Jane Hamsher adopts a scary, weird tone of voice and tells Elizabeth Edwards what to do. She'd better show some respect for MoveOn.
They're out there on the left so you can look “moderate.” They’re saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isn’t considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to.Which seems like it should be exactly the reason why John Edwards needs to make his independence from them clear, but according to Hamsher's tirade, this is why Edwards can never criticize the netroots. Well, this is Hamsher jockeying for netroots power.
[W]e’re not very happy when the people we defend turn around and start kicking them...I'm sure she realizes that since Edwards is using them because they are useful that he will only use them to the extent they are useful. He wants power, not true love. And so does she, obviously.
We love you. We want to love you.
Knock it off.
पोस्ट्स
१५३ टिप्पण्या:
First of all — I don’t care if John Kerry was eating live babies on TV
That's a progressive for you. That statement alone speaks volumes about what the left is all about.
I dislike MoveOn intensely, but as a practical political matter he's right. Pivot and attack.
Edwards is competing with Obama in the netroots primary. Edwards is more their kind of guy since Obama seems determined to stay in the center ring with Hillary.
I doubt the netroots amount to much on the ground in Iowa or New Hampshire. (See Howard Dean and Ned Lamont.) But they have money, and money is rather helpful when you're an overlooked second tier or perhaps "mezzanine candidate" to steal Annie Gottliebs phrase.
That was hyperbole.
However, you can see that attitude exhibited by quite a few of our left-wing commenters on Althouse. Always on the attack, never conceding any point, never ever holding their own side accountable for anything.
Just another example of the far left trying to control Dem candidate behavior, isn't it? The smart lefties, all 3 or 4 of them, believe they can make Edwards or Clinton appear "moderate" by their extreme example. The problem is, not all voters are stupid enough to buy the attempted manipulation, and the right (and true moderates of all stripes) sees all it needs to see when none of the Dem candidates is willing to condemn the moveon ad. HR Clinton went beyond the pale when she also called Petraeus a liar on national television. THAT was stupid squared.
Clintons pandering to the money, even when it floats up out of the sewer. An old and ugly story.
He's in third place and barely competitive, and "centrist" Hillary is in first. So far the nutroots have meant what? As the song says, "what's love got to do with it?"
Doesn't Edwards remind us of Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman ("Damn glad to meet ya!") from Animal House? Won't he at some point then say, "You fucked up! You trusted us!"
I wonder why crazy Jane is writing to Edwards' wife instead of Edwards himself.
I guess even the moonbats know he's a feeble-minded empty suit.
Emotional instability cannot sustain a political movement. Hamsher, et al, shall pass. And life will suck for them once their moment fades, just as it does for the ever-so-desperate-to-be-meaningful Cindy Sheehan.
No, actually Edwards reminds me more of Gregg Marmalard, president of the Omegas.
Your critique wholly ignores the major subject Jane Hamsher is talking about. That is the tendency by Dem pols to cave easily when called upon by the right wing and the media to denounce other Democrats and allies.
We're seeing it right now with the MoveOn ad. The right has changed the subject of the ad from the ad's intent: "Petreaus is not being straight with us" (he's a lying politician, frankly, and we can say that in civilian-led Republic) to "Omigod you can't criticize a (conservative) man in a uniform!"
Flip it around, you almost never see Dems play the "condemn the outrage game." They had a good chance when Boehner came out this week and dismissed the blood and treasure spilled in Iraq as a "small price." Wimpy Dems let him get away with it.
Hamsher is not dictating to Ms Edwards. She is plainly making an adamant request (much as the right does of their elected). And you are changing the subject Ann, missing the main point to focus on something diversionary.
This latest Althouse post reads as written by a most partisan Republican. no honest appraisal of the core point, just partisan cheap shots.
It seems Jane's approach explicitly leads to two strategies that she requires of Democratic candidates.
1. There can never again be a sista soldjah moment where a democratic candidate criticizes the left. This would seem to allow the GOP to tar democrats with the worst excesses of the Left, seem rule 2
2. If the GOP takes a common sense view of a particular subject, the Democratic candidate is obliged to disagree on principle.
tactically both those FDL rules would seem to paint would be Democratic candidates into a corner.
Your critique wholly ignores the major subject Jane Hamsher is talking about.
AL: Your critique wholly ignores the major subject Ann Althouse is talking about.
AL said... Omigod you can't criticize a (conservative) man in a uniform!"
what makes anyone think that Petraeus is a conservative (read republican?)
He is likely a traditionalist as most soldiers are, but in my experience some soldiers vote democratic (my wife for example).
Traditionally in the military one does not speak about politics or religion. In all my time on active duty, I never heard anyone talk about who they were voting for.
The internets and especially blogs have enabled so many more voices (and many are incredibly smart and informed) to be heard. Too bad it has also enabled a few dumbass voices like Hamsher too.
You'd think the right would want to put the spotlight on crazy moonbats like Hamsher, not stifle them. Unless you think their message might resonate that is. I would be more worried about shrill leftists like George Will and Alan Greenspan peeling off and writing pieces that are undermining the war effort. Even worse, it appears the troops are even starting to hate themselves - see here
Ouch.
There can never again be a sista soldjah moment where a democratic candidate criticizes the left.
But that is precisely what they need to win the general election.
I did find it quite interesting that Moveon.org combined with the NYT giving them a discount, managed to lose the week's PR campaign almost entirely by themselves. Instead of concentrating on the testimony and esp. where the Iraqis were failing politically, the discussion shifted to the Gen. Betray Us ad. And because many saw the ad as being over the top and impinging the honor of our military, the debate was more about why the Democratic candidates mostly not distanced themselves from the ad.
Thus, the organization helped lose the Democrats one of their best chances to make their case against the Administration and the Republicans running for president.
Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.
John F. Kennedy.
Boy, the netroots would pound him.
Isn't it odd - well, actually terribly sad - to realize that the most successful Democratic presidents in the modern history of the country would not be able to get the party's nomination today?
That's awful.
SMG
Let me amend that:
would not be able to get the party's nomination today?
If the netroots had their way.
As to the rank-and-file of the party, hope remains.
But it's fading.
SMG
Isn't it odd - well, actually terribly sad - to realize that the most successful Democratic presidents in the modern history of the country would not be able to get the party's nomination today?
Thats mainly because a good chunk of the current Dem party are socialists or darn close. They are no longer the party of the 'working class' which at one time stood for morals, ethics and values but now caters to every fringe group with a cause all in the name of 'equality'.
How many good liberals who adore JFK conveniently overlook how much of a hawk and tax cut guy he was. The reality of guys like Truman and JFK are great idols of the party but the reality of their administrations run counter to today's Dem ideology.
AlphaLiberal said...
"The right has changed the subject of the ad from the ad's intent: "Petreaus is not being straight with us" (he's a lying politician, frankly, and we can say that in civilian-led Republic) to "Omigod you can't criticize a (conservative) man in a uniform!""
In other words, instead of "cav[ing] easily" and accepting the narrative offered by the ad, they're refusing to "enter that echo chamber as a participant." And in any event, accusing a soldier of treason - which is what the MoveOn ad did - is doing much more than simply criticizing them.
GOP’s Hagel:
"Bush's Iraq Policy Is A Dirty Trick, Dishonest And Irresponsible”
simon,
Your first point is fine. I know the right sees it as their job to change the subject. After all, they can't defend Petreaus' record of sunny bullshit pronouncements over the past
Please provide the text where the ad says "treason." That's quite a leap just when you were making a logical point.
Hillary will get the nomination and will crush any of the weasels most here support.
And I love how the wingnuts whine about moveon when we've got FOX pushing the right wing agenda day after day on national television.
Whining and crying about newspaper ads isn't going to win it for you.
America is wise to the bullshit...and the Republicans are toast.
*GOP’s Hagel: "Bush's Iraq Policy Is A Dirty Trick, Dishonest And Irresponsible”
alpha,
The wingnuts here have been pushing the "treason" bullshit all week. (Via Sean, Rush, etc...of course.)
And they know exactly what is is, too: A flat out lie.
Thats mainly because a good chunk of the current Dem party are socialists or darn close.
This on it's face is laughable. They vote with Repblicans, like the war, bankruptcy bills, etc [in case you haven't been paying attention]. Unless the way a party actually votes in Congress is irrevelent and it's just plain fun typing the word moonbat and socialist. Sort of a gang sign isn't it -- to signal other readers that you too are dialed in to Malkin and Confederate Yankee, and are one of "them".
Treason: 1 [Now Rare] betrayal of trust or faith; treachery
2 violation of the allegiance owed to one's sovereign or state; betrayal of one's country,
Unless the ad was suggesting that Petraeus was betraying Moveon, then they called him a traitor by definition if not exact word.
Words have meanings. Meanings have words. Say the meaning, you say the word. Cowardly to back off. Own the word if you say it. Don't defend it and deny it all at once. That's just trying to brand without having content.
Luckyoldson apparently has the "Don't shave, brush your teeth, comb the hair, wear clean clothes" approach to posting.
It's sorta' the "derelict with a keyboard" method of engaging people.
Frankly, I'm not impressed.
SMG
I love all of the talk about the Dems being "socialists."
Anybody here think they may ever take advantage of Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Benefits, etc.??
What a hoot.
HERE'S A REAL SHOCKER...Greenspan Says Iraq War Was About Oil
AlphaLiberal said...
"Please provide the text where the ad says "treason." That's quite a leap just when you were making a logical point."
I seem to remember other commenters explaining to you last week how accusing an officer of the United States of "betray[ing] us" is equivalent to treason, and there's nothing to be gained by retreading that ground.
Luckyoldson said...
"Hillary will get the nomination and will crush any of the weasels most here support."
I agree that Hil will get the Dem nomination. And if she were running against Bush, I think she'd win by a country mile. Still, since she isn't, I think it's far too early to speculate who's going to be standing in front of the Chief Justice in sixteen months.
"HERE'S A REAL SHOCKER...Greenspan Says Iraq War Was About Oil"
Any purported explanation of the war that says "the war was about X" where X is any single reason is automatically false. The decision to go to war was a product of multiple (if interrelated) factors, and anyone attempting to simplify it down to a single conveniently-soundbited reason is selling something.
Drill SGT:
The "sista soldjah moment" was all about getting Dems to disavow and attack other Dems. You almost never see the Republicans do the same. Ann Coulter calls for Americans she doesn't like to be bombed, poisoned or otherwise killed? No problem for Republicans, no calls to disavow.
"what makes anyone think that Petraeus is a conservative (read republican?)"
Well, there's his daily calls with Ed Gillespie, former RNC Chair and now White House spin assistant. He's not an objective general, he' toeing the White House line.
There's his very tight messaging coordination with Bush's line in Iraq, where they use the same phrases.
There's the report that he has Presidential ambitions.
There's his silence when Rudy Giuliani uses him for a campaign ad.
There's the partisan support for Petreaus.
There's the surrounding partisan Republican propaganda machine demanding he not be questioned or criticized and all judgment be delivered up to him.
More, but experience shows facts don't have much truck with con's.
Of course, after I press publish, I find a spot-on post backing it up.
Partisan Warfare
"But are military officers, specifically flag officers (generals and admirals), also political partisans? Increasingly -- and sadly -- they are. More important, the brass is profoundly "political," which is to say that its recommendations and decisions are hardly ever made for purely tactical or operational reasons."
And I like this conclusion, if not the acceptance of military partisanship:
"Like everyone else, they should be judged on their performance and their argument. They deserve no special consideration."
Simon said..."I seem to remember other commenters explaining to you last week how accusing an officer of the United States of "betray[ing] us" is equivalent to treason, and there's nothing to be gained by retreading that ground.
Simon, Why can't you ever just admit you're full of shit? NOBODY even intimated Petraeus was "treasonous" and you know it.
This is just more of the right wing spin we get from Hannity, Limbaugh, Kristol and others.
simon, I didn't read the entire threads. Been busy with life.
The attempt to extrapolate a simple use of the word "betray" into an accusation of treason is ridiculous and, again, a diversion from what they actual said.
Instead of making up excuses to be offended, why not just deal with Moveon's words on their face? do you honestly deny that Petreaus has been pollyanish about success, that he cherry picks the numbers and that he has a self-interest in his command being seen as successful?
Give us a break, Ann. Of course Jane Hamsher is going to try to tell Elizabeth Edwards what to do. You make it sound so unseemly, but it's in fact what political bloggers tend to do, is critique the performances of people on their own side as well as others.
I think there's something to be said for the "Don't go after MoveOn" argument.
Why don't you just stick to your knitting and stop telling Jane Hamsher what to do.
He says:
bloggers tend to do, is critique the performances of people on their own side as well as others.
Then this (same person, mind you):
Why don't you just stick to your knitting and stop telling Jane Hamsher what to do.
It's like an accident involving a two trucks carrying chickens.
Stuff is just everywhere and all you can do is just stare in amazement.
SMG
The attempt to extrapolate a simple use of the word "betray" into an accusation of treason is ridiculous and, again, a diversion from what they actual said.
This is disingenuous. Petraeus is our top field commander on the field of battle. For a partisan group to accuse him of betraying his oath as a military officer during a time of war is akin to accusing him of treason.
I'm curious, AL. Do you believe that General Petraeus betrayed the citizens of the United States during his congressional testimony?
Give us a break, Ann. Of course Jane Hamsher is going to try to tell Elizabeth Edwards what to do.
Why Elizabeth Edwards? She isn't running for anything. Why didn't Jane address her missive to Edwards himself?
Alpha,
Just look up Betray, Treason and Traitor in Websters dictionary. All have the same Latin root tradere
A traitor commits treason by betraying a trust. When moveon says Petraeus performed a betrayal (the verb) it names him a traitor (the noun)
Gedaliya said..."Do you believe that General Petraeus betrayed the citizens of the United States during his congressional testimony?"
By repeating the same administration talking points we've been hearing for the past 3 years...he "betrayed" America's trust in hearing the truth. Petraeus said absolutely nothing we haven't heard from Bush over and over again, and even contradicted his own statements from previous testimony or interviews.
And please explain why what Petraeus says is so much more believable than the generals who came before him...the ones who do NOT agree with Bush.
Are YOU saying they are treasonous?
Gedaliya said..."Do you believe that General Petraeus betrayed the citizens of the United States during his congressional testimony?"
By repeating the same administration talking points we've been hearing for the past 3 years...he "betrayed" America's trust in hearing the truth. Petraeus said absolutely nothing we haven't heard from Bush over and over again, and even contradicted his own statements from previous testimony or interviews.
And please explain why what Petraeus says is so much more believable than the generals who came before him...the ones who do NOT agree with Bush.
Are YOU saying they are treasonous?
And please explain why what Petraeus says is so much more believable than the generals who came before him...the ones who do NOT agree with Bush.
Petraeus is in command in Iraq. I have no idea who you are talking about when you say "the generals that came before him."
Are you talking about Casey? Abiziad? They were the generals in command in Iraq before Petraeus.
Please point to congressional testimony in which those two generals disagreed with the Bush administration war policies in Iraq.
[Petraeus] even contradicted his own statements from previous testimony or interviews.
Back this statement up with cites please.
Um, Alphaliberal, Ann Coulter is criticized by conservatives all the time. And she was FIRED from the National Review, which is of course one of the premier conservative publications of the last 50 years.
Hamsher's post is little more than an expression of the totalitarian impulse. A demand that all Democrats stick to the "Party Line," regardless of their beliefs or what is true. "No Enemies to the Left," the motto of the old-style fellow travellers, seems to be alive and well.
Um, Alphaliberal, Ann Coulter is criticized by conservatives all the time. And she was FIRED from the National Review...
To be accurate, Ann never worked for NR. Her syndicated column was, for a time, no longer distributed by NR Online. The suspension took place after she wrote a column suggesting we invade Muslim lands and forcibly Christianize the population, and then wrote an intemperate column criticizing those at NRO who scolded her. This happened some six years ago, and is summarized here.
BTW, today Ann's column is again carried by NRO.
The ultimate downfall of the radical leftists who have taken over the Democratic party is their sheer contempt for the American citizen. They seem to think that anyone who is not of their ilk is stupid sheep-sorry, but we aren't. Well, that and the radical lefts desire to destroy all who do not march in lockstep with their agenda like they tried with Joe Lieberman.
You see, the few sane people left in the party know full well that the smoke and mirrors won't work. A candidate who has a chance to win the Presidency has to be a centrist, not just made to look like they are one by the rabid nutroots. The sane people left in the party also know that their MSM propaganda wing is no longer the gatekeeper of information and can no longer push the agenda. They have found that one out the hard way. They also know that running on a reworded version of the 1864 party platform isn't a winner, either. Oh, by the way, the sane ones also know that 1968 was 39 freaking years ago. The summer of love is over-dead and gone just like Che Guevara.
Unfortunately for the Democratic party there are very few sane people left in the party. Most of them have left on their own accord or have been pushed out by the rabid radical left. It is no longer the party of the "Big Tent", it is the party of the insane asylum and right now the inmates are running the asylum.
Gedaliya said..."Do you believe that General Petraeus betrayed the citizens of the United States during his congressional testimony?"
By repeating the same administration talking points we've been hearing for the past 3 years...he "betrayed" America's trust in hearing the truth. Petraeus said absolutely nothing we haven't heard from Bush over and over again, and even contradicted his own statements from previous testimony or interviews.
And please explain why what Petraeus says is so much more believable than the generals who came before him...the ones who do NOT agree with Bush.
Are YOU saying they are treasonous?
Lucky, if you want to engage in dialog with me, there has to be give-and-take. This is my last response to you unless you answer the questions I asked you in my previous comment.
AlphaLiberal said...
"simon, I didn't read the entire threads. Been busy with life."
What point is there in taking the time to engage with your bombthrowing if you concede that you may well not read the replies?
"The attempt to extrapolate a simple use of the word "betray" into an accusation of treason is ridiculous and, again, a diversion from what they actual said."
*sigh* Who is the "us" in "betray us"? Is the "us" simply MoveOn.org, or more boradly, the anti-war left? If so, the accusation doesn't amount to anything, because Petraeus was never beholden to them in the first place. The only way to read the ad as having coherent content is if "us" means "America" - the only "us" to which Petraeus had any obligations and could therefore betray. In which case, treason, as Paddy noted above. You can try and wriggle out of this all you like, but the ad made the accusation of treason - perhaps not in the form actionable as a crime under Article III, but certainly in the common law (and definitional) sense of having betrayed the nation.
"Greenspan Says Iraq War Was About Oil"
Is The Oracle channeling his wife, Andrea Mitchell?
And isn't she the one who holds the key to the infamous Plame Affair but was allowed to remain silent? Just wondering....
Gedaliya said..."Do you believe that General Petraeus betrayed the citizens of the United States during his congressional testimony?"
By repeating the same administration talking points we've been hearing for the past 3 years...he "betrayed" America's trust in hearing the truth. Petraeus said absolutely nothing we haven't heard from Bush over and over again, and even contradicted his own statements from previous testimony or interviews.
And please explain why what Petraeus says is so much more believable than the generals who came before him...the ones who do NOT agree with Bush.
Are YOU saying they are treasonous?
Ann Althouse is actually a moderate Democrat. But like others of her persuasion, she is having a problem with the "netroots."
At her site she is lecturing
Elizabeth Edwards what to do. "She'd better show some respect for MoveOn."
And then she shows her partisan extremism, the extremism that enabled "feminists" to excuse Bill Clinton's sexual harrassment (Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey), abuse of his position (Monica Lewinski) and a credible accusation of rape (Juanita Broaddrick). The extremism that allowed Bill and Hillary Clinton to skate on so many non-sexual scandals from crooked land deals to miraculous profits on cattle futures to presidential pardons.
But don't take my word for it. In her lecture to Edwards, she proudly claims that
"First of all — I don’t care if John Kerry was eating live babies on TV, one week out from an election you do not repeat GOP talking points."
These are the people who have successfully grabbed the wheel and are steering the Democrat party. I am genuinely afraid of what can happen if they take over.
Some will claim that this is exaggeration to make a point. I actually don't believe it is. If John Kerry were to eat a live baby on TV I have no doubt that most people like Hamsher would either remain silent, or find a defense (stopping global warming?).
Meanwhile on the Right, Larry Craig is thrown under a bus for a non-sex sex scandal: playing footsie with a cop. I'm glad we don't have any Jane Hamshers.
Oh, and old Jane is claiming that it's the Democrats that are curled up in a fetal position when they get criticized. Lord, I love unintended humor.
Please provide the text where the ad says "treason." That's quite a leap just when you were making a logical point.
Duh, "betrayal" is the same thing as treason.
Nahanni,
Money runner beat me to my point but here goes anyway:
Unfortunately for the Democratic party there are very few sane people left in the party. Most of them have left on their own accord or have been pushed out by the rabid radical left. It is no longer the party of the "Big Tent", it is the party of the insane asylum and right now the inmates are running the asylum.
I think to be more precise, the rabid Left has seized control of the party. The inmates are now in charge and they have pushed the classic democrat voter out into the cold. Those classic voters are still vote democratic for the most part, but they don't consider themselves aligned with Moveon or FDL.
They may be sick of Iraq, want it to end, and think Bush screwed it upo, but they still want victory. a big difference between them and the democratic elite that sees losing the war as the key to democratic control.
same thing with illegal immigration. The classic Democratic voter wants control of the border. The elite wants uncontrolled immigration and amnesties to install a permanent democratic majority.
Gedaliya:
Petraeus Falsely Claims That Six Months Ago, ‘No One Would Have Forecast’ Anbar’s Success
Today in his testimony to the House, Gen. David Petraeus cited the reduced violence in the Anbar province as evidence that President Bush’s “surge” is working. He added that it would be “premature” to withdraw U.S. troops now, because in January, “no one would have dared to forecast that Anbar Province would have been transformed the way it has in the past 6 months“:
Yet in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Commitee six months ago — just two weeks after Bush first announced his escalation plans — Petraeus admitted that in Anbar, there already appeared “to be a trend in the positive direction where sheikhs are stepping up.
*ALSO: General David Petraeus' congressional testimony this week directly contradicted the findings of last year's Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. While the bipartisan study group unanimously recommended that the US change its role from combat operations to training and anti-terrorist commando raids almost a year ago, General Petraeus still calls such a strategy premature, and warns against "handing over tasks to the Iraqi security forces before their capability and local conditions warrant."
(And I love this: CentCom Chief Fallon: Petraeus Is ‘An Ass-Kissing, Little Chickensh*t,’ ‘I Hate People Like That’)
As for other generals, can I assume you don't remember the ones who were critical...suddenly retiring or being relieved of their duties?
NSC said..."Duh, "betrayal" is the same thing as treason."
Thanks Sean...uh, Rush...uh, Ann.
Okay, let's call the Moveon defender's bluff (as I see it):
If the ad had stated that Petreus was a traitor - they used that specific word - and not a "betrayor", would you have objected?
Would the explicit use of "traitor" been unacceptable to you?
SMG
Yet in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Commitee six months ago — just two weeks after Bush first announced his escalation plans — Petraeus admitted that in Anbar, there already appeared “to be a trend in the positive direction where sheikhs are stepping up.
Petraeus didn't testify in front of the Armed Services Committee six months ago (March 2007). He testified in January during his confirmation hearings.. I have searched the transcript of that testimony for any mention of Anbar, and I cannot find any such reference.
Please provide a link to the testimony to which you are referring.
As for other generals, can I assume you don't remember the ones who were critical...suddenly retiring or being relieved of their duties
This is what you said in an earlier comment:
And please explain why what Petraeus says is so much more believable than the generals who came before him...the ones who do NOT agree with Bush.
Who are these generals? The only generals who came before Petraeus were Casey and Abiziad. Neither man was fired for disagreeing with Bush or his policies.
What are you talking about?
Gedaliya, LOS is quoting verbatim (without attribution or even recognition of the quote, an act commonly known as plagiarizing) - this blog post at Think Progress. TP attributes this statement to testimony before the "Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, 1/23/07" (which, for a post written in September, means that they simply can't count from 1 to 9).
Gedaliya,
If you don't anything about other generals and military experts differing from Bush, then being moved or suddenly forced into retirement, you need to start reading more.
As for Petraeus, a contradiction is a contradiction, whether it be under oath, in testimony or in an interview. (And just Google his name if you want "links"...there are plenty of them.)
You're just arguing the points because you can't refute what's been said and want to buy into whatever Petraeus or Bush says.
Pick up a newspaper one of these days and quit relying on your radio and T.V. sources of information.
Sen. Larry Craig didn't have sex in that airport bathroom. Politically speaking it makes no difference. You can talk all you want you aren't going to change the perception. Betrayal and Treason may not be the same thing but you are not going to be able to change the perception. The more you go on about semantics the more obvious it is, Move On stepped in it, big time. The ad caught the attention of the people who don't usually pay attention and you'll never be able to explain it away because they are back to not paying attention.
It's a lame argument anyway, the real debate should be "Is Move On treasonous or are they simply aiding and abetting the enemy?"
Simon,
It's nice of you to help out your little right wing buddy, but there are plenty of links to Petraeus, his past comments and quotes and other contradictions via the White House.
If you'd read more and quit listening to only what you already believe to be so you'd be better off and more fully informed.
You could take 75% of the comments here and consolidate them into one long comment that would mirror exactly what we hear from Bush and his administration every day of the week.
There's little if any real discussion or debate, merely a reaffirmation of what you already believe.
mr. backward asks: "...the real debate should be "Is Move On treasonous or are they simply aiding and abetting the enemy?"
Yeah, why not hire an attorney and go after them.
Oh, and be sure to stay clear of any 1st Amendment issues.
*Disagree with the right wing and you're un-American, treasonous and unpatriotic.
Duh.
How patronizing of Jane Hamsher to assume Elizabeth Edwards was "repeating GOP talking points."
Is there no possibility that her criticism of the ad came from the heart, drawing on her own experiences? What if she never read any of the "GOP talking points?" Why does the alleged feminist Jane Hamsher assume that Ms. Edwards has no mind of her own?
The idiotic politics of Jane Hamsher is why the Democrats, despite every possible electoral advantage going into 2008, will probably lose at least the presidency and probably the House of Representatives. According to her:
1) If a Republican or conservative says it, you can't agree publicly, even if you agree privately.
2) If a Democrat or leftist says it, you must agree or at least keep your mouth shut.
I'm a Democrat who will never play by those rules. Does that mean the party doesn't want me anymore?
And how about folks like Doyle or AlphaLiberal? Do you take such marching orders from Jane Hamsher? Do you check with her to find out what you are allowed to say? How many other left-wing spokespersons do you have to check with before you're allowed to utter an opinion?
Hamsher has set up a convenient rule for herself here, too, don't you think? I mean, she's basically saying "Nobody can criticize me, and if anyone does, by definition they're my enemy." Wow.
Hillary will get the nomination and will crush any of the weasels most here support.
The fat lady hasn't started warming up yet so don't start wackking yourself off so early as we have a good year to go.
Be a damn shame if Iraq stabalized b4 then eh?
LOS, it's your burden to back up controvertible assertions that you make in the course of the debate. And as a matter of common courtesy, when you quote someone's work, you ought to link to it, or at least cite it (and even more elementary, use quotation marks), to make clear that you aren't deliberately plagiarizing, which is certainly the impression your comment above leaves.
As with DTL's inane little tirades, you don't get to make an unsourced affirmative assertion and then demand anyone who disagrees provide proof you're wrong. In taking that position, you constructively forfeit the argument.
Lucky -
You didn't answer Gedaliya's question.
Who are these generals? Specifics please. Saying "go read a newspaper, you rightwing tool", is not an informed answer.
It's BS.
btw -
You're a smug little left-wing talking-point regurgitating thing, aren't you?
john: "What if she never read any of the "GOP talking points?"
Ya think that's possible?
Hoosier: Yeah, everything will be super in Iraq by the time the elections roll around.
Delusion.
AprilApple,
I have the same suggestion for: Do your own fucking research. Try Google...or, hey.
ANYBODY who is not aware of the contrary testimony, comments, interviews, books, articles, etc. by other military experts, generals, officers, reporters...that contradict Bush and Petraeus...needs to get off their asses and READ.
ANYBODY who is not aware of the contrary testimony, comments, interviews, books, articles, etc. by other military experts, generals, officers, reporters...that contradict Bush and Petraeus...needs to get off their asses and READ.
That's not what you said. You claim that Petraeus' predecessors where dismissed for disagreeing with Bush's Iraq policy. I've asked you twice to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, and all you do is bluster. Ho hum.
I recall there have been some retired generals who've criticized Bush, but I know of no active duty officer of senior command rank who was dismissed for disagreeing with the president. If you know of someone, please post his name. Otherwise, quit making a claim you can't back up with facts.
1. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki: "...several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq."
2. Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: Pace “is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half” and “is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military.” [8/24/07]
3. Army Chief of Staff George Casey: “Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don’t go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces.” [8/20/07]
4. Commanding General Odierno: “We know that the surge of forces will come at least through April at the latest, April of ‘08, and then we’ll have to start to reduce…we know that they will start to reduce in April of ‘08 at the latest.” [8/26/07]
5. Army Secretary Peter Geren:“[T]he service’s top official, recently said he sees ‘no possibility’ of extending the duty tours of US troops beyond 15 months.” [8/30/07]
6. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell: “[T]hey probably can’t keep this up at this level past the middle of next year, I would guess. This is a tremendous burden on our troops.” [7/18/07]
Gedaliya,
As I said before: Get up off your lazy ass and do some research.
Treason is such a legalistic term. I prefer to think of it as a stab in the back.
I'm sorry, did I say Move On was "treasonous"? I meant "Move On has "betrayed" America." You do see the difference, don't you?
Lucky-lefty
We are simply asking you to enlighten the class.
Name the general(s) who were fired because they disagreed with Bush.
btw - if you google it, you get a list of uber-leftwing sites like firedoglake and media matters.
I don't see any real news accounts, just lefty commentary.
For those of you who are new and aren't hip to LuckyOldSon's game:
He never backs up his assertions. Never. If you challenge him, his first response is to accuse you of being some kind of Bush zombie, repeating the White House talking points that he claims you receive daily.
When pushed, sometimes he will pretend to do back up his claims, by inserting a link. He's hoping you won't click it, though. If you do click it, you often find, of course, that it does not say what he claims it says.
When you point this out to him, he ratchets up the name-calling. Bizarrely, for someone who is borderline illiterate, he instruct you, in all caps, to READ A BOOK. Which book? He hasn't a clue which book.
But his final gambit is the "I don't have time to do your research for you," usually spewed with more insults and obscenities. That's code for "I made it up."
Intelligent people who READ BOOKS can readily cite their sources, in fact are proud to do so. But since LuckyOldSon doesn't READ BOOKS, he doesn't know that this is how you're supposed to support your points and assertions.
This blog is a lot more fun if you ignore LuckyOldSon and downtownlad. Believe it or not, there are several other left-leaning commenters here sometimes who write well and know what they're talking about. Even Doyle, who regularly pisses me off, is a gentleman. There are also, contrary to the rantings of the two I mentioned, a lot of true centrists here who engage the issues with their minds and not their partisanship.
Is Edwards more to the left this time around, or am I more to the right?
Lucky...
What do those quotes have to do with your assertion that generals have been dismissed for disagreeing with Bush's policies? None of the generals you list were dismissed for expressing their views.
John Stodder-
I see what you are saying.
Thanks for the background.
No oil = no civilization
Wen leftys say "No blood for oil" what they really mean is: "Civilization is not worth it".
There will come a day when civilization does not depend on oil. We are not there yet.
Mr. Forward said..."I'm sorry, did I say Move On was "treasonous"? I meant "Move On has "betrayed" America." You do see the difference, don't you?"
Yes, anyone with an education would, too.
One can feel "betrayed" without the act of betrayal being synonymous with treason. Craig betrayed his entire family by trolling bathrooms...would you call that a form of treason?
*Simon: Bite me. You're just another right wing suckass who can't substantiate their arguments.
Simon,
Why not take your own advice, ignore my comments, and stick to repeating and agreeing with the the other wingnut's?
I don't care what you think about me or about what I say.
Just bugger off and play with your usual right wing friends.
Hi,
Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:
NEW moveon.org TV ad (video) coming out on Monday Sept 17th...basically calling President Bush a traitor.
MoveOn.org TV Ad
If the Democrats keep these guys (moveon.org) aound...The 2008 election, will be over 'before' 2007 ends.
'Some' good things going on in Iraq right now: Photo Essay (35 Pictures) out of Iraq, taken this month (Sept 2007)
Iraq Photo Essay For September 2007
Have a great weekend!
Dan
General David Betray Us
GOP’s Hagel: "Bush's Iraq Policy Is A Dirty Trick, Dishonest And Irresponsible”
Anybody need a link to this?
I wouldn't want anybody to put themselves out by actually doing their own research.
This is all a little to Bre'r Rabbit to me. I think this is Hamsher's safe way of helping folks notice how brave E. Edwards is for daring to break the rules of nutroot herd immunity. And she gets to do it without alienating the nutroots, after all.
The really silly assertion is that the pressure on ground forces is somehow contradictory to Petraeus's testimony. In fact, he cited "long-term US ground force viability" as one of the considerations in reference to the drawdown options. He also noted:
"Based on these considerations, and having worked the battlefield geometry with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno to ensure that we retain and build on the gains for which our troopers have fought, I have recommended a drawdown of the surge forces from Iraq."
And, of course, LTG Odierno is the author of the surge operations counterinsurgency guidance, and Petraeus's right-hand man. Quoting him as a purported dissenting voice is particularly clueless.
Lucky, (why do I waste my time?)
GOP’s Hagel: "Bush's Iraq Policy Is A Dirty Trick, Dishonest And Irresponsible”
That's a nice little quote. Do you have an answer about the generals yet?
AprilApple,
Again.
GOOGLE.
AprilApple-Simon-Gedaliya:
We'll start here:
Thursday January 4, 2007
In what appears to be a military shakeup surrounding Iraq, President Bush has replaced both the top US general in the Middle East and the top general in Iraq, ABC NEWS is reporting on air.
Admiral William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East, who announced his retirement in December and was expected to leave the post in March. Abizaid was a critic of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq, but the circumstances of his early departure are unclear.
"The president wants a clean sweep," an official told ABC News.
"Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual," ABC reports.
According to a Kansas City Star article published December 24, "Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops.
The decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq,
David Petraeus will replace General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq. Casey originally opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq, arguing it could delay "the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world."
The LA Times recently reported that Abizaid's departure could clear the way for a more aggressive strategy in Iraq.
LOS:
"*Simon: Bite me. You're just another right wing suckass who can't substantiate their arguments."
...Said the pot to the kettle.
LOS, do you really not know how to post a link? I mean, if that's the problem, I'm sure someone will happily explain it to you.
And I find it hilarious that when someone disputes an unsourced assertion that you make, you tell them that they have to do "their" research, when in fact you're asking them to do your research.
LINKS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11227-2004May8?language=printer
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june06/iraq_4-13.html
How about some LINKS to Generals who SUPPORT the Bush administration?
lucky--
Changing generals during a war to fit the changing circumstances in an attempt to turn around a bad situation is normal. Nowhere does it say Bush specifically fired generals
because they disagreed with him.
Try again.
Lucky-
Any general who supports the war is a liar and a traitor. Isn't that right?
Go clear it with Jane first just to be sure.
The LA Times recently reported that Abizaid's departure could clear the way for a more aggressive strategy in Iraq.
Is anyone seriously suggesting Petraeus is less qualified for the counterinsurgency effort than Abizaid? Or that he'e showing worse results? If not, what's the point? Moreover, the suggestion he was forced out for disagreeing is contradicted in the very same LA Times article:
"One recently retired Army general said Abizaid had wanted to retire earlier but that Rumsfeld blocked the move, insisting his war commanders stay in place."
AprilApple said..."Changing generals during a war to fit the changing circumstances in an attempt to turn around a bad situation is normal."
Right.
Unfortunately for you and the rest of the right wing crazos...70% of the American public doesn't believe that for a minute...hence Bush's 30% overall approval rating and dismal approval rating for his handling of Iraq.
And isn't it strange that ONLY the generals who DISAGREED...were removed or suddenly retired?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...
cecil:
CentCom Chief Fallon: Petraeus Is ‘An Ass-Kissing, Little Chickensh*t,’ ‘I Hate People Like That’
In January, President Bush replaced Abizaid and Casey, who were “surge” skeptics, with Adm. William Fallon and Gen. David Petraeus. This week, Petraeus — in the first public hearings since taking on his new role — delivered his Iraq assessment to great media fanfare.
But where was his boss, Admiral Fallon? Inter-Press Service suggests animosity between the two might be one reason for Fallon’s absence:
Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fall
Lucky -
You just pound out the left-wing talking points, don't you ? 'Bush's poll numbers are low! see-- that proves I'm right.'
How sad. And boring.
The post by Cecil is more accurate and astute.
Here, since you seem like a
run-of-the-mill lazy left-winger with bad facts and tired hack platitudes, I'll cut and paste it for you.
The LA Times recently reported that Abizaid's departure could clear the way for a more aggressive strategy in Iraq.
Is anyone seriously suggesting Petraeus is less qualified for the counterinsurgency effort than Abizaid? Or that he'e showing worse results? If not, what's the point? Moreover, the suggestion he was forced out for disagreeing is contradicted in the very same LA Times article:
"One recently retired Army general said Abizaid had wanted to retire earlier but that Rumsfeld blocked the move, insisting his war commanders stay in place."
Luckyoldson said...
AprilApple,
Again.
GOOGLE.
Yep, you should all Google what my brother Lucky says. You should also cut and paste his plaintext URL's. He's too stupid to make live links. He doesn't know what a live link is. You gotta have a little patience with folks like him.
Now, here's an example of a live link.
Easy to use, no?
That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting . . .
If the SecDef had put two commanders that couldn't work together in such critical billets, that would in fact be a telling error. But this bit is as rigorously sourced as the rest of the silliness above. Which is to say not very.
Sorry, I've got to get to a Charger party.
Play with yourselves while I'm gone.
As if you need me to tell you that.
More from Cecil's link:
"Abizaid has been the primary architect of U.S. military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan since becoming head of the U.S. Central Command more than three years ago. He has strenuously resisted calls to increase troop levels to quell rising violence in Baghdad, arguing it would increase Iraqi dependence on Americans.
But a growing number of current and former officers have embraced the idea, some of whom have briefed President Bush as part of his monthlong review of Iraq policy, and the White House is believed to be considering the move.
"If you're going to change the strategy, in fairness to [Abizaid], let him go," said a former senior Pentagon official who has worked closely with the general. "He's given it all he's got, in terms of personal sacrifice."
Abizaid's planned departure clears the way for new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to recommend his own commander, a decision current and former Defense officials say is nearly as important as the new administration strategy expected to be unveiled by Bush in January.
These officials said Gates faces a clear choice between generals who have agreed with Abizaid's push to quickly hand over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces and a small but increasingly influential coterie of officers backing a more aggressive U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign."
vs.
“an ass-kissing little chickensh*t”
How Infantile. Hard to understand why Bush didn't put him out in front.
I question Lincoln's firing of McClellan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/world/middleeast/18cnd-general.html?ex=1326776400&en=c7f1008a424bfc49&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Some retired generals criticizing Bush:
Joseph P. Hoer: Too little and too late,” (on the surge)
Barry McCaffrey: "He said other countries had concluded that the effort in Iraq was not succeeding, noting that “our allies are leaving us and will be gone by summer." Also called Iraq "desperate."
William E. Odom: "There is no way to win a war that is not in your best interests."
http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/05/09/ads-with-generals-criticize-bush-war/
"Two retired Army major generals with experience in Iraq will appear in TV commercials critical of President Bush's handling of the war, with the spots targeted at key Republicans in the House and Senate. Financed by VoteVets.org, the $500, 000 in ads will feature retired Maj. Gens. John Batiste and Paul Eaton."
That's five. If memory serves, there also six more who came out earlier to criticize Bush…
"Abizaid was a critic of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq, but the circumstances of his early departure are unclear."
AprilAprile: "Changing generals during a war to fit the changing circumstances in an attempt to turn around a bad situation is normal."
April--I really think you're reaching here a bit. Nobody in the Bush administration came out and *confirmed* or said directly that Abizaid was being fired for disagreeing with Bush, but it seems obvious that's what happened, isn't it? Why can't you just admit Casey & Abizaid were fired for disagreeing with Bush? Couldn't you just proceed to "Bush is right and Casey & Abizaid were wrong"? Why deny the obvious?
And let's not forget Eric Shinseki, who said we would need 300-400,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. He was promptly fired (okay, "asked to retire a year early.")
As for those claiming the netroots are weak, look, you may not like them, but Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Carolyn Shea-Porter, Jerry McNerney --among many others--probably owe their current political careers to them.
John Stodder: "The Dems will probably lose at least the presidency and probably the House of Representatives. "
The *House*?
I'll admit the Presidency is possible, because of the fact that corporations can now spend unlimited amounts of money for the candidates they like (see digby's latest post), but where are you going to pick up 31 seats? Which districts? Zack Space's challenger in Ohio just dropped out; in one of the two only likely Republican chances for pickup (one of the Georgia districts), they can't even find a challenger.
Not to mention that at least five incumbent Republicans are retiring (Deborah Pryce in Ohio).
John: You're a Democrat? What state do you live in, and who did you vote for for House, Senate, State House & State Rep in the 2006 elections?
greg asks: "John: You're a Democrat? What state do you live in, and who did you vote for for House, Senate, State House & State Rep in the 2006 elections?"
This idiot isn't a Democrat.
Read his comments.
Some retired generals criticizing Bush
No one said there aren't retired generals who have criticized the president.
And let's not forget Eric Shinseki, who said we would need 300-400,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. He was promptly fired (okay, "asked to retire a year early.")
Shinseki was not fired nor did he retire early. Get your facts straight.
Abizaid was being fired for disagreeing with Bush, but it seems obvious that's what happened, isn't it?
Abizaid was not fired. Abizaid was scheduled to retire long before he did...he stayed on at the urging of Rumsfeld. Get your facts straight.
Neither Shinseke nor Abizaid were fired. No one said that retired generals have not criticized the president.
You comment is pure drivel.
Neither Shinseki nor Abizaid were fired.
This has been told to our friends on the Left here about 87 times today.
Number 88 won't make much difference.
Reality-based community and all that.
What to do?
SMG
genitalia said:"Neither Shinseke nor Abizaid were fired. No one said that retired generals have not criticized the president."
Being relieved of responsibilities can be referred to any way you want, but we all know what happened.
I'm getting a whiff of McGovern 72 here...
Smells like victory.
SMGalbraith said this about"John F. Kennedy:
"Isn't it odd - well, actually terribly sad - to realize that the most successful Democratic presidents in the modern history of the country would not be able to get the party's nomination today?"
And yet another dimwit rears his ugly and uninformed head.
Casey was promoted to Army Chief of Staff. I'd like to be fired like that.
richard mcenroe said..."I'm getting a whiff of McGovern 72 here...Smells like victory."
No, that's Bush's ass your smelling.
Try pulling your head out.
READ A BOOK, MCENROE!
Being relieved of responsibilities can be referred to any way you want, but we all know what happened.
Neither man was relieved of any responsibility. Both Abizaid and Shinseki retired with honor and distinction at the scheduled ends of their respective careers.
Genitalia,
Ohhhhhhhhh, so YOU think they wanted to move on?
America's in the midst of the War On Terror...and two lifelong warriors decide to "retire."
What's really scary is that you probably actually believe it, too.
Get off your ass and READ, Gedaliya!
Oh, look...seven's here!!
And he made a funny!!
seven,
Get off your ass and READ.
Thanks, Lucky. I'm glad someone can appreciate sage wit.
seven,
Thanks, seven. I'm glad someone can appreciate sage wit.
And yet another dimwit rears his ugly and uninformed head
Geezus, I posted that yesterday.
And please, your charm is not going to sway me in my ways.
Sweet talkers just don't do it for me.
BTW, Pats just scored another touchdown.
Just not your day is it?
SMG
Wow, what a nasty comment thread. Is this high school, or are some of you people adults?
luckyoldson is clearly a moby from the right. His sole function is to make democrats look uneducated, belligerent and missing both manners and intellect. I honestly don't know how he could do his job any better. He is here to make actual democrats reexamine their beliefs as all they see is well reasoned arguments coming from the right side and luckyoldson's insults and childish reasoning skills on the left. Personally, I think this falls under the "dirty tricks" category and I blame Rove.
luckyoldson is clearly a moby from the right
If only it was that easy of an explanation.
Occam's razor leads me to conclude he's real.
A phony clearly would have tripped up and eventually said something reasonably sensible. A person could act deranged for only so long before he drops the mask.
No mask here. The real deal.
SMG
"A phony clearly would have tripped up and eventually said something reasonably sensible. A person could act deranged for only so long before he drops the mask."
Sure, a moby of the left would. Short attention span and all that. But this is the right. Karl Rove country. Clearly the man is a professional. Perhaps there is a team who rotate out so that none of them have to live in that swamp for an extended period of time.
Plus if he was real, he would have shut up by now and stop making his side look so bad.
Perhaps there is a team who rotate out so that none of them have to live in that swamp for an extended period of time.
Oh, a team of Mobys? On 8 hour shifts? Although my guess is that they could only maintain the posture for 6 hours at a time at best.
Now that my friend is the best explanation of things.
It all makes sense now.
SMG
Jeffrey & SMGalbraith:
You two really need to tighten up your act.
Good comedy is based on timing and wit.
You're lacking in both categories, but hey...I still think you're both pretty funny.
Whining and crying isn't going to win it for you, Jeff.
America is wise to the bullshit.
Michael said..."Wow, what a nasty comment thread. Is this high school, or are some of you people adults?"
Are you kidding?
Most of these people never even attended High School.
What a hoot, Michael.
And the 10:30 shift arrives for work.
which in particular of my bullshit has America caught onto there seven?
What whining and crying are you referring to?
Just more of the right wing spin we get from Hannity, Limbaugh, Kristol and others.
"Ohhhhhhhhh, so YOU think they wanted to move on?"
And you know they didn't?
You *think* they didn't because it doesn't make sense to you that someone would just as soon not be forced to implement policies with which they don't strongly agree while knowing if it all goes in the shitter they will get the blame for it.
It doesn't fit your "narrative" that the chance for success increases if leadership is in essential agreement on the big points *or* that someone might not want to be forced to make decisions against his better judgment, *knowing* that his own effectiveness will be negatively impacted.
The only "General" I know of who was fired due to her performance in Iraq is Col. Karpinski. *That* is what *fired* looks like.
Ahh. Stereotyping. I thought your side was against that.
Hey! I guess we're all agreed! This thread is, like, totally trolled-out!
Lucky, if I'm not mistaken, is paid by the comment to disrupt this blog.
He's not some RNC plant. Both he and the Republicans are too stupid.
The LAST thing the DNC wants, however, is an independent voice with a readership of more than three.
It's easy to find a morons with an I.Q. of 83 to put an end to normal people having a discussion, especially if you pay them $3/comment. Lucky makes out much better with this than selling shit on eBay.
No normal people having discussion = Kos rulz!
No normal people having discussion = Wingnuts isolated in Wingnut-land.
No normal people having discussion = Democrats controlz ur thoughts.
Ann Althouse is too (choose one or more): a.) distracted; b.) busy having dinner in a nice café; c.) busy with real work; d.) busy watching traffic on Sitemeter; e.) much a technophobe who cannot deal with the realities of running a big-deal blog; f. Episcopalian, and therefore too committed to high principles and nuanced conversational style to notice trolls with pincers ripping the flesh of what is left of her blog's credibility.
What makes Ann so charming leads directly to her blog becoming a sideshow of bad behavior.
"Step right up, Ladies and Gentlemen! See the Professor post interesting, thoughtful and stylish pieces on her blog! See them trashed left, right, and center (but mostly left), by a troop of baboons, especially trained to relieve themselves on her work and make rude gestures! Never before have such things been seen, much less believed, by the blog-reading public!"
Well, I think I'll amble on over to this circus's midway. I've heard they're having an egg-eating contest. I don't want to miss that on my way out.
John: You're a Democrat? What state do you live in, and who did you vote for for House, Senate, State House & State Rep in the 2006 elections?
California.
House: Jim Brandt (I had to look it up), hopeless Dem challenger to Dana Rohrabacher. Jane Harman used to be my rep, but they gerrymandered her away.
Senate: No seat open in '06. I'm okay with DiFi, embarrassed by Boxer. But the Reeps have put such bad candidates up against her, I've voted for her every time.
Governor: Schwarzenegger.
State Assembly: Betty Karnette
State Senate: Seat not open in '06. Ed Vincent has the seat now, but he's termed out. Don't know who might run.
Seven Machos said...
What a hoot, Michael.
..."put an end to normal people having a discussion,.."
WHAT normal people?
Great. Another right wing suckass who can't substantiate their arguments.
Delusional.
Duh.
Synova said..."And you know they didn't?"
Well, it' is hard to imagine someone who's spent a good part of their life serving their country..."retiring" while we're at "war."
But evidently you think that's what most career military people do...bolt.
seven,
Great. Another right wing suckass who can't substantiate their arguments.
Delusional.
Duh.
I love this: "Lucky, if I'm not mistaken, is paid by the comment to disrupt this blog."
"Disrupt" this blog???
A rational discussion and or debate would "disrupt" this blog more than any comments a single person could ever make.
90% of this blog is nothing more than a Bush suckfest starring: seven, simon, fen, sloan, pogo, genitalia, hoosier, tim, Synova, drill sgt. and others who worship the current administration.
Any and all criticism of G.W. or his policies is viewed as un-American or downright treasonous.
And boy, is it ever fun...listening to their collective high pitched whine whenever anyone dares to disagree with the "pack."
Oh! Leakey...er...Lucky is usually sooo nomal! Except when his noggin meets that ol' brick!
Lucky jes' looves Ignatz. But you know how Ignatz iz!
Offica! Offica Pupp! Lucky jes' got beaned on the brain again! Now he's writin' all kinda strange stuff.
Iz there nothin' to be done? Can's you arrest him fer...oh, lessee...bein' loose in a blog without a clue or sumpthin'?
Pleeze, Offica Pupp! You gotta help!
You know when you've gotten their goat...when they become obsessed with you.
What a hoot.
The move on ad used the word Betray Us in the context of Pretraeus's professional job, which happens to be a soldier in the US Army.
Therefore, they are calling him a a traitor to the American people, plain and simple.
BTW, he couldn't "betray" Move On alone since he never was on their side to begin with.
Really, the left needs to step up and admit their error in regards to that ad.
I find it faintly amusing that LOS thinks that I suck up to and even "worship" a man I can barely stand, one who has been at his very best a useful idiot who unfortunately happened to be the best candidate of the two. I think Revenant spoke for many of us in observing:
No one much likes George Bush, I confess
In Iraq we ain't had much success
So please answer me, quick
Why'd the Democrats pick
The one guy that we all wanted less?
The persistent meme is that Dick Cheney is pulling the strings, and I for one would be a lot happier if it were true.
"But are military officers, specifically flag officers (generals and admirals), also political partisans? Increasingly -- and sadly -- they are. More important, the brass is profoundly "political," which is to say that its recommendations and decisions are hardly ever made for purely tactical or operational reasons."
This is, without doubt, the DUMBEST thing I've ever read about the military. But then consider the source: William Arkin. Dear Lord, why does anyone read that man?
My husband has been in for 27 years now. We don't even KNOW what party most fellow officers vote for. It's not a thing one discusses at work. Little thing call the Hatch Act? You may have heard of it?
Unless, of course, you're William Arkin feeding the persistent paranoia of the Left regarding the military.
Dear God. Decisions in the Pentagon that would be likely to be driven by partisan loyalty are so far above most people's pay grades that it's not even funny, and besides there is this small matter of civilian control of the military (you know, the civilian leadership that ACTUALLY RUNS DoD?)
I sometimes wonder how many people have ever taken a civics class.
I would never say that luckyoldson is a child molester. All I'm saying is that he takes little boys out into the woods and fondles their genitals.
In no way can he construe my citing this fact as some sort of slanderous allegation of child molestation. I never called him a child molester.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा