There are times when words fail me. And times when I struggle with the right word. Or the right post. Sometimes, when I experience an unexpected kindness, I, who have often defined my gift as words, stammer and can’t respond. I can’t find the words to match the generosity. Would it that this post were about such silence.
Alas that this is about something which so totally stupefies me because it’s so outrageous, I feel I must write to express my incredulity. But, given that what has so outraged me has come from the angry anti-war left, incredulity is not quite the word. Because by now, we already seen the levels to which these extreme outfits would descend to attack President Bush or people who promote and/or execute his policies. We are accustomed to the mean-spirited and dishonest attacks they have long since produced.
I am referring of course to Moveon.org’s ad insinuating that General Petraeus is General “Betray Us.”
I have spent the better part of the day struggling to find the proper words to express my own outrage not only at this ad, but at the New York Times for agreeing to publish it, quite possibly at a discount (Via Instapundit).
The ad itself begins by accusing the general of being “constantly at war with the facts,” yet it is the ad itself that is at odd with the facts.
I’m sure the left-wing bloggers busy trying to sift through his testimony and label anything with which they happen to disagree as a “lie” or spin. I’ve already seen such tactics in a post linked in the comment section to my post on the Democrats’ preferring their version of the truth to the report of Petraeus on the facts on the ground in Iraq.
Too many on the left, including a number of Democratic elected officials, aren’t interested in the report of the top general of the ground in Iraq. They would rather attempt to discredit him by twisting his words than listening to his testimony.
Fortunately, while I can’t quite find the words to express my outrage, other bloggers have. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline said that MoveOn has hit the bottom.” Hugh Hewitt called the ad “repulsive and, as I noted before calls on Democrats who “fail to denounce the slander of this honorable and courageous American . . . complicit in that slander.”
And Bob Krumm (also via Instapundit) calls this the “Far Left’s Joe McCarthy vs. the Army moment.” He concludes, “The Far Left has . . . no sense of decency.”
I may have more to say about this in future posts, but at least I’ve had the chance to express my outrage at this excess. I encourage you to follow the links I provide to read posts where others have expressed their feelings on this topic much better than I have been able to express mine at this time.
UPDATE: Peter Hughes just e-mailed me, reminding me of Dean Barnett’s post on the topic which I had read yesterday. In his piece, The Party of No Decency, Dean comments on “the symbiotic relationship between the respectable political front men of the Democratic Party and the gutter dwelling sewer rats who do their dirty work.” Read the whole thing!!
UP-UPDATE: This morning, Hugh observes, “The general silence from Democrats tells you that their fear of MoveOn.org trumps their respect for the general and the troops he leads.” That pretty much sums up the modus operandi of today’s Democrats.
I wondered the same thing while contemplating “Who the HELL is Tom Lantos and what’s his military experience?”.
Who the hell are these sniveling, punks to sit on their loathsome spotty behinds and call Petraeus, whom they confirmed, a liar? Who are these sopping wet pu**ies who’ve been doing NOTHING but LIE to the American people for, at least, the past 7 years?
Who the hell do they think they are alleging that Gen. Petraeus is a “puppet” meanwhile dancing to the strings pulled by MorOn.org, Dirty Underwear and the Daily Kooks?
And the $25,000 question, who the HELL is he betraying? It makes no sense just like every other goddamned liberal smear of good people.
A few more:
Are any Republicans, other than Hunter, going to standup to these lame-brained bastards who fancy themselves smarter than an Army general? When are the liberals going to start being held accountable for their actions?
And why, exactly, is the “conservative media” burrying the Clinton/Hsu money laundering scheme?
1: Could you let us know your military experience then? Yesterday’s testimony boils down to “we need more time and we’ll get back to you in 10 months to see how it’s going”. Essentially, nothing different from what we’ve been hearing for years now.
Decency of the far left? How about decency of the far right? On this, the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I’m reminded of how the far right attacked and continues to attack gays as being largely responsible for the attacks to our country on that horrible day. Let’s not forget that gay people died on all those planes and in the 3 buildings that were struck by those planes. It is especially poignant to point out that a gay-headed family was the only full family to perish due to those evil deeds on that day. It is gays and gay families, according to the right, that are responsbile for the all the problems and the alleged decline of the so-called morality of our nation.
Dear Kevin,
Something to ponder: if we’re defeated in Iraq all your grievances, real or imagined, will become irrelevant when we then enter into a struggle for national survival.
Capisce, paisan?
“On this, the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I’m reminded of how the far right attacked and continues to attack gays”
How gobsmackingly self-centered can you get?
I think Juan Cole put it much better. While also being outraged at the whole General “Betray Us” meme, he is also critical of the white wash dog and pony show we saw yesterday. Oh that’s right he’s an evil leftist too…
Sorry, that is John Cole of Balloon Juice.
It all comes down to the fact that, to paraphrase, “the left can’t handle the truth.”
Talk about inconvenient!
I am quite new to this blog, so forgive my ignorance. I am not gay, but I count a number of gays among my close friends and associates. Until Kevin spoke out in #3 above, I have never encountered this slander that gays are responsible for 9/11. I can only imagine that it is somehow connected to religious fundamentalists who have included the growing acceptance on the gay lifestyle as a reason that radical Islam has chosen to attack the US.
I have lots of association with people of all political philosophies and religious beliefs. What I post here are my personal thoughts, expressed in a straight forward way. I know a lot of Christians, Jews and Muslims, who think homosexuality is a sin against God. I have never heard anyone say that al-Qaeda was doing the Lord’s work by coming after the gays. That is as stunningly disturbing to me as is the subject of this topic which is about trashing General Petraeus.
There! I stand naked in public on this one. Perhaps this theme of Kevin’s has been kicked around gay websites and I am naive. But it is a sick, sick, sick view of America and Americans to weave whatever threads of evidence Kevin may have into the embroidery he has presented in his catharsis. There is a tension between the majority lifestyle and some gay lifestyle. But there is enormous acceptance, as well. This type of gay rant that Kevin has offered serves no other purpose than to demonstrate to the casual, thoughtful observer how paranoid some folks can be when they are too wrapped up in their own identity. I am loathe to hit the “say it” button on this one, but somebody needs to wash this little boy’s mouth out with soap.
Heliotrope, I don’t read anything in it beyond that Kevin shares the self-absorbed narcissism of most of the baby-boom era and which Bill Clinton exemplified. To be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, to a drama princess, no matter what happens, it’s all about her.
I for one am glad that voices on the left and the right have told moveon that their personal attacks on the general is wrong.
I just wish the right would have defended Kerry and other Praxis List Victims with such vigor.
I have been involved in politics for much of my 65 years. As a teacher in the disciplines of semantics and logic, the field of politics is a particularly fertile one for examples of both brilliant and inane use of the English language.
Why the left is so stunningly bitter at this time in history is up for a great deal of speculation. I have my own theories.
When Clinton ran in 1992, there was a common theme that “character doesn’t matter” when selecting a President. It was not a party slogan, mind you, but you can find it repeatedly in the press and discussions that helped explain away Clinton’s reputation as a bad boy.
All on his own, Clinton brought his reputation as a bad boy into the Presidency and the Oval Office itself. He also brought a whole pick up truck full of Damon Runyon characters from his past into the national spotlight. Sixty minutes even presented a program in which a woman accused him of rape. He was impeached on a far less complicated technicality than anything involving Scooter Libby. His final act before leaving office was to pardon a lot of scum.
Those who were vested in the “character doesn’t matter” theme were euchred into having to defend Clinton, even when he managed to do the indefensible. That, in my opinion, was the genesis of the outrageous vitriolic attacks that some on the left will launch. They have formed a modern sort of Greek chorus who enunciate the disturbed rants of sycophants who will accept any loony for their cause and seek to destroy any person they see as a threat to their house of cards.
The liberal left was once a place of ideas. Now it is a blame machine with universal health care as its only “new” idea. It has no plan to secure social security. It has no plan to fix medicare. It has no plan for illegal immigration. Its only plan for terrorism is to be “smarter.” To its credit, it does not like poverty, hunger, homelessness, pollution, disease, felonies, plague, drought, genocide, animal extinction, over fishing, crowded roads, inferior construction, pot holes, lead paint, tainted pet food, goldfish with fin rot, and much more.
Not much to rally around there.
VtheK. Thanks! Your words are very reassuring. I am still stunned at what Kevin projects. Hopefully, his is a very small room in the debate.
In a post charging the left has no “decency”, the first post by TGC is nothing but a string of vulgarities and hyperventilation.
Could you let us know your military experience then?
Mine is irrelevant since I’m not the one slandering an army officer in command of our soldiers. Besides, I asked first.
“On this, the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I’m reminded of how the far right attacked and continues to attack gays”
No exploitation or victimhood there.
In a post charging the left has no “decency”, the first post by TGC is nothing but a string of vulgarities and hyperventilation.
Didn’t call a commanding general a liar with the gaul to add “nothing personal”, did I? Nor am I demanding the surrender and embarrassment of the United States military and the country they volunteered to serve.
But don’t you DARE answer the questions, gilly. You might have to think. We’ve seen a total lack of that from you thus far, why change?
Mr. Not-A-Moderate: You imply that you disagree with the MoveOn ad – by mentioning one of its critics… but turn right around and affirm its insane basic premise – that the testimony “yesterday” from Petraeus was just a “dog and pony show”.
In other words: Nice hand-waving there, putting you, yes, in the company of the extreme Left. If the shoe fits…
#9 – Heliotrope – Those of us who have been around a long time are inured to Kevin. Consider him a known kook, worth responding to with sarcasm or amusement – occasionally. At one point, perhaps twelve or eighteen months ago (not sure), Kevin seriously intoned that the Bush Administration was preparing secret gay concentration camps in the backwoods of Wyoming or some such. From time to time, I may congratulate him on his continued escape.
————————–
OK, now what I came to say: Peter D. Feaver picks up on the McCarthy aspect in today’s Boston Globe:http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/
Silly me for not making the link clickable. Here it is.
Byron York wrote on it yesterday, before Petraeus’ testimony. This bit caught my eye:
In other words: Use of the specific phrase “dog and pony show” (as with MrNotAModerate) is straight from MoveOn talking points.
For six long years, conservatives have publicly labeled anyone who disagrees with “Dear Leader” as a traitor. Now when a general whose past words show him to be a master of the “rosy scenario” is questioned as to whether his loyalty lies with the foolish man who embroiled us in this miserable occupation or with the American people who want us out of that mess, conservatives hyperventilate! Well, guys, get your paper bags because there’s going to be a lot more standing up and fighting back against the dwindling numbers of deadender Bush cultists.
I’ll shut up after this, but this bit from Powerline (linked by GPW in #0) is too choice not to call out:
This might be the time for the Democrats to put up or shut down. It seems to be a case study of another hostile takeover.
Now, we have the Democratic Party DBA MoveOn.com.
#18 Anyone who said Hugo Chavez is not a dictator has no business making statements like that. How many payments left on your glass house?
Comical. The Democrat Parrot who can’t get through a post with name-calling the president (including multiple times in his #18) feigns upset that people who call the president “BushHitler” and “Dear Leader” and side with the enemy have been labeled as unpatriotic.
As I have asked, Why is it all the crazy people and America-haters support surrender in Iraq? Makes you wonder (unless you’re a brainless partisan parrot.)
Notice how not one of the Bush-bashing posts comes from the Underground or the Penal System.
I’ll say it before and I’ll say it again: if this is fascism I would LOVE to see what freedom looks like.
Well, guys, get your paper bags because there’s going to be a lot more
standing up and fighting back against the dwindling numbers of deadender Bush
cultists.
Standing up and fighting by whom? The
Stymied,
Frustrated anti-war leaders? It’s worth noting:
You have to show up before you can “stand up and fight” and nobody’s showing
up. Not only that, but you have the approval of the surge going up, Bush’s
approval going up, liberals in Congress going down and the people don’t trust
Congress to conduct the war. Ooops! The people are smarter than the
liberals thought!
Here’s a suggestion for Demcrats and leftists who whine about being called unpatriotic: “Stop being unpatriotic.”
When you call a decorated general leading our troops in time of war a traitor, as in, “General Betrayus,” you are being unpatriotic.
When you call our troops “Nazis, Pol Pot, Soviets in their gulags,” you are being unpatriotic.
When you demand surrender, and tell our enemies that if they kill enough of our troops, we will hand them victory. When you offer no alternative formula for winning the war, but pander to those who despise our country because you think its “good politics” you are being unpatriotic.
When you publish defamatory lies about our troops committing war atrocities, and don’t even bother to fact check them, you are being unpatroitic.
When you make film after film slamming our military and portraying our soldiers as debased wild animals, rapists, and murderers and produce not one single film about acts of heroism and bravery in the terror wars, you are being terrorists.
When you pander to the Nutroots, a movement whose leader responded to the brutal of four Americans with “Screw ’em,” you are being not only unpatriotic, but disgustingly subhuman.
When you do your best to cripple every program designed to catch terrorists and foil terrorists plots before Americans are killed, you are being unpatroitic.
When you laud and pander to anti-American dictators like Hugo Chavez, you are being unpatriotic.
When the Democrat left stops behaving like they are on the side of our country’s enemies, we will stop labeling them as unpatriotic.
Kevin… WTF? What on earth are you talking about?
On this, the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I’m reminded of how the far right attacked and continues to attack gays as being largely responsible for the attacks to our country on that horrible day.
How is it unpatriotic to question a general who has given best case scenario testimony before?
I would like to hear you defend that
GP –
He is obvioulsy talking about the dingbats on the September 13, 2001 airing of the 700 Club
How soon your forget…
The far right, Kevin in #3? It was one lunatic televangelist (Pat Robertson) who was later chastised by a great variety of conservative pundits.
Do we see any leading Democrat’s taking issue with Moveon’s juvenile and mean-spirited tactics?
No sensible conservatives are claiming that gays are responsible for the decline of America.
And Mr. Moderate in #6, I would hardly call Juan Cole a moderate source. If it was a dog and pony show, please point to the circus aspects of General Petraeus’s presentation. Did he misrepresent the facts? If so, please provide some evidence.
And Ian S, you throw out accusations in comment #19 without evidence to back them up. Conservatives have not done as you said. The use of “Dear Leader” comes entirely from the warped minds of angry left-wing bloggers. Just check out any conservative editorial page or blog and you will see abundant criticism of the president.
So far you have provided a lot of rhetoric and little substance. If the general is misstating the situation, then compare his words to the facts on the ground and show where his dishonesty lies.
But, when those on the left seems to think it’s enough just to accuse conservatives of lying, that just by saying so, they have to be right. Yet, they refuse to document their allegations of deception, except by twisting facts out of context.
#16 ILoveCapitalism: Thanks for helping me understand Kevin. I try very hard to listen to what people have to say and find a way to be reasonable with them. Some folks are too far gone from sniffing their own flames that all you can do is stand back and watch them glow. I do think that trying to sell the trash Kevin was tossing around is despicable, even for a kook.
Personally, I always find it amusing that liberals who suck up to Chavez, Castro, and Kim Jong-il call Bush “Dear Leader”.
Or that they, who insist that these people are not dictators and that their actions are necessary to “ensure stability”, criticize Petraeus for allegedly painting a “rosy picture”.
One wonders if moonbats like Ian have any inkling to what happens to those who criticize the government and its leaders the way they do here in those countries.
My guess would be no.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 09/11/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Today highlighting 9/11 posts, along with other must read info from around the net.
One wonders if moonbats like Ian have any inkling to what happens to those who criticize the government and its leaders the way they do here in those countries.
My guess would be no.
You are more generous than I am. I think Ian is aware, and has always been aware, of what a brutal totalitarian Chavez was, but chose to be an apologist anyway, because they were so bonded in their common hatred for Bush and their belief in socialism.
I apologize for my part in diverting from the point of Dan’s post. Let’s get back to it. It is a very important milestone in the dialogue about the War on Terror, and the Democrats’ willingness (or lack of) to be true leaders, or to take the Bill Clinton/John Edwards/Sept. 10th approach.
How will they handle MoveOn.org now?
How will they handle MoveOn.org now?
I bet the Democrats are doing polls and focus groups right now to determine whether it’s better politics to mildly criticize MoveOn, ignore MoveOn, or find a way to appease MoveOn.
I mean, you can’t really expect them to be guided by principles, can you?
30: Well, at least someone gets it. Check out a previous posting where a supporter of this site associated all democrats with a woman convicted of treasonous acts.
Oooo…looking at further responses, it seems as if peopl have devolved into name-calling. Where are the rules and the operators of this site to keep the the dialogue in an adult manner and remove posts that are inflammatory? tsk tsk tsk.
32: Here’s a liberal who doesn’t support/believe/agree with Chavez, Castro, or Kim Jong Il and sees them for for the dictators they are, so put that in your pipe and smoke it (but at least 15 feet away from the entrance of the building please)
Hoy Story has a List of Democrats who accepted money from MoveOn.
Check out a previous posting where a supporter of this site associated all democrats with a woman convicted of treasonous acts.
That would be me.
And that is because, as I pointed out in that same comment thread, instead of condemning her actions, you spin, obfuscate, and start screaming about Republicans.
Compare that with GPW’s clear rebuttal above, and it becomes rather self-evident why I have very few qualms about saying that Democrats like yourself, Kevin, aid and abet terrorists.
#38 –
How many repubs accepted money from the Fallwell and Robertson’s organization?
Why does that matter, gil?
You haven’t said that Democrats who took money from Moveon.org are wrong.
First you need to say that what Moveon.org did is wrong and proves that they are slanderous lying antimilitary bigots.
Second, you have to say that Democrats who took money from Moveon.org are slanderous lying antimilitary bigots.
THEN you can start asking that question without being a total hypocrite.
How is it unpatriotic to question a general who has given best case scenario testimony before?
1. He did no such thing. If you actually bothered to read, watch, or listen his testimony, you would know his appraisal of the situation was balanced and sober.
2. Questioning is not unpatriotic, baselessly accusing Patraeus of being a liar and a traitor is. But I guess leftists don’t even know the difference these days.
But then, you’ve made your contempt for the military … and the truth… abundantly clear in this forum.
Once again, when General Petraeus starts to give his testimony – the crazy code Pink women are out in force – in the chambers. How did they get there? After Skelton said yesterday that the book would be thrown at these people.
Clearly some Dems want them to do their dirty work. Some Democrat made it very possible for these ‘women’ to take up precious seats.
I’m losing all respect for the Democrats, at what point will they stand up for America. Remember, this country we all are supposed to love and support? I have no problem with Moveon.org existing, but when they take over a whole political party, I get very nervous.
Is anyone else shocked … SHOCKED … to learn that the New York Times gave MoveOn a huge discount from its usual full-page ad rate.
It surprises me little, V the K. Now when the beneficiaries, Kerry’s, Clintons, Soros’, etc., of that ruse, want to implement the “Fairness Doctrine”, what do we say?
Why do I feel a sense of ominence lately?
The only people ‘howling’ about this are right-wingers like yourselves. The rest of us were rather depressed to see an otherwise distinguished military officer feed us the same crap we’ve been getting from the WH for the past few years.
Can you point to any of that “crap” (as you put it) in Petraeus’s testimony? That is, can you dispute anything that he said?
Perhaps, it’s just that what he said doesn’t correspond to your world view.
Or do you just think that labelling it crap, you can make it so?
Perhaps, it’s just that what he said doesn’t correspond to your world view.
Libs have no “world view”, only DNC lying points.
#43
I hope the book they throw is “War and Peace” or something of similar length.
Gil: I just wish the right would have defended Kerry and other Praxis List Victims with such vigor.
When most of Petraeus’ commanding officers and a good portion (not all) of those who served with him speak out against the man, than perhaps your point will have some validity. Until then it rings very hollow. Petraeus’ critics are asinine political hacks who’d have trouble producing a man who even served stateside in the motor pool during combat (NTTAWT). Big difference.
Ian: Well, guys, get your paper bags because there’s going to be a lot more standing up and fighting back against the dwindling numbers of deadender Bush cultists.
I’d rather you didn’t but such is your choice. So go ahead. Savaging the military will turn the American people against you faster than anything else. So please, do continue because you reveal yourselves to be the unpatriotic bastards you truly are.
Gil: How is it unpatriotic to question a general who has given best case scenario testimony before?
Why are there so many on the Left that seem to never have progressed beyond adolescence? Time after time like speaking to a spoiled brat the same point has to be made that it’s not necessarily WHAT you are saying but HOW you do it. Disagreeing with Bush, Congress, Petraeus, etc., isn’t necessarily unpatriotic. Yet when you engage in the kind of antics that give rise to “General Betray Us”, publish columns in say the LA Times wishing the USA to lose, etc., than yes that IS unpatriotic and too damn bad if that bothers you.
Bruce: How will they handle MoveOn.org now?
Like the cowards that they are they will do everything to avoid the whole matter. Can’t piss of their rabid base after all and most of them lack the testicular fortitude of Lieberman to even try. Sheesh, even Bill had a Sister Souljah moment but these clowns lack the wee bit of spine even that would take.
Thomas Jefferson: “Sir, Have you no decency”?
Move On.org Guy: “F**k You Tool!!!”
Unlike Joe Biden, I’m speechless
I wish we still had Air America in Fresno (can’t believe I just wrote that). I’m sure Randi Rhodes is quite pleased with the inane Tom Lantos and Co. for standing up to the paper general. As ticked as I’ve been at my former party, I am so glad I am not a registered Democrat.
For Shame.
PS. I think I heard Biden triy to distance himself from the comments made during yesterdays “Dog and Pony” show. If so, good for him.
PPS. Anyone, besides those out of touch relics in congress, been around long enough to have sen a real “Dog and Pony” show?
#50:
Who’s taking on the military? We’re taking on the hyperventilating wingnuts who have been yelling traitor for the past six years. And for Dan, who is apparently unaware of any such name-calling, here are some examples. Coulter even wrote a book on it.
[Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said the right shuns such name-calling. You’ve linked blogs. We’re talking here about an organization that has supported the campaigns of a variety of Democrats and purchased an ad in a major metropolitan daily. As to Coulter, I’ve been criticizing her on this blog for more than two years — as this post attests. I even compared her to Paris Hilton. –Dan]
“Support the Troops by Slandering their Leaders”, remarks Cassandra in passing, in her fine review at PJM of the Democrats’ consistently senseless and unhelpful performance.
Did anyone see todays grilling? One question was asked of Gen. Petraeus that he didn’t handle very well: “Does staying in Iraq make us safer?”. I’m phrasing the question from memory so the wording may be off, but regardless, Petraeus couldn’t answer the question. Of coarse Chris Mathews had Biden on “Hardball” repeating the footage over and over and over again. And the question was asked by a Republican. If it wasn’t already, THIS is the moment the war in Iraq is officially lost to the public, as this footage will be played on every Democratic commercial, and talked about for weeks to come. The sad thing is that this is not a question the general should be asked – this is a question for the commander-in-chief to answer
Ian: Who’s taking on the military?
You: “Now when a general whose past words show him to be a master of the ‘rosy scenario’ is questioned as to whether his loyalty lies with the foolish man who embroiled us in this miserable occupation or with the American people who want us out of that mess, conservatives hyperventilate!”
Or is the whole “General Betray Us” schtick that was the subject of this post just okey-dokey to you?
We’re taking on the hyperventilating wingnuts who have been yelling traitor for the past six years.
While the nutjobs on the Left have been such silent lil’ angels…
And for Dan, who is apparently unaware of any such name-calling, here are some examples. Coulter even wrote a book on it.
Eh, probably a misuse of the word in Pelosi’s case but it certainly comes damn close to describing that puss-bag Murtha. He sacrificed whatever honor he had left when he wilfully and intentionally slandered the Marines as being “cold blooded” murderers.
If Brad Childress (coach of my beloved NFL team) comes out to give a state of the team and the state of the leadership OF COURSE he is going to be rosy, to ask for more patience, point out the good while using caveats like “to be sure” to cover his butt. If he doesn’t, he will be fired.
The general and ambassador are doing the same thing, if they don’t they will be fired and thrown under the Bush bus like the other former generals and viceroys.
They have no other choice even though there is no end in sight for political reconciliation, a functioning government, functioning police that recognizes the central gov and a functioning military. So they use caveats to gloss over the fact that almost all of the Benchmarks set into law have not been met.
It is not wrong for Moveon, or the Dems to point that out and it surly is not unpatriotic. Especially when impartial reports like the NIE contradict some of the rosy points they gave.
Some of moveon’s tone is clearly classless but a lack of class does not make a dissenter unpatriotic.
In America, dissent has and hopefully never will = treason.
Dissent? What we hear from MoveOn, John Murtha, Dick Durbin, Dennis Kucinich, el al isn’t dissent. It’s lunacy; nonsensical ravings.
Kucinich goes to Syria – a fascist state hostile to the US – and expresses his “dissent”. I don’t know exactly when dissent becomes treasonous but the line is being explored.
As I’ve said, I think the invasion was a mistake (benefit of hindsight) but all the libs have accomplished is to prove that trusting them with the defense of this country would be insane.
God all you right wing cry babies! I think the General can take care of himself and doesn’t need a bunch of chickenhawks defending him. The point MoveOn was trying to make is that the General has a greater responsibility to the nation as a whole and not to George Bush and his lies. Repeat the same old BS…more time…God if you elite, rich coastal Republicans had family memebers, or even lovers serving you would be singing a different tune. Its easy to send someone else’s loved one’s off to die, isn’t it.
Re #50: Dan, here’s what you said in #30:
And what I said conservatives have done is call those of us who disagreed with Bush, “traitors.” I provided several instances and if you want something closer to home, here’s Never Do Truth proudly proclaiming essentially that.
Go check the comment. I used that expression at the beginning of a paragraph addressing a specific point you made. That expression, “Conservatives have not done as you said” was in reference to your comment 19 when you claimed “conservatives have publicly labeled anyone who disagrees with ‘Dear Leader’ as a traitor.”
When I wrote that “conservatives have not done as you said,” I meant that conservatives have not gone around labeling all people who disagree with the president as a traitor. And none of us, not the sane ones at least, goes around claiming Mr. Bush is a Dear Leader free from fault. The point was that most serious conservatives, including this blog and this blogger, have criticized him on numerous occasions.
Are you prepared to take issue with ND30’s contention that Democrats have sided with Lynne Stewart convicted of helping terrorists? Are you prepared to denounce her?
God if you elite, rich coastal Republicans had family memebers, or even lovers serving you would be singing a different tune. Its easy to send someone else’s loved one’s off to die, isn’t it.
Does this mean since more soldiers are coming back home alive than in any other protracted conflict in US history, that the war in Iraq is a failure because not enough soldiers are dying? I don’t know what kind of Republicans you hang out with, but that is not the policy of ones I know.
I think the General can take care of himself and doesn’t need a bunch of chickenhawks defending him.
He doesn’t need a group of spineless doves haranging him, either.
God if you elite, rich coastal Republicans
1. Watch out, you may be crucified by your fellow losers for invoking God’s name.
2. I’m not rich, unless you use the common liberal definition of “anyone with any income whatever”.
3. I live in the middle of the state in a county with more registered democrats than Republicans.
4. I know how to vote unlike the elite, rich coastal liberals down in Palm Beach county.
5. You’re little class warfare comment there is a popular tool of the rich, limousine liberals.
had family memebers, or even lovers serving you would be singing a different tune.
How DARE you ASSume that none of us do. Besides, WTF do you care? Those serving are the butt of your hostility and slander. When they die, they’re nothing more than spank bank material for you to masturbate furiously to.
You sick sonofabitch! Damn you and the whore that queeved you into the world.
#61
It’s sorta like a lack of sex. The libs don’t have enough in their spank bank so naturally they have deep frustration and anger issues.
16: You are lying.
39: Yes, and you’re an a*****. [Expletive removed –Ed.]
No Kevin, I (16) was/am not lying.
As for Dave:
The comments of a moronic troll. Dave, that formally makes you a moron. I don’t like to call names, but I don’t mind saying it in a case such as this, where the truth is not to be escaped or denied. As for the troll part: You obviously want reactions, Dave. Here is another. I hope that getting the following reaction from me, makes you happy today.
First, you need to consider that in fact, Republicans are the ones doing the serving. More so than Democrats. Or else why does our military consistently lean Republican? (70% of veterans voted Bush in 2004.) With a few exceptions – some noble, and some less so – it isn’t war protestors who are out there doing the serving.
Second, in fact, the “rich elites” in this country by and large are Democrats. The Democratic Party has the big, billionaire contributors. And they have the Kennedy-Rockefeller “trust fund baby” types. Such as Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand and al-Goretoo are “rich elites”. I say this without jealousy, since as far as I’m concerned, the Democrats can have ’em. If America must have rich, self-hating and pretentious whiner-socialists, let ’em congregate in one party.
Third – although I am an Independent, no Republican here – I do in fact have a loved one of 20+ years serving in Iraq. Again, Dave: That you would make a blanket assumption otherwise shows the depth of your (a) desire to troll, and (b) pure stupidity.
Oh and as for the notion of people being “sent” to die… Ours is a volunteer military. We don’t draft people against their will.
And if anyone is worried about the return of the draft: Republican would be the way to vote. A Republican President ended the draft and created the volunteer military, and in recent times, it is Democrats (e.g., Rangel) who are wanting it back and proposing bills to that effect.
Technically, what Kevin wrote on or about 9/15/2005 was that the authors of this weblog supported people (i.e. Republicans) who “would be perfectly happy to see us (i.e. people of teh ghey) exterminated (i.e. sent to the death camps in the Pacfiic Northwest that the nuts on Americablog claim are already in operation).”
ILC’s characterization of Kevin’s comment embellishes the details, but is essentially an accurate representation of the original. Kevin has also never repudiated the statement, although he implausibly claims that he was talking about extreme elements of the far right. Since such extremists are not supported by the operators of this blog, this assertion is inconsistent with his initial statement. When challenged to produce examples of Republicans or conservatives who advocated the extermination of people of teh ghey, Kevin was unable to cite any. The only person known to be advocating anything near this position is Democrat activist Fred Phelps.
#58 Dave bares his ignorance of the Constitution as follows: “The point MoveOn was trying to make is that the General has a greater responsibility to the nation as a whole and not to George Bush and his lies.”
If the General can not serve his Commander in Chief, then the General should resign. If the General disobeys his Commander in Chief, then the General should be court martialed. If the House is certain that the Commander in Chief is telling lies and fighting a vanity war, then the House of Representatives should bring impeachment charges against the President.
If anyone wants the military commanders to operate independently from their Constitutionally created civil overseers, then they are idiots in the first degree. An independent military is the playground for coups and military dictatorships.
How unusual is it to find a general who would take a different course than that of the commanding general? I love this General Jones guy. If he were given the job tomorrow, facts on the gound would change his lofty rhetoric in a heartbeat. No general would expose his troops to being shot in the back as they run away.
#68 – V, my memory is fading, but I also seem to remember an alarmist comment or two from Kevin where he provided citation of a news article alleging the camps. I wrote with that in mind.
It was awhile ago, and there’s no way I could want to bother finding the old comment(s), if it were even possible. Nor can I claim my memory is always perfect. Long story short, IF I have exaggerated the kernels of truth in the case, I apologize to Kevin and all for that extent of exaggeration.
Please note, of course, that “exaggeration” does not mean “falsehood” – and “lie” still less. Oh, excuse me, I forgot – in our Brave New World, the monosyllable “lie” has a new meaning, as “anything that any leftie doesn’t want to hear or concede, and can find the tiniest fault with.”
My final note on the matter – I had taken Kevin’s #64 as an assertion that I had lied in saying he was a “known kook” on GayPatriot. Had I?
I don’t remember that specific citation, ILC, but then I usually scroll over Kevin’s nonsense anyway, unless I need a chuckle.
Is he a kook? Personally, I think its kooky to be paranoid that Christians want to exterminate you, but not bothered at all by the fact that Islamists do.
I think, ILC, that was a link I provided from leftist and gay Democrat leader Mike Rogers.
Rogers implied that the consequences of a Bush win could be dire. He referred to “internment camps” that he said are being refurbished in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. “I know what happened to gay Jews who didn’t get out fast enough last time,” Rogers said.
And, since gay Democrats like Kevin support Rogers, as they do Lynne Stewart, you may hold him responsible for both.
This “troll” is glad he got all your knickers in a twist. As for causing a reaction, well –the truth hurts , don’t it. You cowards all need to put up or shut up! Serving your country means more than “serving” some hot GI on fleet week girls!
Thanks guys. Both for clarifying where I got it wrong, and where I got it right.
Wow, Dave. I’m amazed you came back. Bwing! Your comments really apply to you, and are now bounced back on you.
This “troll” is glad he got all your knickers in a twist.
I think the only reaction you provoked was gratitude that we’re on this side, and bitter stupid trolls like you are on the other.
I went to Wickedstupidia to see how they define a “troll” and found: “An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET, with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.”
In looking over Dave’s posts, nothing makes his verbage rise to the level of a “troll.” I do not know a suitable designation for “saprophytic voyeur” but that is what Dave is. And, not too learned, as well.
What’s the word, “just another lib who shows up on a blog, spews the same cliched, hatred-filled, mindless invective all the other libs do, and thinks he’s clever for doing so?”
Mmmmmmm…. saprophytic! 🙂 (think bleu cheese, or maybe mushrooms)
Dave: This “troll” is glad he got all your knickers in a twist. As for causing a reaction, well –the truth hurts , don’t it. You cowards all need to put up or shut up! Serving your country means more than “serving” some hot GI on fleet week girls!
Great, Dave! I served during the first go-round in the 1990s. When exactly did YOU wear the uniform? You oppose the war in Iraq I suppose, but what exactly have you done to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Come on sweetheart, ‘enlighten’ us…
How unusual is it to find a general who would take a different course than that of the commanding general? I love this General Jones guy. If he were given the job tomorrow, facts on the gound would change his lofty rhetoric in a heartbeat. No general would expose his troops to being shot in the back as they run away.
Perhaps. Yet General Jones doesn’t have a record one can ignore either. He has had a long and distinguished career serving this nation, retiring as the first Marine general to serve as SACEUR/EUCOM commander. This, however, is where one can question legitimately question his view on Iraq. While Petraeus literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency and has the advantage of actually being the commander on the ground in Iraq, Jones does not know the theater and spent his career in a Cold War setting. There is a BIG difference between the two. The only area where Jones can draw upon experience for any similarities to Iraq is as a Platoon and then Company Commander in Vietnam for less than 1 year. Yet there is a huge difference between serving as a Lieuey and as overall commander in the combat theater. Both provide valuable insights, but the latter usually has a better idea of the overall picture. None of this impugns his service, he has an exceptional record, but it does put things into perspective.
64: yes, you are. I wonder if this site can be searched back that far. The comment I made was a literary comparison; it was someone else on the same thread who provided a link to someone (who I do believe is a nutcase) who said such places were already in existence, thank you very much.
68: LOL. well, as if you look further throught that thread you’ll (well, just see above). I just love on this site how someone will make a statement y’all don’t agree with, find the furthest, lefty-left-left they can find and automatically label that as “everyone on the left agrees with this”
Fred Phelps is the only one? Really? Ever read the anti-gay Marriage “affirmation” act of Virginia? Not only does it it ban gay marriage, but it goes so far to say that same sex couples could not enter to any legal agreement that appeared to have the look of marriage/civil union (ie denying things such as civil power of attorney). In addition, it forbade even private companies from extending health benefits to same sex partners. Now, that ammendment was written by a conservative Republican, Bob Marshall. Imagine that: a freedom-loving Republican who openly advocated the ability of a minority class of people from entering into a legally binding contract. A Republican trying to put a limitation on a free-market, profit making company? Say it isn’t so!
So tell me then; how far do you think these types of laws and ammendments should be able to go? It was exactly this type of legislation that has led to internment/concentration camps in the past: “Don’t worry, we’re just gonna take *this* right away from you – you’re fine with everything else!” “Don’t worry, we’ll just take Poland, we won’t bother anyone else” It’s no longer a real democracy if so-called Americans/Patriots whole-heartedly approve the removal of rights and don’t believe in equal protection under the law.
Whether he likes it or not, General Jones has become somewhat of a political poster boy for Reid, Pelosi and friends. When a military man retreads into politics he cashes in his commitment for military cohesiveness and strikes out on sound-bite independence. I doubt that General Jones has made that turn. But Reid, Pelosi, et. al. have dragged him into their political games and unless he untangles himself, General Jones is but a fly in their web.
Reid, Pelosi, et.al. were waiting to pounce on anything Patraeus or Crocker said that could be used to sound-bite against the General and the Ambassador. While Patraeus and Crocker were too sharp to get caught in the Democrat snare, General Jones got himself sucked in.
Only time will tell whether Jones is a dupe, a cohort or a victim. He may have honest military differences with Patraeus, but Reid, Pelosi and friends are playing search and destroy politics, not a military strategy that enhances victory. They are determined to find a loser.
Hm. Not getting a piece of paper from a government bureaucracy that calls your relationship a marriage = Nazi death camp.
Is that kooky, or just nucking futs?
#83 Kevin asks: ” Ever read the anti-gay Marriage ‘affirmation’ act of Virginia? ” and proceeds to repeat much of the hysteria that surrounded it. There is a simple debate here that is basically a yes or no vote. Should the state recognize, authorize and regulate marriage between same sex partners? If there is a “no” answer, then the state must look at how it handles same sex “unions.” The statement that the proposed act “forbade even private companies from extending health benefits to same sex partners” was a volitile claim that was not true.
I offer this not as a Virginian who favored or opposed the act, but as a Virginian who is first and foremost interested in the truth.
Re: Kevin – the scorecard of this morning (9/13):
1) As remembered by several longtimers, Kevin seriously intoned on this blog some time ago that Republicans would happily exterminate gays.
2) But Kevin never backed it up (and still hasn’t) with any credible logic or specifics – though given many opportunities, then and now.
3) With a fading memory of who exactly said what, I recounted Kevin’s allegation with an embellishment placing the extermination facilities in “Wyoming or some such”.
Who is the “liar” (or teller of falsehoods) there? ‘Twill be clear, I dare say, to anyone not a kook. BUT – I do note Kevin’s brand-new claim here, that his old claim had only been a “literary comparison”. Though absurd, that may well be, for Kevin, the dynamic equivalent of an apology or retraction.
Further, and back to thread topic:
4) Kevin claims “the far right attacked and continues to attack gays as being largely responsible for the [9-11] attacks…” (emphasis added)
5) But Kevin is unable to cite a single contemporary example; nor even a past example, other than one instance from a known kook who, in fact, was promptly smacked down for it by most conservatives.
6) By contrast: as of this morning, Leftists and Democrats continue to pointedly NOT smack down MoveOn’s allegation of General Petraeus being a traitor to the United States.
What sticks out to me about Kevin’s comment is the deranged narcissism. He looks at 9-11 and doesn’t concern himself with terrorists attacking his country, his fellow Americans, and his way of life. He looks at 9-11 and his thought is, “How can I use this anniversary to find another reason as a gay man to whine about my oppression?”
Which is, IMHO, a miserable and pathetic way to go through life.