supported the war in Iraq and Mr. Bush's cabinet choices - and received a televised presidential smooch at the State of the Union address.

And here's some of the specific waffling and weakening of the Democratic party's unity, that signaled to Democrats Lieberman couldn't be trusted:

Mr. Lieberman set off alarms within the party even before the State of the Union address. "This is an ongoing problem, and we'd be wise to deal with it," Mr. Lieberman told The Hartford Courant in January when asked about Social Security. "If we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great."

Then the night of the speech, and the kiss, Mr. Lieberman said in a statement that preserving the program's benefits "may require we make some changes."

Now whether or not you *agree* with Lieberman. That's a separate argument. My point is Lieberman was threatening party unity with crap like this - which angered the Democrats in Connecticut and led to him losing the primary.

The Gen. specifica... (Below threshold)
jim:
The Gen. specifically said of todays testimony that he wrote it, in HIS words and wasn't influenced by outside sources.

Oh. If he said it, that settles that, then. Why check anyone's facts or have any skepticism, after they've said they've written it themelves?

I've got a bridge in Brooklyn, if you'd like to buy it. I promise I wrote this contract, and I promise I'm not influenced by any outside sources.

So without recalling any PAST words are you calling the Gen. a liar based on his opening statement of TODAY?

Well I guess not, Marc. If I ignore the evidence that he's altering the truth, I guess I can't say he's altering the truth.

The question is - why *would* I ignore what he said he in the past?? That's part of his credibility.

Jim:As re: # 6... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

As re: # 61 - Gore **doesn't** have a 'D' after his name any more. And that's because he's not in office. He stopped being in office over six years ago!

That's your defense, Gore isn't in office? What about Kerry? What about Gore IS STILL a Dem whether he's in office or not. And unless he's started a "Global is Hotting up" party he's still a Dem. And he lost an election.

You've FAR outdone yourself! I've seen better debating points in 5th grade debate class.

As for your NYT article linked to notice it was printed three days after Joe's signed letter to the President denouncing his efforts at privatization of SS.

Also note your link only quotes one person who allegedly speaks for a grand total of 30 others that started some lame 'Just say No campaign.

Sorry, you lose again. The Dem party has been and AGAINST SS privatization in any form and to claim Lieberman hasn't been or hasn't followed the party line is flat out bullshit on your part.

And BTW which angered t... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW which angered the Democrats in Connecticut and led to him losing the primary.

You keep hanging you hat on that primary, just as the DKos nutcakes have. They claimed Joe's scalp also, but who's sitting on the senate office.

He wasn't re-elected by Repubs alone asshat tens of thousands of Dems did so also and rejected the DKos nutcakes and the idiot they tried to win with.

I'm surprised at Petraeus's... (Below threshold)

I'm surprised at Petraeus's reception. The Dems are basing a lot of their critique on old information, while Petraeus is telling them what's happened in the last few months.

It's like looking at two-month old stock market information to base your estimate of today's market activity.

The GAO report came out in June, and the compilation of data for that was cut off... when? I couldn't find any indication after looking quickly at the report - - so I'll estimate the cutoff date was at the beginning of May. That's roughly 120 days ago. And even if it were the beginning of June, it'd be 90 days out.

What could happen in ANY war in 90 days?

The Iraqi Benchmark Assessment report is dated 12 July. A quick read of it shows the following - "These combined operations -- named Operation Phantom Thunder -- were launched on June 15, 2007, after the total complement of surge forces arrived in Iraq. The full surge in this respect has only just begun." That's about the latest date I could find in it, so I'll take 5 days after that as the cutoff for publication - or 20 June.

That's 80 days ago.

Conditions in a wartime theatre of operations aren't static. You can't take the information from 1 January and extrapolate the trends and events of that day out for a 90 day period and expect sensible results. You especially can't forecast with any accuracy if you're changing the parameters during that time, as Petraeus did with the Surge.

The Democrats are trying hard to maintain that what WAS must still BE - and they're ignoring evidence and testimony to the contrary. "Reality-Based"... what a friggin' joke. The only reality they want is one where the US loses, and to hell with the results that follow.

HUH??As r... (Below threshold)
jim:

HUH??

As re: # 61 - Gore **doesn't** have a 'D' after his name any more. And that's because he's not in office. He stopped being in office over six years ago!

That's your defense, Gore isn't in office?

Uh, yeah it is.

You see, in # 61, you said you still see a 'D' after Gore's name...which is flatly impossible, because he no longer holds office.

What is YOUR defense?

Care to explain how you saw this imaginary 'D'? Any news organization citation will work, I don't mind.


Missing end blockquote abov... (Below threshold)
jim:

Missing end blockquote above. Should read:

HUH??

As re: # 61 - Gore **doesn't** have a 'D' after his name any more. And that's because he's not in office. He stopped being in office over six years ago!

That's your defense, Gore isn't in office?

Uh, yeah it is.

You see, in # 61, you said you still see a 'D' after Gore's name...which is flatly impossible, because he no longer holds office.

What is YOUR defense?

Care to explain how you saw this imaginary 'D'? Any news organization citation will work, I don't mind.

Marc, do you even understan... (Below threshold)
jim:

Marc, do you even understand what you're arguing?

Honestly.

Lieberman was elected as an Independent. Really, that's all there is to it.

And Lieberman was elected as an Independent, because he was defeated in the Democratic primary. Which means, Connecticut's Democrats wanted someone else to represent them. That's all there is to that, too.

Are you trying to argue that these two events didn't happen? That's your privilege, just letting you know that it's contrary to reality. as we know it.

JLawson, of course I don't ... (Below threshold)
jim:

JLawson, of course I don't fully agree with you - but at least that is *dealing* with other rports and attempting to explain why Petraeus' current information differs.

Jim:Emphasis on 'C... (Below threshold)

Jim:

Emphasis on 'Current' information.

As in - 'Recent'. As in - "What's going on NOW as opposed to THEN".

I really don't get why they're emphasizing the old info and insisting it refects how things are NOW. It's like saying on June 5th, 1944, that we could never win in Germany because we hadn't been able to get a significant number of troops on the ground in France, much less invade in strength - and less than a year later Germany surrendered. A lot of things happened, a lot of very expensive mistakes were made, and in the end, we won.

Events change the shape of things quickly in wartime. I sometimes think the Democratic leadership cannot cope with change, and would prefer to see a static status quo, no matter how horrible, than an improvement in the situation.

Jim:You see, i... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

You see, in # 61, you said you still see a 'D' after Gore's name...which is flatly impossible, because he no longer holds office.

You are out of your fuckin' M.I.N.D.

The man is a democrat!

So... after due diligence and considering the Gen's PAST lies, according to you and media matters, you still haven't gone on record to say he lied today.

You're all bluster and NO GUTS!

JLawson don't even try.... (Below threshold)
marc:

JLawson don't even try.

Anyone that claims Gore isn't a democrat because he's not in office is beyond delusional.

Party affiliation is pretty... (Below threshold)

Party affiliation is pretty much all, Marc. Gore's a Democrat because he ran as a Democrat twice, served as VP as a Democrat for 8 years, and has never (to my knowledge) renounced his party affiliation.

Therefore, he's a Democrat until proven otherwise.

And I wonder just how many nominal Democrats looked at the MoveOn.Org ad and thought "Damn. If this is what I'm a part of, I'm not going to stay."

You quibble jim. Joe is wo... (Below threshold)
kim:

You quibble jim. Joe is working with and for the Democratic Party, not the Independent one. Silly Ass.
==========

Something that Jim has no b... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Something that Jim has no basis for saying is defending from a counter argument with :

Just because you say it, doesn't automatically make it true.

Once again, Jim, you discredit yourself. Evidently one of the requirements for holding your opinions is no sense of embarrassment.

All you have a cheap slanders based on zero evidence. Sliming people who are more credible, more competent and have higher integrity than you is your only trick. I've seen more substantive debates than yours among second graders at the school playground, Jim.

It got old long ago.

I've seen more substant... (Below threshold)
marc:

I've seen more substantive debates than yours among second graders at the school playground, Jim.

WOW! I feel bad SPQR, I'm guilty of "grade inflation!"

I scored his debating ability on the 5th grade level. I'm going to my corner now and don my pointed hat!

Confederate Yankee claims t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Confederate Yankee claims the New York Times deeply discounted the price for the Betray Us ad.

Does someone there appreciate irony?
=================================

Sorry marc, I'm sure that N... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Sorry marc, I'm sure that No Child Left Behind is to blame.

By the way, even the New York Times has admitted that the Europeans have figured out that blaming Iraq for terrorists does not make sense since islamic terrorists have been focusing attacks on countries that opposed the Iraq operation. Gee, ya think.

marc:rightroots... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

marc:

rightroots that is just a month old

Wrong. RightRoots is about a year old as Wizbang was promoting it before the 2006 elections. Check the link again.

and movon that was born in 1998

What's this have to do with anything we'd been discussing? So MoveOn has been involved with online fundraising and activism for longer than RightRoots? What's your point?

and wholly owns a good portion of the dem party.

There are plenty of corruption investigations of Republicans. I'm sure if there is any foul play afoot the Justice Dept would not hesistate to investigate.

And as you have noted the conference calls here do include something other than "the right."

When has movon done something similar?

I don't know, I've never been on MoveOn's website. I'm not trying to claim what MoveOn does or doesn't do, just debunking your claim that Wizbang didn't do similar things.

And finally... wonder why the following loonbats won't listen to the generals testimony now and if they do have gone on record as not believing it previous to it being heard?

They should listen to it and I would expect them to go and participate (unless it's a committee hearing and they're not on that committee).

As far as them not believing it, I wouldn't quite go that far, but I would certainly go in with a healthy dose of skepticism and doubt. No one in the Administration, General Petraeus included, can be trusted carte blanche. I'm sorry, but they're behavior up to this point in reporting the progress of the war demands it so and General Petraeus's data must be indisputable for him to fully convince me. I've seen some of his own previous statements which were false, seen other casualty count data which contradicts his, heard reports of his counting methodology which makes it sound rather dubious (BTW, please link to the exact methodology if it's been made public), and have learned of polling data of Iraqis who say they don't feel any safer. So excuse me if I don't blindly trust the General.

See Feaver in the Boston Gl... (Below threshold)
kim:

See Feaver in the Boston Globe.
================================

Truly the Democrats have no... (Below threshold)
kim:

Truly the Democrats have no shame. So far, Lieberman is the only Democrat who has denounced the ad.

You'd think that one of the brighter lights in the democratic Party would accept that things are changing in Iraq and go with the flow.

Wait'll next week when the Dems start seeing the polling over this. It will take that, since principles apparently no longer apply in that crazed party.
===============================

Well, Marc - you said you s... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, Marc - you said you saw a 'D' after Gore's name.

I asked you to show where you've seen this. No answer.

I guess this all comes down to my mistake, really: I thought facts might change your mind.

I thought even being reminded of the fact that Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic party, and the fact that he ran as an independent and now even goes to fund-raisers for GOP candidates, might cause you to think differently.

But, that's your choice. You can think the world is flat also if you wish.

That's all I have to say.

He caucuses with Democrats ... (Below threshold)
kim:

He caucuses with Democrats and on everything but the war votes with Democrats. Your thinking he is an Independent doesn't make him so. You are making a de jure point in a de facto situation.

Silly ass. And hey, join us on the police action thread. Baseless, forsooth.
============================

Kim, it's not me thinking h... (Below threshold)
jim:

Kim, it's not me thinking he's an Independent, that makes him one.

It's the fact that he lost the Democratic primary, formed his own party called "Connecticut for Lieberman", and was elected as an Independent, that has me thinking he's an independent.

Is there any part of what I just said, above, that you dispute?

Tell you what, guys. Try th... (Below threshold)
jim:

Tell you what, guys. Try this on, and see how it fits.

I'll make a deal. I'll accept that Joe Lieberman speaks for the Democratic party, if John Dean can speak for the Republican party.

John Dean, Republican for nearly four decades, worked for Nixon himself, says:

http://salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/11/dean/

In almost four decades of involvement in national politics, much of them as a card-carrying Republican, I was never concerned that the GOP posed a threat to the well-being of our nation....But in recent years the system has changed, and is no longer self-correcting. Most of that change has come from Republicans...

The fact that Bush's Justice Department has become yet another political instrument should give Americans pause. This body was created by Congress to represent the interests of the people of the United States, not the Republican Party, but since the system of law no longer takes account when officials act outside the law (not to mention the Constitution), Republicans do so and get away with it....

It is not an exaggeration to say that the Bush administration has made the Justice Department a political extension of the White House in the area of law enforcement, which is unprecedented and seriously dilutes the credibility of the government when it goes to court. It will take years to depoliticize the Justice Department, and countless nonpolitical career attorneys -- including some of the most experienced and able men and women ever to serve in the department -- have left because of the way Bush's people run it. Ironically, when Republicans find Democratic officials with even a toe across the line, they raise unmitigated hell for that official. But when a Republican official crosses the line, Republicans close ranks around the miscreant...

Republicans have offered an array of explanation and justifications for a Libby pardon, but when one cuts through the smoke, what they are really arguing is that one of their own should not be punished criminally. It is an absurd position. Conservatives once claimed they stood for law and order, and that no person was above the law, but their words belie their true beliefs as expressed in their actions.

How's that work? Or does John Dean suddenly not speak for the Republican party - because you don't like what he's saying?

Interesting how that works.

SPQR, please show one singl... (Below threshold)
jim:

SPQR, please show one single "cheap slander" I have made, for which you claim I have shown "no evidence".

I don't insult you guys. Put up or shut up.

Well JLawson - Democrats do... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well JLawson - Democrats don't consider him a Democrat, and he was not elected as a Democrat.

But you guys can continue to think what you want. Just letting you know it doesn't fit the facts - after that what you want to believe is your choice.

Why should Democrats... (Below threshold)
Cal:

Why should Democrats denounce the ad? However insulting it might be to Petraeus, the fact remains that it's true that he's "cooking the books" with manipulated data to make the situation in Iraq sound better than it really is. He did come to Washington and lie under oath to Congress about the situation in Iraq.

"Kims point is the dems nee... (Below threshold)
Anonymous:

"Kims point is the dems need Lieberman. We want him. The dems with Moveon worked so hard to get him out of the party, but the electorate in Conn. wanted him anyway."

He was elected because the Republicans in Connecticut overwhelmingly supported him, even over their own nominee. More proof, if any were needed, that Lieberman is not a Democrat.

Fortunately, after 2008 the Democratic Party will have a firm majority in the Senate and will be able to tell Joe to take a hike, rather than allowing him to blackmail them into giving him a committee chair via threats of turning control of the Senate back over to the Republicans. Honestly...at that point I hope the Dems take it a step further and expel him not just from the party but from the Senate as well.

Where is the indignation wi... (Below threshold)
jhollow:

Where is the indignation with Freedoms Watch add September 11, 2007, calling moving our troops and money out of Iraq and focusing on terrorists "surrender". Democrats should call on Republicans to distance them selves from such adds in the same resolution that is proposed for Betray Us. Indeed, there is an arugment that by not screaming for his troops, that they are there to get us back to first base, the General did what Colin Powell, and John McCain did. Failed to call a spade a spade. McCain should have not endorsed Bush when he pulled back from Fallujan in April of 04, at Rove's demand, then returned Nov 2, 04, just to lower the pre election casualties. No, betray is the wrong word, but someone within the services better go on record about from what office the was is being run, and Americans and others are dying because of those directives.

Hi,Thought this ne... (Below threshold)

Hi,

Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:

NEW moveon,org video ad coming out on monday sept 17th...basically calling president bush a traitor.

catch it here:
MoveOn.org Video Ad


for general david betray us fans or not:
General David Betray Us


have a great weekend!
steve

This sort of hate speech is... (Below threshold)
Proud former Democrat:

This sort of hate speech is why I left the democratic party. The leaders spew nothing but venom and filth, without ever offering up any ideas. Apparently the democratic plan to take back the White House is very similar to Hitler's plan to take over Germany. Not saying the ultra left wingers are Nazi's, just saying if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

Anonymous wrote: "Fortunate... (Below threshold)
Proud former Democrat:

Anonymous wrote: "Fortunately, after 2008 the Democratic Party will have a firm majority in the Senate and will be able to tell Joe to take a hike, rather than allowing him to blackmail them into giving him a committee chair via threats of turning control of the Senate back over to the Republicans. Honestly...at that point I hope the Dems take it a step further and expel him not just from the party but from the Senate as well."

You see? Fascist. Democrats will talk about how they need to defend the Constitution from Republicans, but when it comes down to it, nothing, not even the will of the voters to elect their own representatives, matters to them. Make no mistake, in their hearts, ultra-liberals HATE America, HATE the military, and having nothing but contempt for this Country and her ideals and traditions. The only thing they love about America is that they feel the system will allow them to remake it into their Marxist image.

And the rule of law and the Constitution do not apply to them...they feel they know better than you do, always, and therefore are doing the things they do in YOUR own best interests.

Question your Patriotism? I don't question it. I know that you don't have any, Comrade.

The books were cooked in fa... (Below threshold)
mike:

The books were cooked in favor of the White House and do not match the reports out of the Pentagon, I would call that a betrayal of responsibility to accurately report to congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401929.html




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy