Althouse: "Gen. Andrew Jackson probably would have responded to these reflections on his honor with a series of duels."

September 12, 2007

"Gen. Andrew Jackson probably would have responded to these reflections on his honor with a series of duels."

"Gen. Petraeus, in the manner of the modern Army, patiently answered with a series of facts and charts showing military progress in Iraq that seemed unimaginable even six months ago."

Writes Michael Gerson.

I don't know about you, but I cannot bear the personal attacks on Petraeus. Argue with him on what his report means, find the holes in the statistics, cross-examine him, but respect him.

225 comments:

1 – 200 of 225 Newer› Newest»

Hoosier Daddy said...: Petraeus is viewed by a lot of people as our General Grant, the guy who will turn it around when the ones before him couldn't or wouldn't. Whether he does in the end remains to be seen but what he has accomplished thus far is encouraging.

When there are those who have invested so much in the belief that Iraq is unwinnable God and sonny Jesus could testify before Congress on the forward progress in Iraq and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. If Pretraeus turns this thing around, Bush becomes the winner and the vast majority of the Democrat party loses any credibility on the war that they spent the last 2-3 years trying to build.

The sad thing is if this was over health care or some other domestic social program, I could understand the politics of it. But when American soldiers are in harms way and American honor, credibility and security are at stake, to play politics over this is simply reprehensible.; 9/12/07, 7:41 AM
Peter Hoh said...: The constant point scoring mentality, along with the zero-sum game attitude of the players, is a great disappointment to me. Both sides participate. Must not be a great cost to either party, but the opportunity cost to the country is great.; 9/12/07, 7:47 AM
Bob said...: And it's not that often that four-star generals get treated like redheaded stepchildren in public, either. I'd have hated to be one of Petraeus's staff after he got back from the Congressional grillings.; 9/12/07, 7:48 AM
AmPowerBlog said...: This is the hard left's McCarthy moment, says political scientist Peter Feaver:

"The MoveOn.org ad is vicious, and would garner comment even if it were merely one more primal scream in the coarse blogosphere debate over Iraq. But it is not an angry e-mail or blog entry. It is a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his credibility as possible so that his military advice could be more easily rejected by antiwar members of Congress."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/; 9/12/07, 7:48 AM
MadisonMan said...: I've got to think that someone who is savvy enough to rise to rank of General is going to recognize the attacks for what they are, and give them the response they deserve.; 9/12/07, 7:49 AM
AllenS said...: As a Viet Nam veteran, listening to Democrats call this man more or less a liar, was not unexpected. For those of you who have opined in earlier posts, that you will be voting for Hillary Clinton, what do you think is going to happen to the leadership in our military, if she is elected and Democrats are in more of a majority than they are now?; 9/12/07, 8:03 AM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Respect must be earned, not demanded.

On the other hand, in the context of what you've written, particularly in your reference to "personal attacks" on Petraeus, it appears to me that you are appealing for civility. That seems fair enough, although I have to admit that I'm unaware of any "personal attacks" on Petraeus. (If you're referring to the MoveOn ad in the NYT, I don't think this meets the standard of "personal attack" that you describe and analyze in a recent blog entry about campaign attacks on Fred Thompson and John McCain.)

Can you identify specific "personal attacks" on Petraeus that you find unbearable? Do you believe the congressional cross-examinations of Petraeus were disrespectful?; 9/12/07, 8:04 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Respect must be earned, not demanded

I don't disagree Cyrus however, when one looks at his military record over the years and what he has accomplished in Iraq in the last several months, if he has not earned the respect of Congress then as the saying goes, some people are beyond pleasing.

Other than the MoveOn attack ad, I agree that I am not aware of any personal attacks against him. My issue has been that many of the anti-war members of Congress went to this hearing with decisions already made. Basically saying you did a good job but its a day late and dollar short was absurd.

Cut the funding and bring them home now, or shut up and let the man do his job.; 9/12/07, 8:13 AM
Meade said...: "Cut the funding and bring them home now, or shut up and let the man do his job."

Exactly right. There are no other honorable options for Congress.; 9/12/07, 8:24 AM
KCFleming said...: "If you're referring to the MoveOn ad in the NYT, I don't think this meets the standard of "personal attack""

Of course you don't Cyrus. You've played this game before, many times. Your definition of 'personal attack,' as it would unfold over a lengthy and frustrating discussion, will ultimately be found to exclude all proffered evidence, even (and especially) this most blatant assault on his personal honor and integrity.

Bullshit. Again.

Congress was being disrespectful to him because they had no intention to allow Pretraeus to alter their decision. The hearing was pro forma only, a bit of lefty theater, and completely disgusting.

If they do not cut the funding and bring them home now, the Democrats are worthless.; 9/12/07, 8:26 AM
# 56 said...: Calling a uniformed officer a traitor is not a personal attack?
Anyway it is behind us. The Dems will not have him back, he handled the hearings and the nonsense well.; 9/12/07, 8:31 AM
Laura Reynolds said...: I have enough experience to know that beyond just the respect due his rank, which is considerable, his record demands more. Anyway getting questioned by the likes of Barbara Boxer lends as much credibility to the process as the recently discussed pysch study involving college students.; 9/12/07, 8:32 AM
MadisonMan said...: Calling a uniformed officer a traitor is not a personal attack?

Who called him a traitor?; 9/12/07, 8:33 AM
Anonymous said...: I point you again in the direction of this editorial, which should help all understand the underlying dynamics of the personal attacks on Petraeus.

"Trashing Petraeus: MoveOn.org, and the new standards of Democratic debate."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010587; 9/12/07, 8:34 AM
Original Mike said...: How is "General Betray Us" NOT calling him a traitor???; 9/12/07, 8:37 AM
Justin said...: What's striking about the whole situation is the blatant hypocrisy shown by the attackers. These are the same people who were attacking President Bush for not listening to the troops on the ground. Yet now they're shouting down the top commander on the ground before he even speaks!

These are also the same people who continually demand that no one question their patriotism. Yet the call him "General BetrayUs". If that's not questioning his patriotism, then I don't know what is.; 9/12/07, 8:40 AM
AllenS said...: Original Mike, beat me to it. Open a dictionary and look up the word "betray."; 9/12/07, 8:41 AM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Pogo,

If you are going to quote me, it would be a very welcome change if you would do so accurately (i.e., in a way not intended to distort the meaning of what I wrote).

Here's what I wrote:

If you're referring to the MoveOn ad in the NYT, I don't think this meets the standard of "personal attack" that you describe and analyze in a recent blog entry about campaign attacks on Fred Thompson and John McCain.

Pogo, I'm going to be generous with you and assume you genuinely misunderstood what I wrote. If you read it again, you will see that it has nothing to do with what I consider a personal attack; it relates to what Althouse has previously written regarding what constitutes a personal attack. In your eagerness to bark at me, you apparently misread my post.

I'm happy to read whatever response you may have to my comments, Pogo, but please make a better effort to reply to what I've actually written.; 9/12/07, 8:45 AM
Unknown said...: I've got to think that someone who is savvy enough to rise to rank of General is going to recognize the attacks for what they are, and give them the response they deserve.

Few of us who are disgusted by the MoveOn.org ad are actually worried that he can't handle it personally, MM. Do you really think that excuses it, however?; 9/12/07, 8:52 AM
MadisonMan said...: I'm not here to defend MoveOn's slide into McCarthyesque hyperbole (The Boston Globe editorial says it all). I just don't equate a schoolyard mangling of the General's name into as tantamount to calling him a traitor.; 9/12/07, 8:52 AM
Joseph said...: Let's make the General's report all about his personality and how much respect that should be due him and all the hurt feeligs caused by some corny attack ad. Because the feelings of General Petraeus are at stake here!

Nevermind that this wildly unpopular war rages on. Nevermind that whatever progress has been made on security, that there has not been progress on political reconciliation and stabilitization in Iraq (which was the purpose of the improved security). Nevermind that the mastermind of 9/11 is still around to taunt us.

But don't hurt the feelings of General Petraeus!; 9/12/07, 8:59 AM
Paddy O said...: Respect must be earned, not demanded

The man is the top war general in the most powerful military in the history of the world. As such he has reached the pinnacle of success in what has been one of the most respected vocations of every society.

He has advanced degrees, a record of loyal service to the country, and many other qualities worth extolling.

Added to this he has renewed the effort in Iraq so that we are now again at the point where we can argue about whether it will work out instead of assuming it won't.

Respecting him isn't a judgment on him, but rather a judgment on someone who thinks they are in a position to decide whether or not to respect him.

Who has earned the right not to respect such a man? Disagree with him, sure. That's what we do in this country. But whether or not he has earned respect is a meaningless question.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is the very definition of, as Andy Jackson might put it, a cad. Moveon.org is a very caddish organization.; 9/12/07, 9:00 AM
MadisonMan said...: Do you really think that excuses it, however?

What are you expecting? The political climate has been poisoned for years, since long before Hillary! killed Vince Foster. Suddenly because a general's comments are questioned (rather brutally, yes), it's a problem? All the people with the high sense of umbrage, my cynical self has to ask: At long last, have you no sense of history?; 9/12/07, 9:03 AM
Original Mike said...: #56 said: The Dems will not have him back, he handled the hearings and the nonsense well.

I suspect you're right. However, that would be impugning their motives, which we musn't do. So rather, let's just wait and see. Gen. Petraeus is veritable fount of information about Iraq, a subject which Congress has significant responsibility to monitor. Surely they'll have him back. Regularly.; 9/12/07, 9:03 AM
Paddy O said...: I just don't equate a schoolyard mangling of the General's name into as tantamount to calling him a traitor.

If words mean anything at all, then isn't 'betrayal' the definition of treason? The play on his name was definitely a schoolyard taunt, but it was a public insult with very potent words. Or maybe they are just trying out the idea of branding, in which words don't have meaning as much as emotion. They are expressing their emotion about him with words as symbols rather than communication.

Or is moveon.org not exactly meaning the U.S. when it says 'us'? Who is 'us' to moveon?; 9/12/07, 9:04 AM
Original Mike said...: MM, I have no sense umbrage over the MoveOn ad. It is a schoolyard taunt that I'm sure rolled right off Petraeus' back. However, to state that the ad did not call him a traitor is beyond ridiculous.; 9/12/07, 9:07 AM
Brian Doyle said...: That's great, Ann. So your Boy King gets to hide behind an unattackable general. Great strategy.; 9/12/07, 9:08 AM
Brian Doyle said...: Ann,

How do you feel about the needless death of American soldiers? More or less bearable than people saying mean things about Gen. Petraeus?; 9/12/07, 9:11 AM
KCFleming said...: Cyrus, I'd rather chew glass while watching Rosie O'Donnel sunbathe nude than try to 'prove' to you that "BetrayUS" meets the standard of "personal attack" that was described and analyzed in a recent blog entry blah blah blah.

The shifting sands of your mind warrant no detailed discussions, for your conclusion has already been reached. Like the Congressional Dems, the definition of "adequate" will change once its demands are met. Disingenuous is the word, I think.

I don't tilt at windmills, much less the wind.; 9/12/07, 9:13 AM
El Presidente said...: Cyrus and Madison Man,

I'm glad you still have your SLS Propaganda handbook. I think it was page 147, Advanced Topics in Attacking American Moral.

1) Trash a General
2) Say it doesn't matter:
-someone who is savvy enough to rise to rank of General is going to recognize the attacks for what they are, and give them the response they deserve.
3) Demand evidence:
-Can you identify specific "personal attacks"
4) Deny evidence:
-Who called him a traitor?
5) Claim to be misquoted:
-If you are going to quote me, it would be a very welcome change if you would do so accurately
6) Absolve yourself of responsibility:
-I'm not here to defend MoveOn's slide into McCarthyesque hyperbole

Effective use of propaganda. Call the character of a 33 year Army veteran into question while patting yourselves on the back for intellectual superiority. Were either of you in my Advanced Topics class back in 1968?; 9/12/07, 9:17 AM
Brian Doyle said...: Criticizing generals should be a crime! A crime I tell you!; 9/12/07, 9:19 AM
Trooper York said...: Most politicians are like the nerdy guy in high school who is quick with a joke or putdown...but generally don't face any consequences for their actions...I see it all the time in the bars of brooklyn...where a smart mouth hipster blows off about politics or some personal jibe at the working guy next to him on the barstool...and then is astonished when he gets a beatdown...then comes back the next night to sue the bar...that's Chuckie Schumer to a T.; 9/12/07, 9:20 AM
MadisonMan said...: What's SLS?; 9/12/07, 9:21 AM
El Presidente said...: Welcome to the party Doyle.

Madison Man and Cyrus only would have gotten a B+. They left out petulance. Congratulations on your A.; 9/12/07, 9:21 AM
El Presidente said...: Madison Man,

In English: SDS.; 9/12/07, 9:23 AM
Brian Doyle said...: I'm sorry but all this whining about a MoveOn ad... it doesn't make your side look good at all.

People hate this war. So if Bush is going to abdicate his responsibility for it to Petraeus (which he has), then that puts Petraeus in the hot seat.

Your beef is with Bush, not MoveOn.; 9/12/07, 9:28 AM
MadisonMan said...: Doyle: Bush is above reproach and cannot be blamed for anything.; 9/12/07, 9:35 AM
EnigmatiCore said...: "I've got to think that someone who is savvy enough to rise to rank of General is going to recognize the attacks for what they are, and give them the response they deserve."

I've got to think that we would have a better country if we held each other to that standard of savvy; that we challenged each other to recognize the attacks for what they are and to give them, and those who make them, the response they deserve.

I also think the response they deserve is not to ignore the attacks. I've heard many times that if we just ignore the asshats, they will stop. The problem is that this has proven to be a failure. All you have to do is look at how prevalent the Troofer movement has become. Ignoring the moonbats has only allowed them to gain a foothold, a safe haven if you will.

We do not need to ignore these fools. We need to ostracize them. We need to belittle them. We need to impose a social cost on their behavior so that they have an incentive to change their behavior.

This whole concept is why I have moved firmly out of the Hillary Clinton camp (she had been my favored candidate of the Democrats, to Giuliani of the Republicans). She has Sandy Berger, of all people, heavily involved in her campaign. Sandy Berger! She obviously doesn't care about (or wants to reward him for) his document stealing on national security matters. If we, the voters, turn a cold shoulder to such behavior, then what incentive would any Democrat ever have to give a flying f*** about such things?

We do not change abhorrent behavior by ignoring it. We change it by providing incentives (negative and or positive, depending) for people to stop the behavior.

I'll likely vote for more than a few Democrats in my state's election next year. However, I will not vote for any Democrat for whom I see an ad by MoveOn. I won't back any Democrat who appears at a fundraiser with Code Pink. And I won't back a Democrat who is involved with Sandy Berger.; 9/12/07, 9:43 AM
KCFleming said...: MadisonMan,
It's not that Petraeus cannot be questioned, and vigorously, it's that the interview was entirely pointless, since the democrats had already decided their course before the first question was taken.

The whole thing was bullshit, and a waste of his time, my time, and yours. It said "We don't give a damn what you say. We know what we want to do regardless."

I go to meetings like this on occasion, where the veneer of interest in my opinion is very thin, barely hiding the fait accompli beneath it. It's silly in a business, but unwise, insulting, and dangerous when we're a nation at war.; 9/12/07, 9:46 AM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: el presidente,

If you can't read my posts and understand them, please don't waste my time with a reply. If you are going to play strawman, pick a different partner. And if you are going to direct comments at me, make them at least marginally intelligent or amusing. The only chuckle you've offered so far is the suggestion that you were in an "advanced topics" class about 40 years ago. I can't wait to learn what the subject of the class was.; 9/12/07, 9:50 AM
KCFleming said...: Actually, I thought El Presidente had you classified rather well.; 9/12/07, 9:53 AM
Brent said...: .

Nothing is more umseemly and despicable than a war opponent praising General Petraeus and then in the same breath questioning his credibility and patriotism, all the while hiding behind the attack dogs of moveon. It is beneath contempt, and a majority of the American people - even those opposed to the War in Iraq - recognize the Democrats as spineless for it. Only Biden had the balls to deny the moveon ad. This time it's the Dems who throw the social molotov cocktails of mistrust in the military in one breath and then cry unfair when it's pointed out.

I swear, the Bush haters are so livid that they would throw war supporters into gulags if they could. Then our Dem Senators would silently go along, with platitudes about how important it is that we get along, but this time of reeducation gulags for some is so important for bringing us together.

.; 9/12/07, 9:55 AM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Pogo wrote:

Cyrus, I'd rather chew glass while watching Rosie O'Donnel sunbathe nude than try to 'prove' to you that "BetrayUS" meets the standard of "personal attack" that was described and analyzed in a recent blog entry blah blah blah...

Pogo, again I'm going to be very generous with you and take your "blah blah blah" as your very best attempt at an apology. However, as far as I'm concerned, you've lost the right to be heard on the subject of honor and integrity.; 9/12/07, 9:56 AM
Fritz said...: Joseph,
There is no such thing as a popular war, the polls reflect on our progress and nothing more. The mastermind of 9/11 lives at Club GITMO. UBL is a myth that timid response has embellished. The surge is working, good for US. I wish the Sunni tribes had dumped AQI in 2005, but they have now and real progress can begin. I'm looking forward to independents dumping their alliance with AQ Democrats in 2008 and end the Reid Pelosi insurgency here.; 9/12/07, 9:57 AM
Brian Doyle said...: since the democrats had already decided their course before the first question was taken.

Whereas Republicans kept an open mind. That's why McCain and Lieberman penned an op-ed urging people to "listen to Petraeus"... because they had no idea what he was going to say.; 9/12/07, 9:57 AM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Pogo wrote:

Actually, I thought El Presidente had you classified rather well.

Yes, I'm sure you did. This fact says far more about you than me.; 9/12/07, 9:59 AM
hdhouse said...: Patreus lost me when he went on Faux Noise for his one and only interview.

Besides, I don't think there were 2 members of the GOP senate panel who were buying what he was selling.

He gets what he gets. If for a minute I thought he wasn't coached through the entire ordeal it would be one thing but...hello...bring troops home as a show of how well things are going when the troops were scheduled to come home anyway is a bunch of bullshit and he knew it. just look at his face.; 9/12/07, 10:09 AM
El Presidente said...: Sorry Cyrus, Doyle already got the credit for petulance. But good try.; 9/12/07, 10:10 AM
KCFleming said...: Cyrus,
"I'm going to be very generous with you"
Please. Don't be. Your 'generosity' consists of evasive squirming when faced with the irrefutable. For example, accusing Pretraeus of betraying his country is a horrid personal attack. You deny this obvious insult with a mountain of obfuscating provisos. Most discussions of yours seem to devolve into the same thing, resulting in rank stupidities only an intellectual would believe.

"take your "blah blah blah" as your very best attempt at an apology."
Well, no.
It was an insult.

..."as far as I'm concerned, you've lost the right to be heard on the subject of honor and integrity."
From you, the highest compliment.; 9/12/07, 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: "General Betray Us" is worse than insult- it is calumny, heinous, and not acceptable in any way. Our men and women who serve this country at risk of life and limb and for not near the money and compensation they merit because most of them are simply duty-bound and honorable warrior-citizens, deserve never ever to have their integrity besmirched and smeared with the suggestion they betray us, our country, unless there is credible damning proof of such.

And, no, the ad wasn’t some schoolyard taunt that will just roll off his back. The General is smart enough not to show it in these politically charged times with the future of Iraq hanging in the balance, but such a nasty and public abuse of his good name must sicken him and all other servicemembers.

Congressional Dems who have chosen not to condemn the hideous attack are the ones betraying our military and the rest of us. They surprise me by sinking to new lows I didn’t even think existed for allegedly rational people. When Hillary picks Wes Clark as her uniformed tool and running mate to overcome the valid perception of her fecklessness and hostility to our armed forces among other reasons, I’ll spit on them both. In the spirit they deserve.; 9/12/07, 10:12 AM
Original Mike said...: Jane, I imagine that Gen. Petraeus considered the source. He's a smart guy. And, while the ad doesn't really reflect on him, it speaks volumes about his attackers. Not that this is news.

If I was Petraeus, what I would have found offensive is the unwillingness of the Democrat CongressPeople, with their eye on their own political skin, to denounce it.; 9/12/07, 10:25 AM
MadisonMan said...: just look at his face.

I'm amazed at how young he looks, but that just tells you how old I'm getting.; 9/12/07, 10:26 AM
Brian Doyle said...: Dems should start denouncing their base as soon as Republicans start denouncing theirs.; 9/12/07, 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Politicians in general are whores, and the Left are the worst of the lot. It's all about the money, and Dem beneficiaries of moveon are never going to condemn that major Party contributor whatever disgusting things it says or does under Soros' malignant guidance.; 9/12/07, 10:37 AM
Original Mike said...: ...as soon as Republicans start denouncing theirs.

When they do something like this, absolutely.; 9/12/07, 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: I imagine that Gen. Petraeus considered the source. He's a smart guy

Original Mike,

Have you ever worn the uniform and sworn to uphold the Constitution with your life? The source was a group of Americans who published their ad in a major American paper to make their smear as public as it could be.

I know mil members and they are incensed. This isn't acceptable, source considered or no. There should be universal and immediate condemnation from both sides of the aisle. In fact, this ad never should have been accepted for publication in the first place. Have our standards of political rhetoric fallen so low and dirty as for most people to shrug their shoulders at this highest slur against a uniformed service member? A General doing his damnedest to salvage a victory from an intervention we committed to but which one party in the US needs to see fail?

The outrage needs to be, else we're part of the demoralization of all the good efforts good men and women are sacrificing to make on our behalf.; 9/12/07, 10:44 AM
Unknown said...: There are two ways to look at Petraeus: one, as the Genreal leading our troops. The General deserves our respect.

The second Petraeus is the PR flunkie, the man who spent half of August on a media blitz, and gives exclusive interviews to administration mouthpieces such as Brit Hume and Fox News. The PR man deserves our criticism and, despite some of your delicate sensibilities, our ridicule.

The man in front of Congress was fulfilling the second function, a military man reduced to political pawn.; 9/12/07, 10:46 AM
Brian Doyle said...: Remember when they were trying to imprison journalists? That wasn't one organization, that was the whole Fox News constituency.; 9/12/07, 10:48 AM
Brian Doyle said...: Agree w/ Shan.; 9/12/07, 10:49 AM
Original Mike said...: Hey, Jane, I'm not defending them. It is unacceptable.

this ad never should have been accepted for publication in the first place.

Amen to that.; 9/12/07, 10:49 AM
Jeremy said...: "Dems should start denouncing their base as soon as Republicans start denouncing theirs."

Behold the awesomeness of the Democtratic Revolution of 2006 - swept in by monumental ethics reforms and irreproachable integrity. Who knew that leadership of this caliber was even possible?; 9/12/07, 10:56 AM
Anonymous said...: It seems to me that "schoolyard taunts" are usually confined to the schoolyard, are expressed verbally by small children, and directed at other children therein, and not directed at a serving military officer, printed in 100 point type in a full page ad in the front section of the most influential newspaper in the country. I cannot recall a single similar instance of political advertisement solely directed at a single serving member of our military in my lifetime.

The ad says far more about the organization which paid for it than it does the individual it defames and attempts to intimidate.

That the newspaper, which regularly exercises editorial judgment about advertising content saw fit to print it says much about its falling standards in its desperate search for income.

That the leaders of one of our nation's political parties have largely remained silent about this affront to common decency says much about them, and the apparent ease with which they are successfully intimidated.

That the leaders of the other political party would rather talk on and on about this rather than the larger issue of the days says much about them.

That those who have spent years decrying the supposed over-the-line political ad about professional politician Max Cleland's actual voting record find nothing wrong with a political ad aimed directly at a non-political still serving member of the nation's armed forces speaks volumes about them.

Now that they have all agreed that this is nothing more than a schoolyard taunt, they should not be surprised or upset when 2008 general election ads start appearing in contested districts and states everywhere asking, "Will Hillary Clinton betray us?" "Al Franken: Traitor or Political Hack?" "Is Charlie Brown Really a Traitor?"

After all, it is only a schoolyard taunt. No one will be saying they are one. They'll probably even admit they aren't really, which is more than can be said for this ad, but the code words (like those contained in this ad) and the encouragement of slander (like implied in this ad) and the attempt to stifle dissent (like in this ad) will be the same.

The biggest difference, though, is that those ads (like the Cleland ad) will be directed at active partisan politicians participating in the partisan political process of election, not an individual who has spent a lifetime attempting to carry out the stated goals and objectives of the duly elected government while serving their nation in a non-political capacity.; 9/12/07, 11:17 AM
Fen said...: MadisonMan: I'm not here to defend MoveOn's slide into McCarthyesque hyperbole (The Boston Globe editorial says it all).

Actually, it would be nice to see someone here on the Left denounce the MoveOn Ad. I know you are not the type to defend MoveOn, I'm just a bit surprised you won't attack them either. Your lack of outrage makes me wonder if you're not silently satisfied with the antics of the Moonbat Left...; 9/12/07, 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Original Mike, I know you weren’t defending them and didn’t mean to imply that in the least. But there are people here, in the Dem party and media who don’t get how a charge of or even hint at betrayal is the most devastating and serious accusation one could level against a member of our armed services. Cowardice or acts of wanton murder-- close seconds.

The paid for and published cheap pun in abuse of the General’s personal and professional reputation and in imputation of his lack of fealty to the US was so far over the top as to be breath-taking. But the follow-on yawns, rationalizations and so whats are even more so.

And, yeah, Internet Ronin and Fen. Absolutely.; 9/12/07, 11:23 AM
Fen said...: Joseph Hovsep: Let's make the General's report all about his personality and how much respect that should be due him and all the hurt feeligs caused by some corny attack ad. Because the feelings of General Petraeus are at stake here!

Strawman. The complaint is not about Petraeus's feelings, the complaint is that the Left has resorted to Ad Hom against an honorable military leader because they don't like the info he presents.

Of course, you guys have used the corpses of our soldiers as political props often enough, so we shouldn't be surprised.; 9/12/07, 11:25 AM
garage mahal said...: Remember when they were trying to imprison journalists? That wasn't one organization, that was the whole Fox News constituency.

We need to show the Iraqis over there how democracy works here, by imprisoning editors of newspapers for treason. After all, that is what we are fighting for over there, right.; 9/12/07, 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Even partisans who don’t agree with US policy or the General’s approach in Iraq should stand up for his honor. Or do a lot of explaining in court with specific proof of just how they know a serving member of the US Armed Forces has betrayed our country.

Garage Mahal turns everything on its head, as usual. Of course, our military is fighting in Iraq in mortal combat and security-making so that ugly partisans sitting at home are free to accuse them of betraying our country without censure or disgust from those who claim dissent is the highest form of patriotism...; 9/12/07, 11:41 AM
Original Mike said...: That those who have spent years decrying the supposed over-the-line political ad about professional politician Max Cleland's actual voting record find nothing wrong with a political ad aimed directly at a non-political still serving member of the nation's armed forces speaks volumes about them.

Good point, IR. I'd forgotten about that.; 9/12/07, 11:44 AM
SGT Ted said...: hdhouse said...
Patreus lost me when he went on Faux Noise for his one and only interview.

Actually, he is scheduled to be on NBC with Brian Williams tonight. So, you will have to find another excuse to ignore what he says.; 9/12/07, 11:45 AM
Fen said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/12/07, 11:48 AM
Fen said...: Its very simple folks: when our boys came home from Nam, there were people in the crowd who spit on them, and there were people standing beside them who watched and did nothing to stop it. We really shouldn't have to shame you into stepping up.

If Petraeus was about to be spit upon, would you intervene or turn away? Your answer will tell me everything I ever need know about your character...and if you are worth defending from Islam.

Cyrus? Would you make excuses for them, whitewash their behavior, minimize its impact? Or would you step up and tell them to knock it off? Would you risk yourself to defend this man's honour?; 9/12/07, 11:50 AM
Too many jims said...: Fen said...
Actually, it would be nice to see someone here on the Left denounce the MoveOn Ad.

I don't know that I am "on the Left" but I know you think I am. So here goes, the MoveOn piece was wrong, unhelpful to the necessary political discourse, rude, and wrong. (Yes, I know I used "wrong" twice but it is really wrong.); 9/12/07, 11:57 AM
Fen said...: hdhouse: If for a minute I thought he wasn't coached through the entire ordeal it would be one thing but

Hysterical. I've had the privilege of serving alongside officers like Petraeus. They remind me of the demi-gods of myth - Achilles, Hector, Agamemnon.

So its amusing to watch you sit behind your keyboard and malign his character - if someone like Petraeus raised his voice and called you out, you would wet your pants HD. You're not worthy to even look upon him.; 9/12/07, 12:00 PM
Fen said...: the MoveOn piece was wrong, unhelpful to the necessary political discourse, rude, and wrong

Thanks Jim.; 9/12/07, 12:01 PM
Original Mike said...: I was surprised when I saw the ad, because it so blatantly contradicts the Democrat's attempts to convince people that, as a party, they too respect the military. Of course it also gave them a perfect opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment. Have any of them taken it?; 9/12/07, 12:05 PM
MadisonMan said...: Your lack of outrage makes me wonder if you're not silently satisfied with the antics of the Moonbat Left.

Keep on wondering.

I will say this to soldiers who are upset by the calumnious! heinous! horrid! MoveOn ad. Free speech is ugly. That's the beauty of it. I don't think I've ever found speech outrageous, even when it's patently false. If it's designed to incite, like the ad, I can usually tell.

If you disagree with the tenor of the ad (who doesn't?), why not track down the candidates who get money from MoveOn.org and take them to task about it?; 9/12/07, 12:08 PM
Brian Doyle said...: The general in charge of Iraq is not synonymous with the military.

Supporting the military is not synonymous with insisting they keep dying in Iraq.; 9/12/07, 12:09 PM
Anonymous said...: The Democrats support the troops (in the abstract) they just hate the soldier.; 9/12/07, 12:12 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: That the newspaper, which regularly exercises editorial judgment about advertising content saw fit to print

Quite. Keep in mind that this was also the same paper that felt the 'Mohammed cartoon' was over the top.

Yet the only biased news source out there is Fox News.; 9/12/07, 12:14 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Yes we hate them so much we want to punish them by getting them the hell out of Iraq. So sadistic!

Clearly, they like having their tours extended. The weather's great over there.; 9/12/07, 12:15 PM
Paddy O said...: It occurs to me there's a good number of people on the far left who have become a collective George Costanza.

I think of the early episode when George quits his job by insulting his boss then tries to act like it never happened.

The boss interrupts and tells George, "You can’t win. You can’t beat me. That’s why I’m here and you’re there. Because I’m a winner. I’ll always be a winner and you’ll
always be a loser."

It's certainly true there are people on the Right who act like George, and it came out in the despicable attacks on Clinton, who I disagreed with but did respect as president.

Very sad that the organization formed encourage the country to move on from that sort of thing decided to instead mimic the boorish behavior. There's just no money and power in moving on, I suppose. And there are enough cads and boors out there that a person will never feel alone and might even be tricked into feeling a sort of bizarro honor.; 9/12/07, 12:16 PM
Books, Films, Ideas. said...: this is too funny. so i guess now all you defenders of petraeus' honor and dignity can go clear out all the goddam purple band aids from 2004. you can't have it both ways and that is why the electorate is sick of the right wing noise. kerry is a pussy traitor but petraeus deserves to be heard just 'cuz he is wearing a uniform. trying to have it both ways all the time every time is exactly what is wrong with the republican party. petreaus is no more credible than the many generals who have already served in his role and told bush the truth only to replaced by someone who would tell him what he wants to hear.; 9/12/07, 12:18 PM
Too many jims said...: jane said...
In fact, this ad never should have been accepted for publication in the first place.

I am going to assume you mean that whichever publications ran this ad should have chosen not to rather than meaning that the publications shouldn't have been allowed to run the ad.

I may not agree with something that a specific media outlet says or what advertisements it accepts, but I believe in markets and the marketplace of ideas. I suspect that the places that ran the ad considered: (1) how does the ad fit with their editorial views, (2) how much revenue will the ad bring in, (3) who will the ad piss off and (4) do those that we are pissing off buy our media anyway. Consume your media accordingly; boycott as necessary.

Internet Ronin said...
Now that they have all agreed that this is nothing more than a schoolyard taunt, they should not be surprised or upset when 2008 general election ads start appearing in contested districts and states everywhere asking, "Will Hillary Clinton betray us?" "Al Franken: Traitor or Political Hack?" "Is Charlie Brown Really a Traitor?"

Ads? FoxNews had Coulter commenting on how the Democrats are treasonous. Why purchase advertising when you can get free media like that.; 9/12/07, 12:23 PM
MadisonMan said...: I meant to say people, not soldier, by the way. I would be unwise for soldiers (in uniform, at least) to confront candidates about money sources.; 9/12/07, 12:23 PM
Original Mike said...: The general in charge of Iraq is not synonymous with the military.

If Gen. Petraeus had deserved the MoveOn attack, Doyle, you might have a point. As it is, the episode is not helpful to the Democrats. I can't imagine that many of the Democratic pols were pleased.; 9/12/07, 12:25 PM
Anonymous said...: High School,

Kerry lied about our troops, in public, to the Congress, to the world- his corroborating "evidence" as fictitious as his delusional magic hat. All Jenghis Khan smears to catapult a third-rate loser into politics, where he's been a third-rate antagonist to the military and sound US foreign policy ever since.

General Petraeus is no such person. The equivalence you draw is astounding.; 9/12/07, 12:25 PM
Brent said...: It's obvious from his irrational "logic" that Simmons actually IS still in high school.; 9/12/07, 12:26 PM
Brian Doyle said...: What's astounding, Jane, is your inability to apply the simple (if highly suspect) rule of "don't speak ill of the military" to military you don't agree with.; 9/12/07, 12:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I speak ill of the military quite often but I don't consider them untermensch or treacherous.

See the difference??; 9/12/07, 12:41 PM
Brian Doyle said...: The distinction is just a matter of taste. It's a pun, ferchrissakes. If he'd been named something different the ad would have said something else.; 9/12/07, 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: In rebuttal the Left can demand that
Pvt. Scott Beauchamp (erstwhile TNR correspondent) appear before the same committee. he can give them the straight scoop.

I will speak ill of this military man.; 9/12/07, 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: See the difference??

Nope, they don't, Larsporsena. Why not just call them baby killers, again, or little boy molesters? Puns are fun, esp offered in big font in national ads! "Petraeus- gayas a three dollar bill", or "Petraus slay-us in our sleep", or there are better ones, surely.

I'm not even ultra-right in my politics, but don’t understand where the Dems and Left are coming from wrt our military. We need a strong and un-demoralized military, with proper civilian oversight always and of course, considering the world situation.

We’re still living in uncertain times and in a multi-polar world with multiple threats to our country: anti-secular governance Islamism/ fundamentalism that's spreading throughout the Muslim world; non-state orgs and cells intent on destructive terrorism against the West and esp us; a resurgent militaristic Russia that is not our friend, duh; an emboldening, spreading and militarizing China that is not our ally on too many fronts; Chavez as successor and evangelist to Fidel populist nationalism-socialism-anti-Americanism (and militarizing, too); a nuclearizing oil-rich ME and cauldron as always; the EU with its changing demographics and PC obsession and also its bureaucratization and sovereign-democracy reduction of our formerly stalwart allies; one of our parties and its policy increasingly under the sway of billionaire and eccentric/ transnationalist out of self-interest and maybe ideology Soros; and lots more but the list gets depressing.

The Dems approach: Diplomacy will solve all, and Make protest placards, not war. Luck to us.; 9/12/07, 12:57 PM
Books, Films, Ideas. said...: look at the cry babies who "can't stomach" a professional four star liar being called what he is. too bad, so sad. cry baby, cry.; 9/12/07, 1:00 PM
El Presidente said...: "It occurs to me there's a good number of people on the far left who have become a collective George Costanza."

In all fairness he was in the pool.; 9/12/07, 1:04 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Jane: I'm not even ultra-right in my politics

Uh huh.; 9/12/07, 1:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Doyle, your spectrum is skewed by your blinkered left-handedness and there's no right except for left b/c you wear a patch over your right eye. How could we expect you to keep up with or acknowledge world trends and events that take both eyes and mind wide open to see?

Clearly, the priorities for this nation are putting the Clintons back in the WH and nationalizing our healthcare system. (So that we're all standing in line for care when the bombs go off.); 9/12/07, 1:13 PM
Original Mike said...: "look at the cry babies who "can't stomach" a professional four star liar being called what he is."

Looks like johnny didn't get the message that it was just a pun.; 9/12/07, 1:39 PM
Too many jims said...: Doyle said...
Jane: I'm not even ultra-right in my politics

Uh huh.

I completely believe that supporters of the current Iraq operations might not be "ultra" conservative. As someone noted in these threads recently, what Iraq is about now is a very Wilsonian endeavor.

To put it another way, if you believe that Iraq is part of a "neocon" agenda, the reshaping of the country into a western style society is the "neo" part of the deal. What we are about in Iraq right now is not very conservative. How many "conservatives" wanted us to reshape the Balkans in the 1990s which faced far fewer issues than Iraq does now? How many liberals want us to reshape Darfur now?

I wonder how long after this administration it will take us to remember that conservatives don't generally stand for big government domestic policy and don't stand for a do-gooding world policeman role on the international stage.; 9/12/07, 1:42 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: The man in front of Congress was fulfilling the second function, a military man reduced to political pawn.

You really don't know how homie don't play dat. I'm ever amazed with the insouscient disrespect on proud display.

Once I searched "stupid animals" and got page upon page about a broadly cited Kissinger quote about military men. And yet I got the exact opposite impression from White House Years and Years of Upheaval of the respect that academic held for military brass.

Anyone who dismisses generals so handily, especially this one, is automatically dense and simply lacks a capacity for respect. It was a sorry spectacle for those few senators.

On the side, when my dad was in the military and there was cause to be around them, generals appeared all to be ancient. What happened?; 9/12/07, 1:56 PM
titus20 said...: I for one am furious about the moveon ad. A shameful display of hatred of america and all for which she stands.

The lefts hatred of George Bush is so toxic and the sad part is they can't even recognize it.

I am now enraged at these liberals from Moveon as well as all democrats, liberals and any independents that do not support our war effort. Also, George Will had a snide article about the surge being a failure-any he calls himself a conservative-he should be ashamed.; 9/12/07, 1:57 PM
PeterP said...: "...a series of duels."

Now that's what I call supreme self-confidence.

I did once observe a Vietnamese father challenge 50 fellow-countrymen to a fight because one of them had sullied the name of his family.

They naturally obliged. As a pack.

He nearly won, but then again he almost died of his wounds.

If only he'd fought them one-by-one I know he would have beaten them all.

It's a father thing.; 9/12/07, 2:00 PM
titus20 said...: I absolutely love Michael Gerson. He is one of the best speech writers and a very religious man.

He knows so much and has done so well by his country. We are lucky to have a man like this on our side.; 9/12/07, 2:04 PM
hdhouse said...: SGT Ted said...
"Actually, he is scheduled to be on NBC with Brian Williams tonight. So, you will have to find another excuse to ignore what he says."

Brian Williams is going to give him an hour of airtime with softball questions? don't you get it? don't you get the time differentials?......as condi said "where is faux nausia when we need it".; 9/12/07, 2:07 PM
GeorgeH said...: I love it.
MoveOn.Urp and it's toadies is pushing the democrat party so far over the left edge that they couldn't get elected in Cuba.

A year ago I thought the democrats would sweep the '08 election, now I think it may be '94 all over again.; 9/12/07, 2:08 PM
hdhouse said...: Fen said...
"Hysterical. I've had the privilege of serving alongside officers like Petraeus."

he is a 4star you numbnuts...i think the term "under" instead of alongside is more appropriate...that is unless you were slopping potatos and mystery meat on his lunch tray.

the rest of your post is just your usual bulldrivel.; 9/12/07, 2:09 PM
titus20 said...: The defeatocrats should give any money they received from moveon back and disown them but they can't because they are their base-sad.

The defeatocrats are in disarray, poorly organized and gay.; 9/12/07, 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Did MoveOn only have to pay a deeply discounted rate of over 61% off a full-rate ad?

And would the NYT give such a discount or even print an ad (which it shouldn't) from a far-right group with the head, "Hill & Bill Will Kill Us: of corruption and mysterious suicides"?; 9/12/07, 2:10 PM
titus20 said...: Nancy Pelosi and her designer clothes makes me sick. You know she drinks lattes with special foam.; 9/12/07, 2:11 PM
titus20 said...: The New York Times wants America to lose the war on terror.; 9/12/07, 2:13 PM
titus20 said...: We need to ban all Hollyweird movies because these left coasts crazies are ruining this country and don't support our fine president.; 9/12/07, 2:13 PM
titus20 said...: Even though Jean Fitzpatrick was a dyke I loved her comment about San Francisco democrats.

We need to bring that back and air it over and over against the fey defeatists democrats.

I am totally outraged now.; 9/12/07, 2:16 PM
Too many jims said...: And would the NYT give such a discount or even print an ad (which it shouldn't) from a far-right group with the head, "Hill & Bill Will Kill Us: of corruption and mysterious suicides"?

Maybe not but NewsCorp (assuming Murdoch has turned on Hillary), Sinclair and any Scaife publication would't make you pay a cent for the ad. they'll run it as opinion or, better yet, as news.; 9/12/07, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: tinnitus20,

Your faux neanderthal con schtick is culturing penicillin at this point.; 9/12/07, 2:22 PM
titus20 said...: THe name Jane is so liberal I think I am going to vomit; 9/12/07, 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Only an accomplished ad hominem leftist could come up with something as clever as that.; 9/12/07, 2:30 PM
titus20 said...: Jane doesn't have any sex but she has fantasized about having all of her holes plugged at the same time.; 9/12/07, 2:32 PM
titus20 said...: Jane's beaver is nasty and smells like anchovies. Jane is fat and smells like pig and beef jerkey.

Jane's tits hang low and they are not tough on terror.

Jane needs a face lift.

Jane's old.; 9/12/07, 2:34 PM
Palladian said...: " Simmons High School Weblog said..."

"johnny said..."

Mr McLaurin, does your principal know that you're posting things like this under your school's name?

I love that your high school weblog page says this:

"The down side is the tendency for some blogs, especially discussion forums, to become gripe sessions. In particular, my principal has cautioned that a situation in a nearby school district arose when student blogs devolved into negative discussions about teachers and school staff. Of course this must be avoided. The issue for me will be my ability to maintain content discipline vis a vis assigned writing tasks, which each student will post on their personal blog where it may be viewed, but not commented upon. So the idea will be to have individual student blogs sans discussion boards or comments."

Yet you sure take advantage of other people's comment sections don't you? Or was it one of your students? I certainly hope that you're keeping your cynical views and off-color language out of the classroom.; 9/12/07, 2:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Today, I've witnessed several hideously nasty people on the left and one on the right who go for the gratuitously personal. Have a nice day, all.; 9/12/07, 2:42 PM
Palladian said...: Great, it's much better to have titus(insert number here) around talking about sucking nipples and going to nightclubs than it is to have someone like jane making coherent, interesting comments.; 9/12/07, 2:50 PM
Blunt Republican said...: BUSHBOY'S BIG TEARS -- Here's a photograph of Bushboy formulating his strategy for the next six months in Iraq: http://wwwthepartyofthewidestance.blogspot.com/; 9/12/07, 3:06 PM
KCFleming said...: jane!

Damn.; 9/12/07, 3:14 PM
KCFleming said...: Sippican Cottage once mentioned that bad commenters tend to drive the good commenters away. I believe this is true, although there are frequently excellent posts here.

I truly don't understand people like titus; such a waste.; 9/12/07, 3:22 PM
Books, Films, Ideas. said...: actually palladin, it was simply a snafu with the google account. obviously i did not intend my first post to go out under the name of my former employer.

but why don't you call my principal and tell on me anyway, if that is what you are threatening. as for the fact that petraeus is a lying yes-man, well what do you have to say about that? oh, and let me not forget to say shit, fuck and ass while i am at it. hell, my principal never even heard of google!; 9/12/07, 3:34 PM
Books, Films, Ideas. said...: Yet you sure take advantage of other people's comment sections don't you?

posted by palladin

well palladin, what is a political blog for other than for people to discuss or give opinions about politics. school weblogs are not for students to gripe about teachers, but political web blogs are for citizens to gripe about political events. surely you understand the difference.; 9/12/07, 3:39 PM
Palladian said...: Well johnny, first off your reading comprehension skills need work. My name is "Palladian" not "Palladin". Second, I was not threatening anything, just pointing out that you might want to be a little more careful in the future posting things with a school's name on them. Third, you've been around high school students a little too long, you write like one. Fourth, I wasn't aware that it had been factually established that Gen. Petraeus was a "lying yes-man". Care to point to any significant, impartial sources that prove these "facts" that you assert?

Anyway, keep up the good work johnny. With time and diligent effort maybe one day you'll be able to teach at the community college level.; 9/12/07, 3:46 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Palladian -

How about one of his subordinates?; 9/12/07, 3:49 PM
Books, Films, Ideas. said...: yeah, i'll be a little more careful around the sniveling, pants-wetting right wingers.

i really like all the ad hominem attacks, too. why don't you share your well reasoned arguments as to why it is okay for the rnc to give out purple band aids and call kerry a pussy traitor, but unfair and "stomach turning" for opponents of this immoral war to question betray-us' veracity? you say there is no double standard there? i wouldn't know, because you would rather comment on my personal information than on the topic at hand. talk about abusing some one's discussion boards!; 9/12/07, 3:58 PM
Palladian said...: "yeah, i'll be a little more careful around the sniveling, pants-wetting right wingers."

"i really like all the ad hominem attacks, too."

Nice! Not even a brief pause between those statements!; 9/12/07, 4:04 PM
KCFleming said...: I have to side with palladian here. It's hard to take seriously a rant that resembles a poorly-written sophomore essay. All passion, no reasoning.

For example, why say "sniveling, pants-wetting right wingers"? What do you gain from that? It plainly paints you as an ideologue, incapable of rational discussion.

And statements like "for opponents of this immoral war to question betray-us' veracity" are just juvenile.; 9/12/07, 4:07 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Well I'm late to this discussion. I'll have to stand in for Jane, who I agree with whole heartly on this topic.

MM said..., Who called him a traitor?

Betrayal was a carefully chosen word with special meaning in the military lexicon.

Betrayal is the act of "delivering to an enemy by treachery"

The person who "betrays" is a "traitor"

The overall crime of betrayal in a larger sense is called "treason"

They knew what they were doing, it is unforgivable.

I expect it will further poison relations between the military and its veterans with the Democrats. And rightly so without sudden and loud condemnations, which I have not heard yet except from Lieberman (of course) and Biden (who talks too much, but is an adult on foreign policy).

as for Fen's comment and I guess applicable to MM as well. Petraues is a smart guy. Barry McCaffrey who I did serve with says that Petraeus is the smartest guy he ever met and Barry thinks he's smart :)

anyway, here is a bit of his wiki bio: Petraeus left the 24th's 19th Infantry to continue the higher education he began at West Point, earning the General George C. Marshall Award as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He subsequently earned a MPA and a Ph.D. in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1985 and 1987, respectively, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy. His doctoral dissertation, "The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era," dealt with the influence of the Vietnam War on military thinking regarding the use of force. He also completed a military fellowship at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service in 1994-95, although he was called away early to serve in Haiti.; 9/12/07, 4:09 PM
Books, Films, Ideas. said...: so my writing is "sophomoric", but you guys are above ad hominem attacks? curious. my first post criticized petraeus, no one else on this blog. and i notice there is no defense of the purple band aids. why not? go ahead and condemn republicans for the purple band aids.

as for palladian's request with regard to petraeus' credibility, i add what about his superior, adm. fallon?

http://thinkprogress.org/; 9/12/07, 4:16 PM
Revenant said...: trai·tor /ˈtreɪtər/
–noun
1. a person who betrays another

So let's have none of this simple-minded horseshit about MoveOn "not calling Petraeus a traitor". They said he'd betrayed us; QED.

It is amazing to me how the Democrats have cozied up to the left-wing extremists in MoveOn. These people opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, for pity's sake! They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the reigns of power -- they're dangerous to America and to American security.; 9/12/07, 4:18 PM
Books, Films, Ideas. said...: well, i can't get a hyperlink to work, so just go to think progress to see what betray-us' superior officer thinks of him. i'll give you a hint, it includes the words "ass kisser".; 9/12/07, 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Pogo said..."It plainly paints you as an ideologue, incapable of rational discussion."

Well, if anyone would know...

What a hoot.; 9/12/07, 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Bob said..."And it's not that often that four-star generals get treated like redheaded stepchildren in public, either. I'd have hated to be one of Petraeus's staff after he got back from the Congressional grillings."

And I suppose the "other" generals who differ with the Bush policies...were treated with a great deal of respect?

I mean, other than being fired or forced into retirement...?; 9/12/07, 4:23 PM
Revenant said...: so my writing is "sophomoric", but you guys are above ad hominem attacks? curious. my first post criticized petraeus, no one else on this blog. and i notice there is no defense of the purple band aids.

See, this is an example of your poor writing skills. A more talented writer could have come up with a smarter lie than that.

Your first post was, in fact, this:

look at the cry babies who "can't stomach" a professional four star liar being called what he is. too bad, so sad. cry baby, cry.

So yes, you insulted everyone who took offense at the attacks on Petraeus. Your "criticism" consisted of nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim that Petraeus was "a liar". Also, in all honesty calling that post "sophomoric" is an insult to the world's sophomores.

You see, Johnny, we've already *got* a whole bunch of reliable lefties who show up every thread to insult Ann and everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton. They're better at it than you are. Basically what I'm saying is that you're not adding anything to the discussion -- we've already got the "insults from lefties" thing covered. If you want to make an impact, you'll either need to improve your insults or start making substantive points.; 9/12/07, 4:28 PM
KCFleming said...: Revenant, that reminds me of Jack Nicholson in As Good as It Gets

MELVIN:
"Sell crazy some place else -- we're all stocked up here."; 9/12/07, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Instead of cherry picking or taking things out of context...wouldn't it be more honest of the people here to actually read the entire ad? I see nothing here that intimates the man is a traitor:

GENERAL PETRAEUS OR
GENERAL BETRAY US?

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts.
In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.”

And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence.

That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported
that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front.

According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

*99% of what he said during his testimony is exactly what we've been hearing from the Bush administration for the past 2-3 years. (And the new and improved reduction in troops will merely bring us back to where they were before the "surge.")

For purely political reasons, I think the people here ONLY want to believe what THIS general has to say, and that's not surprising, but to dismiss the differing views, from OTHER generals, military experts and people on the ground as being un-American or as being people who want to "cut and run" is disingenuous at best. (Two of the soldiers who wrote the infamous and critical NYT's OP-Ed two weeks ago were killed yesterday.)

And...based on what General Petraeus had to say, accusing him of being a mouth piece for Bush is certainly not a stretch.; 9/12/07, 4:41 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Patreus lost me when he went on Faux Noise for his one and only interview.

At least he had an opportunity to actually speak there. His mic worked and he wasn't confronted with 45 minutes of mindless gasbagging blather and interrupted. If the Democrats AND the Republicans truly wanted to hear what he had to report they should shut the h3ll up and let the man speak. Instead the Dems had their minds made up before he even left the US for Iraq that the entire thing was a failure and that he was lying. The Republicans had their minds made up on what they thought he was going to say.

The Moveon ad was a gift to the Republicans and the far far anti war America hating left hasn't figured that out yet.

For God's sake everyone shut up and listen once in a while.; 9/12/07, 4:55 PM
Books, Films, Ideas. said...: renevant,

that was not my first post. i accidently put up my first post under the heading "simmons high school weblog", just a little something i was trying to do for my former school. the point of that post is to emphasize the hypocrisy of right wingers who moan about the left insulting pertraeus, all the while laughing and joking themselves to tears over the purple band aids passed out the rnc convention in '04. so far, not one poster on this forum has admitted that there may be a credibility problem on the part of those who attack moveon.org for the pertraeus ad while not repudiating the purple band aids.

that's all. so you can follow the posts and see for yourself. no mention by rwingers of how wrong the purple band cowardly traitor meme was when used against kerry, just crying and moaning that such tactics are now being used against pertraeus. can't stand the heat? get out of the kitchen.; 9/12/07, 5:03 PM
Brian Doyle said...: So hypothetically, if someone called Gen. Petraeus an "ass-kissing little chickens--t," I assume that would count as a personal attack, of the kind that you cannot bear.

Would it be unacceptable even if it came from the chief of CENTCOM, Admiral William Fallon?, and to his face?; 9/12/07, 5:21 PM
Beth said...: At least he had an opportunity to actually speak there [fox news]. His mic worked and he wasn't confronted with 45 minutes of mindless gasbagging blather and interrupted.

So, you mean he wasn't on O'Reilly, right?; 9/12/07, 5:21 PM
Beth said...: Kerry = cowardly, traitorous, crybaby.

Petraeus = How DARE you speak ill of an officer in uniform? He's not just a man, he's a demi-god! A myth, I tell you.

God, how boring.; 9/12/07, 5:23 PM
Cedarford said...: There are some boundaries to politics and basic respect of those boundaries expected.

1. You don't go after a politicians spouse and kids unless they are politicians themselves. Or are believed to be using nepotism in order to be wielding considerable influence over poltical processes.

2. You don't go after career civil servants with personal political attacks. Or you have a fight with Civil Service in general.

3. You don't attack active duty military soldiers politically and impugne their patriotism & honor, especially those in the field, in war, with cheap shots. In reciprocity, the military does not march a battalion of politically outraged Marines on Columbia campus to politically protest and shout down professors and students wishing them "A million Mogadishus". Nor indulge in petty political vandalism like carving Marine slogans on student bulletin boards with their bayonets.

4. Our military is not to engage in open politicking while they serve. No Navy bases empty out and say they contribute money to and back Rudy for President. No endorsement of candidates by local commanders.
No political questioning by military in public of Commanders in Chiefs they loathed like Carter.

5. This tradition is as old as America. As is the tradition of EX-military wanting to serve the nation in politics...after they are out of uniform.

6. Eli (aka Ilai) Pariser of Moveon.org and his main billionaire contributers George Soros, Steven Bing, Herbert Sandler, and Peter Lewis come from an American subculture that generally shuns military service, and has been anti-military in every war except WWII, when Hitlers attack on Stalin's nation briefly made them pro-military since the Soviets needed saving.

Given their separation and contempt for the military, it is not surprising that Pariser and his backers either don't know, or don't care about the apolitical military tradition.

(Apparantly the Chomskys, Zinns, Mailers, and Rubins of the Vietnam era were just as savage on the Westmorelands and other serving officers of that war. ); 9/12/07, 5:28 PM
Revenant said...: Beth,

If Petraeus leaves the service, joins an Al-Qaeda-backed "peace" organization, and slanders his former troops in front of Congress... well, if, then, you and your MoveOn friends want to call him a traitor, I will wholeheartedly agree.

But who are we kidding? If he did that he'd be the left's newest "war hero". Thirty years from now he might even have a shot at the Democratic nomination. Hey -- it worked for Kerry.; 9/12/07, 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Wittle Dust Bunny:
His mike worked just fine. There was a glitch and they fixed it. Why lie about something so silly??? (And why would he ONLY offer an interview to Fox, if he was really interested in hearing from a broad section of the media? Can YOU guess?)

Rev: WHO called Petraeus a "traitor??"; 9/12/07, 5:34 PM
Brian Doyle said...: Given their separation and contempt for the military,

Given their rank dishonesty and hypocrisy, people like Cedarford often resort to bullet points to make themselves more convincing.; 9/12/07, 5:35 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: So, you mean he wasn't on O'Reilly, right?

LOL Beth. I didn't watch it. If he was on O'Reilly I take it back. No bigger gasbag exists outside of Congress.; 9/12/07, 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Rev,
I repeat: WHO called Petraeus a "traitor?"

Lying liars and the lies they tell...; 9/12/07, 5:43 PM
The Drill SGT said...: LOL Cedarford.

When you said this, I read: Nor indulge in petty political vandalism like carving Marine slogans on student foreheads with their bayonets.; 9/12/07, 5:47 PM
garage mahal said...: I repeat: WHO called Petraeus a "traitor?"

Oh I'm sure someone on "the left" called Petraeus a traitor. I just know it. And even if nobody publicly stated so, I just know someone on "the left" was thinking that. Therefore it's true.

Tah Dah!; 9/12/07, 5:59 PM
Roger J. said...: obviously some folks care about a silly ad in the NYT--I don't think General Petraeus does; as a former serving officer, I dont really care--it was juvenile and will end up estranging more of the American public than it will attract--It will also give any of the opponents to move-on supported congress critters more ammunition to use against them.

Chill, people--its all political theater. Petraeus will stay in command, some troops will be withdrawn, the Congressional Democrats will whine and moan, but in the end roll over and spread their legs--Nothing changes except that the surge will continue to proceed for at least another six months and continue to buy more time for getting Iraqi units up and running and allowing time for the Iraqi government to get its stuff together.

In short, a Juvenile ad, published in an increasingly marginalized media outlet, that in the end will continue the marginalization of the "move-on" wing of the
democratic party.; 9/12/07, 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: garage mahal,
Finally...an honest sort.

And you can bet your ass we won't be hearing from Rev soon.; 9/12/07, 6:03 PM
Revenant said...: Oh I'm sure someone on "the left" called Petraeus a traitor.

Yes, and they're called "MoveOn". As I observed in my earlier post, the definition of "traitor" is "one who betrays another". So anyone who says that Petraeus has betrayed us is calling him a traitor. If you don't like that simple fact, take English lessons and get over it.

Now, maybe they're just calling him a traitor out of a juvenile urge to use an insult that loosely rhymes with his last name, but "we just called you a traitor to be insulting, we weren't serious" isn't much of a defense.; 9/12/07, 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Rev,
Read the ad, dipstick.

They never call him a traitor, nor do they say he's betrayed America.

They expose his testimony for what it was: A rehash of the same garbage we've been hearing from Bush and company for years.

And you know it, too.; 9/12/07, 6:45 PM
garage mahal said...: Man, if you have to play word games attacking someone else for playing word games, I think you already lost the argument.

Here is a word and definition for you.

Dolchstosslegende:

The Stab-in-the-back myth (German: Dolchstoßlegende, literally "Dagger stab legend") refers to a social myth and persecution-propaganda theory popular in Germany in the period after World War I through World War II. It attributed Germany's defeat to a number of domestic factors instead of failed militarist geostrategy. Most notably, the theory proclaimed that the public had failed to respond to its "patriotic calling" at the most crucial of times and some had even intentionally "sabotaged the war effort."

Sounds like the modern day conservative to me.; 9/12/07, 7:12 PM
Revenant said...: Man, if you have to play word games attacking someone else for playing word games, I think you already lost the argument.

Using the plain English definitions of English-language statements is not "playing word games".

Unless you're arguing that calling him "General Betray Us" isn't the same thing as saying "he betrayed us", you have no choice but to admit that I'm right -- if they said he betrayed us, then they called him a traitor.

What's next? Are you going to whine that the statement "Bush lied" doesn't mean the same thing as "Bush is a liar"?; 9/12/07, 7:20 PM
Trooper York said...: Andrew Jackson was famous for his dueling..in fact he retained a bullet in his body from a dust up he had with Senator Thomas Hart Benton. That makes our current political tussles seem pretty tame...he was also the first president who was the target of an assasin...when a character named Richard Lawrence tried to shoot him down because Jackson had supposedly prevented him from becoming the king of england....Mr. Lawrence later became a cause celebe as several actors agitated to have him freed from ths ayslum...Edwin Booth and
Edwin Forrest formed a traveling troupe of protestors who went from town to town and performed in skits to illustrate the depravity of the incarceration of the would be king...Harriet Beecher Stowe camped outside the farm of President Franklin Pierce and demanded to see him to press the case of the misunderstood hero....the pressure became so great that President James Buchanan offically pardoned him in 1857...but Mr Lawrence continued to be hounded by the media...he died in an unfortunate carriage accident as he was chased by reporters and penny dreadfull authors...some say it was his notority that killed him...but perosnally I blame the paparazzi.; 9/12/07, 7:26 PM
Roger J. said...: Rev: why do you waste your time? seriously--your a good commenter. ignore the chaff. What people dont understand is that confident and competent don't need adulation, nor approbation. Those kind of people have been tested, and they know what the truth is--they ignore the little swarming pissants who know nothing. It isnt a big deal to someone who has been tested, and knows what his or her limits are. Most people dont.
Those that know dont have to convince anyone else; those that can't do.; 9/12/07, 7:31 PM
Trooper York said...: Also never blog after too much champagne….that was “personally’…sorry teacher.; 9/12/07, 7:31 PM
Anonymous said...: roger,
you think rev is "good?"

sorry, pal.; 9/12/07, 7:47 PM
Cedarford said...: Beth said...
Kerry = cowardly, traitorous, crybaby.
Petraeus = How DARE you speak ill of an officer in uniform? He's not just a man, he's a demi-god! A myth, I tell you.

God, how boring.

God what a dummy you are!

John Kerry is a lawyer and politican who ONCE was in the military.

Gen Petraeus IS active duty and has the lives of 160,000 men and some women in his hands.
He is required to be apolitical while still in uniform. And our tradition is NOT to attack those whose position obligates them to outside the political arena - spouses and kids of politicans, civil service employees, judges, military.

How many former military have run for political office? Hundreds of thousands of us.
How many active duty military have run for office in the US, ever? Zero.

Equating the position of a serving general with a lifetime politican who was once in the military shows how clueless you are on distinctions.

*******************
And good for Nancy Pelosi for having the political courage to stand up to Moveon.org and tell them their ad was bad mistake, a smear, and she rejected it.

None of the Democratic Presidential candidates had similar balls.; 9/12/07, 8:05 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: I don't think Moveon.org's use of "Betray us" was intended necessarily to call Petreus a traitor. They came up with it because it sounded cute (it rhymed) and it was red meat, designed as an attempt to discredit Petreus who so far has been a successful military leader.

A victory in Iraq could be a double defeat for the left, because victory in Iraq will occur despite the Deomcrats desperatly trying to end the war. This will only highlight the defeat brought by the Congress in Vietnam. And people will ask what if....

I wouldn't be so concerned about Petreus. He is tough. And if he is successful in Iraq, he will go down in history as an American Hero. Maybe members on Congress know this and are disgruntled that they won't be heroes like Petreus.

On the other hand, I think there needs to be more criticism of our higher level military leaders. One of the problems with today's uncivil political environment is that Dems want to take down Bush at every opportunity regardless of whether Bush is to be blamed or not. Therefore, you have the liberal media and Democrats blaming Bush for absolutely everything including mistakes made solely by upper brass that Bush has nothing to do with. The failure to capture Bin Ladin at Tora Bora is one of these mistakes. That was a mistake made by officers in the field not the White House. One of the problems this causes is it makes it more difficult for the President/Secretary to fire generals that need to be fired, because politically they will be criticised for "taking it out on the generals." (look at how long it took Lincoln to fire McClellan). Of course, the buck stops with Bush, but if we had more constructive criticism of some of the uniformed military planning and actions, we would get an even better military than we have today.; 9/12/07, 8:07 PM
garage mahal said...: Revvy
So one of the other definitions from your link for "betray" is "7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt". By your logic this would mean if you deceived someone, by definition you are a traitor. You think Petraeus has "deceived" just a tiny little bit, even harmlessly? We all do. Or how about "deceived" the enemy? Some scoop you got there Revvy. You just called Petraues a traitor!

Traitor is a noun or person. Betray is a verb or an action. At least in most languages.; 9/12/07, 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Roger, I don’t wish to weigh in on the issue anymore other than to say that at the Pentagon and other headquarters this is more of an issue than you seem to think, and one that many in our mil and DoD are not shrugging off. I personally have received a number of emotional emails over it. Our military knows all too well what happens when civilian rhetoric starts crossing the line in disparaging the intent and character of servicemembers without justified, documented cause. They remember all too well the demoralization of the US military during and post VietNam when people charged all sorts of atrocity or impugned the character, veracity and patriotism of serving Americans.

This isn’t a small thing. This isn’t only about one man’s pride or rep or about the military being ultra-sensitive. This is about how America sends its military to war and how far Americans will go in undermining their efforts- not only by disparaging and then defunding the campaign, but especially by leveling false accusation and spreading, publicizing personal and professional smears that our military lies and betrays us, without accounting for differences in opinion, experience and methodology.

“General Betray us” is a big deal. Sure, it’s about basic decency and respect toward those who put their lives on the line for us- Althouse covered that- but it's also about one of functionality and the future efficacy of our armed forces. There are acceptable ways in which to address policy differences and to argue the merits of reports and testimony from Generals and DoD, but this ad and the big silence over it count for a lot. And none of it good.

What clowns there are who quibble. Betray is a huge verb in the military and everybody knows what it means wrt "betray us". It's the ultimate bad to men and women in uniform. Evidently not to patriotic lefty dissenters.; 9/12/07, 8:14 PM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: Fen wrote:

Cyrus? Would you make excuses for them, whitewash their behavior, minimize its impact? Or would you step up and tell them to knock it off? Would you risk yourself to defend this man's honour?

Fen, you already have the answer to this in my first post. I state very clearly that, at a minimum, Petraeus deserves to be treated with civility.

It's unfortunate but predictable that a couple of commenters can't read well enough to understand that I neither attacked Petraeus nor defended any person or group who has. It's a shame that my comments are colored by those commenters who intentionally misrepresent what I wrote to make a strawman argument or attack for whatever pleasure they derive from it.; 9/12/07, 8:26 PM
Anonymous said...: "this ad and the big silence over it count for a lot. And none of it good."

Domestically and internationally. Think of the propaganda value this ad and the lack of political condemnation over it has for our enemy.

General Petraeus betrays his country and cooks the books. The US military has no veracity. The enemy has been given ammunition on account of this craven ad and non-reaction to it. Largely, it's left to stand. Most of us yawn. Our soldiers and Marines will have to deal with the consequences. Hey, isn't that their job?; 9/12/07, 8:50 PM
Revenant said...: Traitor is a noun or person. Betray is a verb or an action.

Molester is a noun. Molest is a verb or an action.

In his next post, garage mahal will be registering his strenuous objections to the idea that saying "Fred molests children" is the same thing as calling Fred a child molester.

There's a good reason why "traitor" and "betrayer" are synonymous, garage. Unfortunately we won't be covering that in today's chapter of "English 101 for Lefties", but maybe tomorrow the slow broadening of your horizons can continue.; 9/12/07, 9:03 PM
Roger J. said...: Jane: I do confess to not knowing what the serving Army thinks these days--I retired in 86--the last of my classmates retired several years ago. I understand why serving folks might get upset, and my initial reaction was one of disgust. But when you go down that road, you validate very juvenile comments and surrender the high ground to the pissants. Poll after Poll rates the US military as the most trusted organization in the country. Americans can see thru Move-on's I juvenile statement--and all it does it put the democratic party on the defensive.

Yes I can understand why soldiers get upset; but trust me, they should could continue to do their jobs, let the politicos fight it out, and they will garner even more respect with their countrymen they serve. I have no doubt that when the Country sees General Petraeus he will have carried the day, and the move-on democrats will look like the copperheads they are--and the feckless Democrats in congress will have distanced themselves from the juvenile antics of a fringe group of moonbats. The more move-on does this stuff, the more the democrats lose. Just my take. The soldiers have to take the long view and remember they serve an American, that for the most part, holds them in very high esteem. Thats part of the job--trust them to do it. I do.; 9/12/07, 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Roger,

Yes, the Dems discredit themselves in the minds of normal-thinking people, but an overall corroded morale in domestic politics and the propaganda value in theater of such calumny count for recruiting difficulty here, and lives and limb lost over there.

Every single one of my mil correspondents have said so, and it's no leap of logic for me. This below-the-belt attack ad and the lack of condemnation over it need to be highlighted over and over again to make a diff with Americans who aren't clued in to our mil and to internationals who might think it a valid statement of fact that most Americans accept.

Our men and women lose when the enemy gets bolstered by such discrediting of our military and its efforts with Iraqis (and Afghanis) who too often have to choose between us and a local Islamist-thug presence. Don't we want them to believe in us? It most certainly makes a difference in our intervention's success and in casualty rate. It matters in the real world, whether it's about young Americans deciding to join up or about foreigners casting their lot with us.; 9/12/07, 9:23 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: The US military has no veracity. The enemy has been given ammunition on account of this craven ad and non-reaction to it.

I think these attacks from the left have far less effect on our mission then they did in the past because so far the left has accomplished nothing but more troops being sent to Iraq.

Still, the worst event of the war was the media portrayal of abu garib. They turned the bad actions of a few soliders into a stain on the entire U.S. Military. The media's portrayal of Abu Garib probably lead to the death of at least 500 soldiers and extended the war by a year.

The biggest morale booster for the terrorists had to be the 2006 elections, even though those elections turned more on Republican leadership issues than the war. However, all the terrorists got for their efforts in turning Iraq into chaos during 2006 was the surge... more soldiers and not the pull out they expected. Thus the surge had to be the greatest morale crusher of the war for the terrorists. Al Qaeda is on the verge of losing in Iraq, which is why we need to keep up the pressure.; 9/12/07, 9:25 PM
Roger J. said...: Jane: thanks for your take on it, which is, of course, more recent and focused than mine. I confess to being a bit of an optimist about most things, but you are now on the front lines and I am not. You do raise an excellent point that I had overlooked: the ability of our enemies abroad to use the US domestic press on their behalf. And that was one reason why I got personally upset with the New Republic piece which gets turned into AQ propaganda--and having spent a year among the Saudis in 1988, I understand just how gullible and conspiracy theory laden some Arabs are.; 9/12/07, 9:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Right, Roger, and thanks for your big perspective *and service*.

"Thus the surge had to be the greatest morale crusher of the war for the terrorists" (Sloanasaurus)

except when we stay silent as it and our mil leadership are being discredited. Morale is an important commodity and weapon and instrumental in actual and perceived wins and losses. Have too many bookcases of mil history here, have dusted every book :), and suspect they all say this- that morale is a force multiplier (and divider) for each side, and that media and propaganda play a large role in the math of war.; 9/12/07, 9:40 PM
Anonymous said...: (Roger, the asterisks re your service were meant to highlight and not be tongue-in-cheek. A most sincere thanks to you for it, and for your raising some good points. It's just that I have less faith in the ability of a sacrificing military to keep on keeping on when we let these huge slurs slide.

Will try working on my misanthropy some day :)); 9/12/07, 9:52 PM
Beth said...: Currently serving officers have never been beyond the pale for criticism. That's an absurd concept. And just because currently serving officers don't run for office, that certainly doesn't mean they don't let themselves act in the political service of the administration.

And I know full well that people who serve and have served hold different positions on how they think of high-ranking officers, especially during wartime. I first heard the phrase "mediocrity gets promoted" in a military setting. My father, who served 20 years, deeply distrusted the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Vietnam. Having stars or clusters on your shoulders doesn't mean you aren't serving a political master. I agree that those who think Petraeus' report is flawed should address it on the facts, but he's not owed any deference by civilians just because of his rank.

As for this ad, and how we've seen current and former military treated, in my opinion, Moveon and the Swift Boaters both represent the worst elements of their ends of the political spectrum.; 9/12/07, 9:56 PM
Beth said...: DBQ: it's nice to share a laugh with you.

Trooper: I want to have had too much champagne. That's my favorite "too much" drink.; 9/12/07, 9:57 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/12/07, 10:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Beth, MoveOn and the Swiftboaters are equivalent? Really?

Did you even listen to what the Swiftboaters had to say or reread Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony to Congress or read his interviews about his magic hat from Christmas in Cambodia?

The truth doesn't always lie between two versions of it. It is very possible that John Kerry was and is a lying weasel vet and pol.; 9/12/07, 10:04 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: I totally agree with you jane, however, I don't think leftist statements in the U.S. do much damage anymore. The terrorists are tired of hearing them because its all just talk. There have been too many statements, and they have accomplished nothing other than to paper the legacy of the Democratic party and the war on Terror.

What chance is there now that the Democrats will force Bush to withdraw.? Almost none. The Senate show you will see next week is all done for domestic consumption. You can tell, because Harry Reid now talks about how he has to convince "3 republicans" meaning he is already setting up the story to be broadcast back to the left base "it was the republicans that prevented us - work harder to defeat more of them in the next election." IMHO, Reid may actually lose more of his votes in this round.

Right now Clinton and Obama need to play to their base, however, once a Democratic nominee is selected, you won't hear anymore talk about immediate withdrawal.

We are going to be in Iraq for a few more years. Sorry terrorists!; 9/12/07, 10:04 PM
Donna Pence said...: General Petraeus was given the job of trying to clean up neighborhoods and make them safer in Iraq, period. Since June they have done a remarkable job, and frankly surprising everyone. I couldn't even clean out my closet in that amount of time. For members of congress and Moveon.org to verbally spit on him and therefore the soldiers under his command who are actually accomplishing this nasty work,only doing so because of a fear that it might work thus endangering their dearly held political belief/hope of failure in Iraq, is despicable. Frankly they don't deserve our military. I think they should consider disbanding it altogether, and the next time there's an attack, let them just defend themselves.; 9/12/07, 10:08 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: As for this ad, and how we've seen current and former military treated, in my opinion, Moveon and the Swift Boaters both represent the worst elements of their ends of the political spectrum.

I agree with Jane on this. There is no comparison.

What was amazing about the swiftboaters was that I don't recall a single fellow officer that served with Kerry standing up to say he was a good guy (other than the enlisted guys on his boat, whom were all in the same boat together...so to speak). They (his fellow officers) all thought he was a fraud. It would be like working for a company and having all your colleagues say you were a total fraud.

Maybe the specific allegations made by the swiftboaters were not true, I don't know, but to have that many fellow colleagues call you a fraud means something was afoot....; 9/12/07, 10:17 PM
Revenant said...: I agree that those who think Petraeus' report is flawed should address it on the facts, but he's not owed any deference by civilians just because of his rank.

He is owed the same deference on military matters that a doctor is owed on medical matters. That doesn't mean he can't be wrong, and it doesn't mean that you have to listen to what he said, but it does mean that before you accuse his diagnosis of being a tangled web of lies and deceptions you should actually find some evidence to back up the accusation.

No such evidence has been forthcoming. The big "gotcha" is that the Admiral in charge of Centcom allegedly thinks Petraeus is a kiss-ass. Gosh, now he'll *never* get that Junior High Prom date!; 9/12/07, 10:30 PM
reader_iam said...: I agree that those who think Petraeus' report is flawed should address it on the facts, but he's not owed any deference by civilians just because of his rank.

Right, but there's a HUGE difference between eschewing the generic "owing deference" position and assuming the generic "assuming dishonor and deceit" as the default position and starting point.

Prejudice is not skepticism, not on any place along the spectrum. And auto-attack is not analysis (nor is complacent singing with the choir, of course).; 9/12/07, 10:54 PM
reader_iam said...: Also, there's the symbol trap, which must be damn full to overflowing, just about now.; 9/12/07, 10:57 PM
reader_iam said...: I'm a severe skeptic on the likelihood of anything that looks like success in Iraq. But I don't think career public servants such as Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus are acting as partisan Republicans in their Iraq efforts. I think they both are sincere, experienced men attempting to retrieve what they can for America from Bush's catastrophe.

Quiz time: Who wrote this, just yesterday?

(No, not I, or anyone with whom I am affiliated. C'mon now.); 9/12/07, 11:01 PM
Trooper York said...: I don't know Beth...the champagne was in the form of bellini's at the Tadashi show...so the buzz isn't worth the bloat...I had to self medicate with a little Jameson’s and Bass to level it out...I would suggest it for some of more bellicose friends tonight...a nice mellow glow lets us mediate our differences just a tad; 9/12/07, 11:09 PM
reader_iam said...: Beth and I have been around here long enough to know that I'm not attacking her personally, just so everyone knows.

And I'm not engaging in lefty-jumping with my comments. Find the quote.; 9/12/07, 11:12 PM
Trooper York said...: Of course both Andrew Jackson and Col. David Crockett enjoyed the occasional cocktail...it is not often portrayed in the movies...but Davy was a barely functional alcoholic...he drank his way out of his house seat...and was probably soused during the entire battle of the Alamo....the major controversy in his life is did he survive the battle only to be executed by Santa Anna...although those facts are in some dispute...it is a pretty good bet that he was soused at the time.; 9/12/07, 11:18 PM
Beth said...: Right, but there's a HUGE difference between eschewing the generic "owing deference" position and assuming the generic "assuming dishonor and deceit" as the default position and starting point.

I'll agree, reader. I don't sign on to the "Gen. Betray Us" ad for that reason, and I think Moveon is, as Roger said, marginalizing the left.

My feeling is that this is all a fine distraction.; 9/12/07, 11:28 PM
reader_iam said...: So why did MoveOn do it?

That's an extremely interesting question to me--whether one assumes it got the implications of what would be cast against a fractured mirror or not. It's almost as interesting as who or who has not explicitly--and, perhaps, more telling--implicitly engaged in distancing, and especially given that we're NOT just talking politicians with seats to defend here.; 9/12/07, 11:53 PM
reader_iam said...: I'm not sure that I agree with you, Beth, that it's just a fine distraction. First off, it's not a manufactured distraction by opponents. It was brought on by a specific action, in black and white, so to speak. No fair calling "don't pay attention!" now. Second, the timing was the timing. No fair calling "distraction" from current events, or current political machinations, in that context.

****
****

The other day, I read MoveOn's annual report (for dispassionate reasons) from last year. It includes a list of people and organizations thanked, as is appropriate. In reading that portion, I thought: "Wow. Wonder what some of those organizations, in particular, think of that ad?"

I've been looking for peeps, though I'll admit not as I would have in an earlier time, not in terms of time, or comprehensively (my IRL has changed significantly enough to not permit that). Still, I'm not shallow in my travels. If there are peeps, they're not obvious, even muted, given my personal context, at least.

Why is that?; 9/13/07, 12:07 AM
reader_iam said...: Note: "my personal context" refers to my ability to search and follow in depth, not necessarily my opinions or analysis.; 9/13/07, 12:09 AM
Trooper York said...: Perhaps the best depiction of the popular notion of Andrew Jackson on film was by of all people...Charlton Heston in the 1958 film the Buccaneer...a movie most famous for another little tidbit...Yule Brenner has hair as Jean Lafitte...with a pre Bonanza Lorne Greene. Directed by Anthony Quinn; 9/13/07, 12:13 AM
reader_iam said...: "ability" = "availability"; 9/13/07, 12:18 AM
Trooper York said...: An interesting speculation about Andrew Jackson can be found in the alternative history novels of Eric Flint…1812 The Rivers of War…and 1824 The Arkansas War…. postulates a different fate for such disparate characters as Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and principally Sam Houston…it has Henry Clay winning the disputed election…with Sam Houston helping to form a new nation with freed slaves and the Cherokee and other tribes in the mix…. with cameos from such interesting characters as James Monroe, John Quincy Adams and John Brown; 9/13/07, 12:51 AM
reader_iam said...: OK. I give up.; 9/13/07, 1:25 AM
Cyrus Pinkerton said...: theo wrote:

cyrus: Do you know any words with fewer than five syllables?

Sure. Do you know any with more than three?; 9/13/07, 2:48 AM
Revenant said...: The other day, I read MoveOn's annual report (for dispassionate reasons) from last year. It includes a list of people and organizations thanked, as is appropriate. In reading that portion, I thought: "Wow. Wonder what some of those organizations, in particular, think of that ad?"

Newsbusters is speculating that the New York Times gave MoveOn a big price cut on the ad, too. Apparently the normal political advocacy ad rate around $100,000 more than news outlets are claiming MoveOn paid.

It would be interesting if that were true.; 9/13/07, 2:48 AM
hdhouse said...: Revenant...its not true. MoveOn paid a reported $72,000+- net to the Times. That is about $85,000 grossed up. Well within the full page rate scale with good negotiation.; 9/13/07, 7:55 AM