Patterico's Pontifications

4/1/2008

Democrats Plan Surprise for General Petraeus

Filed under: War — DRJ @ 7:14 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

In an April 1st article (so I offer no guarantees whether it’s accurate), the Politico’s Huddle reports that Congressional Democrats are planning a surprise party for General Petraeus next week:

“LOOKAHEAD: Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testify on the Senate side a week from today, and the House side a week from tomorrow. Democrats this week will use hearings and media hits to try to change the focus from SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THE SURGE to COSTS and WHETHER THE WAR MADE US SAFER.”

Consider this your ‘Moving The Goalposts’ alert.

— DRJ

78 Responses to “Democrats Plan Surprise for General Petraeus”

  1. I am so tired of seeing this fine man abused like this. Would love to see him unleashed, so he could “do a John Roberts” on these Senators, and show them for the selfish buffoons that they are.

    driver (faae10)

  2. Better than a “John Roberts”, would be a “Clarence Thomas”.
    That they truly deserve.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  3. petraeus isn’t a bad guy, the blame rests with the suits above him who made the bad policy. war opponents won’t need to move the goalposts, the short-term surge benefits were only good as long as the ceasefire with the al-sadr character held up.

    john mccain is willing to stay in iraq for 100 years. the voters will be reminded of this over and over between now and november.

    assistant devil's advocate (9cb962)

  4. The most dangerous terrorism is state-sponsored war by proxy. And with US troops on their borders in the ME, the sponsors have called off their dogs for now.

    So it was worth it from a defense-of-the-US point of view … at least for anyone who thinks the lack of subsequent 911-style attacks aren’t just the product of the fine day-to-day screening done by Homeland Security. Are those really your own shoes, grannie?

    ras (fc54bb)

  5. ada,

    I know you follow events closely enough to recognize canards when you write them. Tells me you have no serious answers, which is kinda … well … telling, isn’t it?

    ras (fc54bb)

  6. Democrats this week will use hearings and media hits to try to change the focus from SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THE SURGE to COSTS and WHETHER THE WAR MADE US SAFER.

    “With all due respect, Senator, those are national policy issues and are your department, not mine.”

    Socratease (794498)

  7. ada

    we still have troops in Germany, 60+ years now.

    got problems with that?

    Darleen (187edc)

  8. we still have troops in Germany, 60+ years now.

    got problems with that?

    Not a single one has ever been killed fighting an insurgency there, though, even right after the war ended (in Japan as well). Your analogy doesn’t stand.

    Russell (5ecf4a)

  9. The problems in Iraq are primarily the result of the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    St. Obama said so himself, so it must be true.

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  10. Russell,

    Let me see if I understand you. By your logic, US military forces should only be deployed where they are safe from anyone shooting at them? Kinda defeats the purpose of foreign deployment, doesn’t it?

    So why ARE we in Germany, anyway? Or Japan? Or even Korea, for that matter, since there are mass demonstrations in Seoul against “US occupation”, the division of the country (apparently entirely the fault of the US), and the “US puppet government” on a regular basis. And since it costs a great deal of money to maintain so many overseas bases, perhaps they should all be brought home.

    Spiny Norman (99c30b)

  11. #8 wrote:
    Not a single one has ever been killed fighting an insurgency there…

    Congratulations, your qualified to be a New York Times Journalist!
    If you want to remain a useful idiot, do not Google “Baader-Meinhof Gang”

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  12. Or the “Werewolves”.

    Oh, wait! They only murdered German “collaborators”, so they don’t count.

    Spiny Norman (99c30b)

  13. hey Russ:

    “A Pentagon report listed 42 American soldiers “killed as a result of enemy action” between June and December 1945. In 1946, there were three.”

    Google isn’t *your* friend. %-)

    redc1c4 (a877b7)

  14. ADA mistates the facts. The cease fire called by MAS on his JAM units came long after the so called “surge”, ie the Baghdad Security Plan and Operation Phantom Thunder were well under way and had made significant gains.

    Let’s review a timeline –

    Jan 2007 the “surge” is announced and the first of five new Brigade Combat Teams begin to flow into theater.
    Feb 2007 the MSM and its allies declare “the surge” a failure.
    March 2007 – the second “surge” BCT flows into country.
    April 2007 – Senator Harry “AQI” Reid declares the war lost.
    June 2007 – The last “surge” brigade flows into country. Opertation Phantom Thunder kicks off. The MSM and the Dem hacks once again delcare teh war lost.
    September 2007 – the IED war in Al Anbar is won, setting the MSM back seriously having hung their hats on the summer 2006 report from the Marine G2 who said it could not be won. Al Anbar has gone from teh most dangerous place in Iraq to the model and promptly disappears from the headlines.
    Realizing that AQI is on the ropes and that AQI is far better organized, trained, and led MAS in an attempt to preserve combat power declares a JAM cease fire knowing that (1) he looks magnanimous; (2) once AQI is smoked JAM is done; (3) his Iranian backers are not ready for a full on war with the US; (4) this allows him to test his power and see how much JAM will really do as he instructs.

    The Security Plan was intended to give the Iraqi goverment time to accomplish other things. One of the most important being reconciliation issues.

    I for one do not believe that centralization or centralized problem solving works well in any place; our own nation is proof of that, yet some how we expect the people in Iraq to have smart decisions made in Baghdad for the people of Mosul, Kirkuk, Ramadi, Falluja, and Basrah. It’s assinine. Do people in DC generally make good decisions for the people in the various cities? I think not.

    Yet nonetheless the Iraqi Parliment managed to pass the Truth and Reconciliation Law this past February. This was an important step in moving forward on the purely polticial side.

    MAS exteneded the cease fire becuase he knows that in an open confrontation the ISF supported by the Coalition will destroy JAM. His recent call to stand down in the South was an admission of defeat. JAM was out of food, water, and ammunition. Rather than be defeated in detail, he is trying to live to fight another day.

    The Security Plan has succeded and the Iraqi goverment is coming along; not at the pace we would like, but it is coming along.

    Badger 6 (fd1486)

  15. A Pentagon report listed 42 American soldiers “killed as a result of enemy action” between June and December 1945. In 1946, there were three.

    My mistake. The point was that to compare Germany and Iraq is comparing apples and oranges. Of course it’s no problem occupying a country for decades if our troops aren’t being killed in the thousands and using up their equipment like mad.

    Russell (5ecf4a)

  16. By your logic, US military forces should only be deployed where they are safe from anyone shooting at them? Kinda defeats the purpose of foreign deployment, doesn’t it?

    No, I was just talking about the silliness of the Iraq-Germany comparison. Few casualties do sure make an occupation a hell of a lot easier, though.

    Russell (5ecf4a)

  17. Russell, the analogy does apply. ada cited McCain’s 100 years in Iraq quote, but he cited it out of context.

    When McCain initially stated he’d be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years, he added, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

    Which would put such a military occupation in the same category as post-WW2 Germany or Japan.

    DubiousD (1cd844)

  18. Moving the goalposts, indeed. Unfortunately, Bush has left them lots of fallback positions.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  19. How long before they declare that “the surge is working” is “old news”?

    Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c)

  20. we still have troops in Germany, 60+ years now.

    got problems with that?

    This is one of the dumbest arguments I hear in defense of this idea that we need to spend decades in Iraq to get a return.

    Germany isn’t Iraq. They’re aren’t any parallels, can anybody name even one?

    Levi (76ef55)

  21. “Germany isn’t Iraq. They’re aren’t any parallels, can anybody name even one?”

    Easy. They both have lots of Al Quaeda cells.

    driver (faae10)

  22. With regard to the “100 year” canard, this just up at Instapundit….The Columbia Journalism Review has now joined The University of Pennsylvania’a Annenberg School of Communication in calling BS.

    “THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW corrects Barack Obama’s deceptive references to McCain’s “100 years” remark and wonders why the press lets him get away with this. Me too.”

    Link here:
    http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_iraq_and_100_years.php?page=all

    driver (faae10)

  23. The problems in Iraq are primarily the result of the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

    Don’t be silly, the problems in Iraq are primarily the result of our invasion. This holy war we find ourselves refereeing was instigated by our real enemies, jihadists that swarmed the country after our arrival and triggered all of this open sectarian violence to disrupt and frustrate our ‘mission,’ whatever that may be at any given time. President Bush was apparently never aware of any of this religious baggage that could be used against us, and I guess that’s still lost on most of you people, if you’re walking around thinking this can turn out just like Germany.

    Levi (76ef55)

  24. Levi is right.
    Since Iraq is all about the ooooiiiiiill11!!1, and oil is wonderful (prevents Ice Ages!),
    I say “out of Germany and double-down in Iraq”.
    Sam Adams has obviated the need to stay in Germany for the beer.

    rhodeymark (6797b5)

  25. Yesterday was bash the oil companies day, supporting role played half-heartedly by Democrat union truckers and various drive by stooges. How was it for you, I feel refreshed today and ready for the next staged bash.

    Petraeus doesn’t do budget, he does war. Hey, maybe Hillary will apologize for the last bash … The General looks quite capable of defense.

    Democrats are stuck on stupid and every day it’s getting clearer to more and more people.

    bill-tb (26027c)

  26. With regard to the “100 year” canard, this just up at Instapundit….The Columbia Journalism Review has now joined The University of Pennsylvania’a Annenberg School of Communication in calling BS.

    “THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW corrects Barack Obama’s deceptive references to McCain’s “100 years” remark and wonders why the press lets him get away with this. Me too.”

    McCain’s the one that’s spouting the BS if he’s telling people this mess in Iraq is going to turn out just like Korea or Germany. And this guy’s strong suit is national security?

    And come on, Obama’s getting the pass from the press? With all this Rev. Wright shit? McCain has admitted to not understanding the economy and repeatedly confused how the Iranians factor in Iraq, not to mention this “Iraq’s just like Korea!” idiocy. Yet he’s still the venerated foreign policy expert. If Obama or Hillary said anything similar to any of those statements, we’d never hear the end of it.

    This ‘liberal media bias’ myth of yours needs to go.

    Levi (76ef55)

  27. So now the Columbia Journalism Review is spouting a “liberal bias myth?” UPenn, too? I love a commenter who’s in touch with the real world. Rrrrrrrr……

    driver (faae10)

  28. Leave it to the tone-deaf Democrats in Congress to put an active-duty commissioned officer in jeapordy of his oath by asking him to testify as to policy. As Gen’l Petraeus will ably and repeatedly remind them.

    And “surprise”? Please, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi couldn’t sneak up on a tombstone. A JROTC cadet would see them coming.

    Korea, yeh, — any American casualties there since the Armistice? Deployment cost much?

    furious (56af6d)

  29. To make matters worse these treceruous demacrooks want to disarm all those iraq war vets as typical of a bunch or treasonus politicians they all should be impeached removed from office and sent into exile on the planet of ELBA II

    krazy kagu (6a69d6)

  30. Russell, it was not a mere “mistake” that you did not realize that US troops were killed by resisting Germans after the German surrender, it was just one example of your ignorance of the history of warfare – and the result is that your conclusions are false.

    But that does not stop you or other critics from continuing to repeat them, regardless of your ignorance.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. Levi, your understanding of the Iraq conflict has not improved. Not to mention you can’t get your own story straight. Earlier you were whining about the failure to prevent insurgents local to Iraq from springing up, now you claim the opposite with:”This holy war we find ourselves refereeing was instigated by our real enemies, jihadists that swarmed the country after our arrival and triggered all of this open sectarian violence to disrupt and frustrate our ‘mission,’”.

    It is amusing that you can’t even keep your story straight.

    We’ll all enjoy you finding yet another excuse for your own inability to understand what you opine upon.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. Levi, your understanding of the Iraq conflict has not improved. Not to mention you can’t get your own story straight. Earlier you were whining about the failure to prevent insurgents local to Iraq from springing up, now you claim the opposite with:”This holy war we find ourselves refereeing was instigated by our real enemies, jihadists that swarmed the country after our arrival and triggered all of this open sectarian violence to disrupt and frustrate our ‘mission,’”.

    It is amusing that you can’t even keep your story straight.

    Those things aren’t mutually exclusive, both of them happened. The locals mounted an insurgency and foreigners ignited the sectarian conflict. I never said there was one, singular cause for this disaster.

    Also, you don’t think I have a reason to ‘whine about the failure to prevent insurgents local to Iraq from springing up?’ Americans have died because of that failure, and any chance we had of doing any good in Iraq has been seriously hampered by it. I’m ‘whining’ about dead Americans? You’re a joke.

    I find it amusing that every one of you intentionally misrepresents everything I say.

    Levi (76ef55)

  33. That was the excuse I expected, Levi. And we misrepresent what you say with the sophisticated technique of actually quoting you. It is your incoherent opinions that make that so easy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  34. What excuse?

    I was correcting you.

    Why do you bother responding to me if you obviously don’t even spend two seconds trying to understand my points?

    Also, please let me know when I’m allowed to ‘whine’ about failures that get Americans killed.

    Levi (76ef55)

  35. Yep, no leftist media bias here. Please move along.

    http://tobynunn.net/joomla/index.php?view=article&catid=1%3Alatest-article&id=51%3Atelephonic-journalism-the-new-saigon-news-technique&option=com_content&Itemid=54

    I truly worry about the children of the world. Some are starving…some are being fed tripe and learning to lap it up.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  36. some are being fed tripe and learning to lap it up.

    Please, just directly answer this one direct question: where do you come off criticizing me and liberals in general for blindly believing everything we are told when you support George “No Nation-Building” Bush, the fiscal conservative?

    Did you believe he was going to be a fiscal conservative in 2000? How about in 2004, after 4 years of demonstrating conclusively that he wasn’t a fiscal conservative, did you believe if you re-elected him he’d become a fiscal conservative?

    There are certainly people getting led around in this country, but buddy, it’ ain’t me.

    Levi (76ef55)

  37. The self-Lefteousness that just ooooooozes from Levi is priceless.

    JD (75f5c3)

  38. JD,

    Do you have anything to say?

    Levi (76ef55)

  39. I support him how, exactly?

    I don’t criticize you, Levi…as much as I pity you your ignorance. It’s not your fault. Your information stream is corrupted with lies, intentional misrepresentations, faked photographs, forged documents, sedition, treason and most glaringly omissions intended to give you the VERY opinions you screech here.

    YOU…are the intended by-product of that corruption.

    I could no more blame you for believing today in the anti-cause, than you at six believing in Santy Claus.

    You are the poster child for the useful idiot. No offense intended. Only pity.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  40. At least his snark is better than your DNC talking points.

    Spiny Norman (99c30b)

  41. Levi, I understand your points. They are juvenile and based on your ignorance as has been repeatedly demonstrated. And that you continue to hold them after being shown that the basis for your opinions is false, shows us that you are irrational.

    It does not take very long to understand you at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  42. “THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW corrects Barack Obama’s deceptive references to McCain’s “100 years” remark and wonders why the press lets him get away with this. Me too.”

    And come on, Obama’s getting the pass from the press? With all this Rev. Wright shit? McCain has admitted to not understanding the economy and repeatedly confused how the Iranians factor in Iraq, not to mention this “Iraq’s just like Korea!” idiocy. Yet he’s still the venerated foreign policy expert. If Obama or Hillary said anything similar to any of those statements, we’d never hear the end of it.

    This ‘liberal media bias’ myth of yours needs to go.

    You’re talking about 3 or 4 different things at one time, which seems to be your technique.

    Who in the MSM said that McCain is “the venerated foreign policy expert”? You’re making things up. And what does his statement about the economy have to do with his expertise on foreign policy? The Wright “sermons” were on conservative talk radio and You Tube. The MSM largely just covered the controversy after it had already broken, they didn’t create it.

    As for McCain’s alleged innacurrate statements on Iran-Iraq, the MSM fell all over themselves reporting that McCain made innacurate statements regarding al Qaeda and Iran, essentially taking the Democrats’ side, even though Iran has clearly had connections with al Qaeda in Iraq. Try doing a search of “McCain Iran Iraq” and see what you come up with. So you’re portrayal of that situation and the MSM is backward.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  43. I support him how, exactly?

    I don’t criticize you, Levi…as much as I pity you your ignorance. It’s not your fault. Your information stream is corrupted with lies, intentional misrepresentations, faked photographs, forged documents, sedition, treason and most glaringly omissions intended to give you the VERY opinions you screech here.

    YOU…are the intended by-product of that corruption.

    I could no more blame you for believing today in the anti-cause, than you at six believing in Santy Claus.

    You are the poster child for the useful idiot. No offense intended. Only pity.

    Ain’t that convenient? Everything I say can be dismissed because you’re an expert on where I get my information from. And you’re older, and I’m younger, so I’m just supposed to trust that you know what you’re talking about.

    I’m assuming, cfbleachers, that you’re a Republican. Are you not a Republican? Your established over-the-top excitedness about how glorious and awesome this Iraq war is makes me think you’re a Bush-voting Republican. You’re not? Who did you vote for in the past 2 presidential elections?

    Levi (76ef55)

  44. Yes, Levi. I have lots to say. I would like to say that you have yet to make a point that did not oooooooooooooze self-lefteousness, or have the steady drip-drip-drip of BDS. See a doctor. Penicillin, perhaps.

    I tried before to be nice to you, to fundamentally rebut all of the nonsense you spew, but you have proven to be a dishonest and irrational “debater”. You just like to spew, and little things like facts are collateral damage left in your wake.

    As such, mocking and derision is all you deserve. You quickly gained the status of actus, AJL, and semenkleo. Not good company.

    JD (75f5c3)

  45. Your established over-the-top excitedness about how glorious and awesome this Iraq war is makes me think

    If only it made you think. Sadly, no.

    JD (75f5c3)

  46. I’ve yet to see you do anything more than clutter up these threads with stupid little insults, that are almost always unnecessary because 3 or 4 others beat you to it.

    If you want to discuss something, why don’t we discuss the fact that George Bush tricked the Republican party into thinking he was a fiscal conservative. Rebut that.

    Levi (76ef55)

  47. Did you believe he was going to be a fiscal conservative in 2000? How about in 2004, after 4 years of demonstrating conclusively that he wasn’t a fiscal conservative, did you believe if you re-elected him he’d become a fiscal conservative?

    You’re making a false assumption here: that people voted for Bush because they thought he was a fiscal conservative. Have you not considered the possibility that people voted for Bush because he was a better choice than Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004?

    Maybe it’s time for you to drop this canard from your arsenal.

    Steverino (e00589)

  48. I’m thinking it’s a good thing that General Honore retired this past January. I’d like to have Petraeus have him up there next to him and when one of the demorats asks one of their typical loaded questions for consumption of the media turn to Honore and say, General, why don’t you handle this one. Then Gen. Honore could come out with one of his classic, withering “You’re stuck on stupid” remarks to begin the response. If the dems want to create theater, which is a large part what their endless hearings over the past year have been about, give them some theater back.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  49. Levi – What does Bill Maher say about Petraeus? He seems to be where you get all your talking points.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  50. Levi

    You are selling cartoon balloons here and slowly dying.

    I don’t recall getting overly excited about anything and I surely don’t recall believing that this President Bush was a fiscal conservative.

    Are you suggesting that you would have voted for Bush over Kerry had you believed he was a fiscal conservative? If not, then why are you so wrapped up in that issue, as if it’s some great “gotcha” for people who don’t spout leftist slogans?

    Everyone has hot button issues, I suppose. Mine just so happen don’t collide where you aim your missives.

    I’m a centrist by nature, moderate by temperament and an issue by issue “decider”. Trying to pigeon-hole me is a bit comical, for those who know me.

    But, I do admit to having hot button issues of my own. If you want to attack my positions, I will lay them out for you.

    1)the information stream is diseased and THAT, more than any other single fact…causes or exacerbates every major problem this country faces. We can’t govern this republic of ours, if we can’t get facts and constantly have to be scraping away the implanted germs of untruth within those facts.

    2)Honor, integrity, and being men and women of our word is not so old school to me that I would easily sell out our closest friends and allies for “being liked better” or perhaps worse…sell out my own country to be “chic” and more popular with the corrupt press.

    3)Loving my country doesn’t mean always agreeing with our elected leaders…it does mean that I wouldn’t take some perverse pleasure in running her down to the rest of the world at every given opportunity. Those who do, and relish their “elite, effite, White Uncle Tom’ism” when they do so…are my countrymen in name only. I’m ashamed to call them countrymen. They are Timeshare Americans. They own property here, but are residents of the “You Like Me, You Really Like Me” the One World Socialist’s utopia, nirvana nation.

    I could give a rabid rat’s rear whether some leftist in Outer High Stonia “likes” America. I’m more interested in the fact that we try to do what’s right and let history sort out the rest.

    4)My last hot button is this disingenuous detritus that the left “loves our soldiers” but not the use of them. When the facade drops…the hatred of our military and the slander of our soldiers bleats on. (see the crap from the Washington Post and the movie that bombed at the box office for the latest)

    Those men and women that serve us our daily dose of freedom deserve better than the thinly veiled sneers they get from the left.

    The left slaps the face of every patriot, in uniform or out…and I guess I am anti-leftism these days more and more. Precisely because of what they have done to you and kids like you.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  51. Isn’t fiscal conservatism the principle plank in the platform of the Republican party?

    That’s only one of the many campaign promises Bush has reneged on anyway. We’re talking about people that get tricked into believing bullshit and then electing people based on that bullshit. You’re telling me that the Republican base didn’t vote on issues like fiscal responsibility, which Bush guaranteed was important to him, but exclusively because they thought the other guy would be somehow worse? That’s more bullshit.

    I mean how do you make the judgment that Bush would have been better than Gore? By comparing each of them on the issues, right? Issues like fiscal responsibility?

    Levi (76ef55)

  52. I mean how do you make the judgment that Bush would have been better than Gore? By comparing each of them on the issues, right? Issues like fiscal responsibility?

    That’s ONE issue, you ignoramus. It’s not the only issue. Stop being disingenuous.

    Steverino (e00589)

  53. Levi – What issues has the Democrat Congress delivered on since 2006? How is Granny McRictusface doing?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  54. Isn’t fiscal conservatism the principle plank in the platform of the Republican party?

    To the extent it’s possible to define one thing as being “the principle plank in the platform of the Republican party”, at this time in history it’s fighting terrorism.

    That’s only one of the many campaign promises Bush has reneged on anyway.

    Bush didn’t promise, that I can recall, to be a “fiscal conservative”. He did say he was a “compassionate conservative”. What are some of the other “many campaign promises Bush has reneged on anyway”? I can think of one – he signed McCain-Feingold.

    We’re talking about people that get tricked into believing bullshit and then electing people based on that bullshit. You’re telling me that the Republican base didn’t vote on issues like fiscal responsibility, which Bush guaranteed was important to him, but exclusively because they thought the other guy would be somehow worse? That’s more bullshit.

    Fiscal conservatism was not a theme of either of his campaigns. This idea he reneged on his “promise” is some argument you’re locked into so you have to keep repeating it. He did not guarantee fiscal conservatism was important to him that I can recall. You just assume he must have said it, or even if he didn’t he still somehow did since he’s a Republican, in what passes for logical argument by airhead lefties.

    I mean how do you make the judgment that Bush would have been better than Gore? By comparing each of them on the issues, right? Issues like fiscal responsibility?

    Are you that simple minded? There are lots of issues. Like Supreme Court appointments for example. You think Gore would have made Bush’s appointments? There’s tax cuts. Bush’s unsuccessful try at private social security accounts. Etc.

    Gerald A (b9214e)

  55. Are you suggesting that you would have voted for Bush over Kerry had you believed he was a fiscal conservative? If not, then why are you so wrapped up in that issue, as if it’s some great “gotcha” for people who don’t spout leftist slogans?

    If I thought Bush was going to make me a billionaire I wouldn’t vote for him. We’re talking about this because it’s relevant, as long as we’re discussing people with flawed critical-thinking skills that believe everything they see, hear, or are told. We’re in the midsts of the least fiscally conservative administration in the history of the country, and Republicans that warned against massive increases in federal spending as reasons to vote against Gore and Kerry have been noticeably silent about all the massive increases that George Bush has allowed. And now we ‘re enduring the same bullshit with Obama and Clinton, and Republicans are still claiming to own the issue, even with their record-setting and horrible record on it over the past few years.

    Republicans use the idea of fiscal responsibility to galvanize people against social programs that Democrats propose, but never practice it themselves, and they just count on their base to ignore their hypocrisy. Which you all do, quite well.

    1)the information stream is diseased and THAT, more than any other single fact…causes or exacerbates every major problem this country faces. We can’t govern this republic of ours, if we can’t get facts and constantly have to be scraping away the implanted germs of untruth within those facts.

    I agree, and the cause of that disease is cronyism between access-hungry reporters and manipulative politicians. We’ve also allowed the far-right media to basically define political discourse, and the media ends up wasting most of it’s time talking about 12 year old questionnaires and who’s pastor said what in the total absence of any real discussion about any issues that matter. The ‘news-reporting’ media has transformed into a ‘speculative-opining’ media. 90% of it is dedicated to what amounts to junior high gossip.

    2)Honor, integrity, and being men and women of our word is not so old school to me that I would easily sell out our closest friends and allies for “being liked better” or perhaps worse…sell out my own country to be “chic” and more popular with the corrupt press.

    Can’t help to roll my eyes whenever somebody starts going on about honor and integrity, especially in the context of an ideological debate between American liberals and conservatives. Conservatives just don’t have any.

    Anyway, we don’t have to sell out those principles (a doctrine of unprovoked preventative war is not among those principles, by the way) to be liked in the world, and certainly you can see the diplomatic and strategic benefits to being viewed in a positive light? I’m confused, aren’t we supposed to be an example? The city on the hill? Now, when the tide is turning against us, all of a sudden it’s ‘fuck ’em.’ What would Reagan say to that attitude?

    3)Loving my country doesn’t mean always agreeing with our elected leaders…it does mean that I wouldn’t take some perverse pleasure in running her down to the rest of the world at every given opportunity. Those who do, and relish their “elite, effite, White Uncle Tom’ism” when they do so…are my countrymen in name only. I’m ashamed to call them countrymen. They are Timeshare Americans. They own property here, but are residents of the “You Like Me, You Really Like Me” the One World Socialist’s utopia, nirvana nation.

    That is incoherent to me. Who are these people: ‘elite, effite, White Uncle Toms,’ exactly? Those who take pleasure in running her down? Huh? I think you messed something up there. Must be the glaucoma, is that it Oldie McOldBones? Is this the dementia sitting in?

    I could give a rabid rat’s rear whether some leftist in Outer High Stonia “likes” America. I’m more interested in the fact that we try to do what’s right and let history sort out the rest.

    See, we’re not the only ones on the planet though. Why can’t we all talk about what’s right, together? I mean do you really think we know everything that we need to know, all on our own, to decide what’s right? We’re somehow able to make better decisions for Iraqis than say, the billion or so Muslims that populate the world? Maybe they could have clued Bush into the particulars of this sectarian feud?

    Non-Americans can have relevant and valuable input. We’re not infallible, and we’re not inherently enduring. It sounds to me sometimes like you people think that the entire course of human civilization was to bring about the United States.

    4)My last hot button is this disingenuous detritus that the left “loves our soldiers” but not the use of them. When the facade drops…the hatred of our military and the slander of our soldiers bleats on. (see the crap from the Washington Post and the movie that bombed at the box office for the latest)

    Those men and women that serve us our daily dose of freedom deserve better than the thinly veiled sneers they get from the left.

    The left slaps the face of every patriot, in uniform or out…and I guess I am anti-leftism these days more and more.

    Nobody hates our soldiers, and nobody hates the military. I don’t even mind using them, as long as it is to an attainable end. But how Republicans and George Bush get the mantle of ‘troop-supporters’ speaks to the incredible amount of influence that right-wing media pretend not to have over our broader media and political discourse. Stop-loss is bullshit, and it’s a shitty way to treat our soldiers. Not understanding anything about the country you’re using the military to invade is bullshit, and it’s not how we should treat our soldiers. Creating an atmosphere where civilians earn three times as much money for voluntarily being in Iraq without any rules to follow or oversight is bullshit, and it’s an unfair way to treat our soldiers.

    They’re not defending our freedom over there, they’re being used, and they’re dying needlessly for a fucking pipe dream. Weren’t you alive during Vietnam? Don’t you know how this movie ends?

    Ron Paul and Barack Obama, the two most anti-war candidates from either party, receive more money from the troops than any other candidates. Do the troops hate themselves?

    Precisely because of what they have done to you and kids like you.

    Don’t worry about us, old timer. Just wither away and we’ll start fixing all the shit you broke.

    Levi (76ef55)

  56. Are you that simple minded?

    Gerald A – Yes.

    JD (75f5c3)

  57. That’s ONE issue, you ignoramus. It’s not the only issue. Stop being disingenuous.

    Do you know what the letter ‘s’ does when added to the end of words? It makes them plural. Take note of that when you read what I wrote again:

    I mean how do you make the judgment that Bush would have been better than Gore? By comparing each of them on the issues, right? Issues like fiscal responsibility?

    Do you see the ‘s’s?

    Levi (76ef55)

  58. We’re in the midsts of the least fiscally conservative administration in the history of the country

    It must be nice living in a world where history began the day you were born.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  59. If I thought Bush was going to make me a billionaire I wouldn’t vote for him.

    Not that we needed more evidence of your foolishness, but there it is.

    as long as we’re discussing people with flawed critical-thinking skills that believe everything they see, hear, or are told.

    From someone that spews the MSM and Dem talking points du jour, this is rich.

    We’re in the midsts of the least fiscally conservative administration in the history of the country, and Republicans that warned against massive increases in federal spending as reasons to vote against Gore and Kerry have been noticeably silent about all the massive increases that George Bush has allowed

    Yet the Dems continue to mew about “cuts” and underfunding. The only salvation is that the gross overspending pales in comparison to what a Dem would have done.

    Conservatives have no integrity? Hyperbole often?

    Weren’t you alive during Vietnam? Don’t you know how this movie ends?

    We can tell at what point this one’s view of history stopped evolving. A few years prior to birth.

    JD (75f5c3)

  60. Levi – What issues has the Democrat Congress delivered on since 2006? How is Granny McRictusface doing?

    They’ve done one good thing, which they still might double back on, in opposing this telecom immunity bullshit the President is lying his ass off about.

    Other than that though, nothing. What’s your point? Can you find anything I’ve ever said on this site where I’ve advocated for Congressional Democrats?

    Levi (76ef55)

  61. Do you know what the letter ’s’ does when added to the end of words? It makes them plural. Take note of that when you read what I wrote again:

    Okay, you’ve gone from being merely disingenuous to being deliberately dishonest.

    As I posted up in #47, you labor under the false assumption that people voted for Bush because he was a fiscal conservative. You responded by this drivel:

    I mean how do you make the judgment that Bush would have been better than Gore? By comparing each of them on the issues, right? Issues like fiscal responsibility?

    You keep mentioning fiscal conservatism as if it’s the only issue people are and were concerned with. You claim Bush tricked people into thinking he was a fiscal conservative (an odd claim, given that you think Bush is retarded).

    The fact is, people choose their President for many reasons. So stop talking about fiscal conservatism as if that’s the only thing that matters to people.

    By the way, saying that Bush would be more fiscally conservative than Gore is not the same thing as saying Bush is a fiscal conservative.

    Steverino (e00589)

  62. Not that we needed more evidence of your foolishness, but there it is.

    It’s called principles, buddy.

    From someone that spews the MSM and Dem talking points du jour, this is rich.

    Ugh. You’re pointless, again.

    Yet the Dems continue to mew about “cuts” and underfunding. The only salvation is that the gross overspending pales in comparison to what a Dem would have done.

    A totally unprovable assertion about a hypothetical situation stated as undeniable fact is all it takes to excuse the egregiously bad behavior of the guy that you like. Do you think it requires even a tiny bit of brainpower to do what you just did there?

    You think you’re capable of making political decisions? Please.

    Conservatives have no integrity? Hyperbole often?

    Well, you’ve sold out everything you purport to believe in to prop up a demonstrated non-conservative that only makes mistakes in exchange for feeling like ‘winners.’

    That’s how I see it anyway.

    We can tell at what point this one’s view of history stopped evolving. A few years prior to birth.

    More pointlessness.

    Levi (76ef55)

  63. I am not your buddy, pal, or friend. You are dishonest, deceitful, and contemptuous.

    Pointless? My point was abundantly clear. You claim to have some kind of insight that others lack that allows you to see things that we cannot. In the end, you are spewing talking points, a loyal foot soldier if you will.

    Unprovable? Is that a word? Regardless, if past history, and the multitude of promises in the campaigns can serve as a guide, it stands to reason, something you are allergic to.

    you’ve sold out everything you purport to believe in

    Proof, please? Arguing with the voices in your head does not count as a good argument. If you are going to assert that, you need to, at a minimum, be able to state, honestly, what my positions are. You have demonstrated a complete lack of ability to do so.

    JD (75f5c3)

  64. Are you JukeBoxHero in disguise?

    JD (75f5c3)

  65. You keep mentioning fiscal conservatism as if it’s the only issue people are and were concerned with. You claim Bush tricked people into thinking he was a fiscal conservative (an odd claim, given that you think Bush is retarded).

    Steve, I mentioned fiscal conservativism as the best and most glaring example. Take a deep breath, I know I’m a liberal, but I’m going to teach you what an example is, ready?

    I mean how do you make the judgment that Bush would have been better than Gore? By comparing each of them on the issues, right? Issues like fiscal responsibility?

    That’s my direct quote. Again, note ‘s’s, you seem to still be missing that I am in fact talking about ‘issues.’

    Now watch what I can do here:

    I mean how do you make the judgment that Bush would have been better than Gore? By comparing each of them on the issues, right? Issues like nation-building?

    See, the meaning is exactly the same, I just used a different example. One that I don’t think is as good as the one in my original quote. That’s why I didn’t use it.

    Let’s try it one more time?

    I mean how do you make the judgment that Bush would have been better than Gore? By comparing each of them on the issues, right? Issues like bringing integrity back to Washington?

    Exactly the same meaning, just a different example, that I don’t nearly like as much as fiscal conservatism.

    Some of you people I really can’t handle, because I always end up having explain the meaning of words to you. But hey, now you know what an example is, maybe we can move on?

    Levi (76ef55)

  66. as the best and most glaring example

    Only to you, Levi. Only to you.

    Issues like nation-building?

    Because nothing, nothing happened in between the 2000 campaign and Iraq. Nothing, I tell you.

    Issues like bringing integrity back to Washington?

    I did not get a blowjob from that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

    because I always end up having explain the meaning of words to you

    Spew inducing moment. Thanx.

    JD (75f5c3)

  67. Only to you, Levi. Only to you.

    I’ve always suspected the Republican party doesn’t actually care about fiscal conservatism. I just think you should stop pretending.

    Because nothing, nothing happened in between the 2000 campaign and Iraq. Nothing, I tell you.

    Nothing that changed the wisdom in knowing that squandering all of our resources on destroying and re-building strategically insignificant countries we know nothing about is a fool’s errand.

    I did not get a blowjob from that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

    And? (There’s no point here.)

    Spew inducing moment. Thanx.

    Glad I can help.

    Levi (76ef55)

  68. I’ve always suspected the Republican party doesn’t actually care about fiscal conservatism. I just think you should stop pretending.

    You know what they say about assumptions, huh? Why do you think that Congress was lost for the Republicans in ‘o6? Hint. It was not because the Dems offered something better.

    JD (75f5c3)

  69. “strategically insignificant countries we know nothing about…”What the hell are you talking about? And you refer to the president as a “genuine fucking retard”?”We’re in the midsts of the least fiscally conservative administration in the history of the country”So I assume you’ve studied the economic policies and budgets of every single administration in the nation’s history to make this bold-assertion? As one reader typed, “hyperbole much?””Don’t worry about us, old timer. Just wither away and we’ll start fixing all the shit you broke.”By doing what, exactly? Repeatedly using the word “bullshit” to add extra “oomph” to your alleged passion?”I always end up having explain the meaning of words to you.”And to your linguistic and intellectual superiority we all bow.

    shockcorridor (cf3660)

  70. “Other than that though, nothing. What’s your point? Can you find anything I’ve ever said on this site where I’ve advocated for Congressional Democrats?”

    Levi – A statement like you just made above is a perfect example of why your assumption that everyone on this site who disagrees with you is a blind Bush follower is wrong. For you to assume voting for manbearpig or Senator Aristoslacker (aka Flipper) were realistic considerations for anyone holding a modicum of conservative views, social, economic, foreign policy, defense or otherwise is just ludicrous. You just don’t have the intellectual horsepower to think your arguments through and see how silly they make you look.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  71. I never expected conservatives to seriously consider Gore or Kerry, I’m just saying it’s a non-exercise in mental laziness to excuse George Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility by claiming that Gore would have been much worse, as if that absolves Bush. You could justify or excuse anything with that line of reasoning.

    I mean don’t Republicans want better Republican candidates? Isn’t fiscal restraint still important to the party? Why do you refuse to hold Bush accountable by pointing towards meaningless hypotheticals?

    Levi (76ef55)

  72. Why the faux concern over what Republicans care about?

    I am so fucking mad at Bush for his spending habits, and those of Congressm, that I will put my hand on a Bible and swear, swear I tell you, not to vote for President Bush in the next election.

    JD (75f5c3)

  73. Why the faux concern over what Republicans care about?

    I’m just trying to understand what you care about at all, because it seems very inconsistent from my point of view.

    I am so fucking mad at Bush for his spending habits, and those of Congressm, that I will put my hand on a Bible and swear, swear I tell you, not to vote for President Bush in the next election.

    It’s really easy to say you’re not going to vote for someone again when you can’t. If a President could serve three terms or if there were no term limits, you’d all have your Bush/Cheney ’08 bumper stickers on your cars and, you know it.

    What I want to know is where was that attitude in 2004, when it would have meant something, and I could have taken it seriously?

    Levi (76ef55)

  74. because it seems very inconsistent from my point of view.

    That is likely due to the fact that you are arguing with the caricatures and strawmen that you have erected in your head.

    It’s really easy to say you’re not going to vote for someone again when you can’t

    Then why are you so worried about him?

    I felt that same way then, but then the Left went and nominated someone even more unpalatable. Looks like they are doing it again. Sad.

    JD (75f5c3)

  75. That is likely due to the fact that you are arguing with the caricatures and strawmen that you have erected in your head.

    Well, why do you keep electing these caricatures to public office? Why do these caricatures dominate every channel of conservative media?

    Then why are you so worried about him?

    Because you have to start realizing certain truths about the man and what he’s done to this country before we can safely move past this sad chapter in our history without fear of repeating these same mistakes. That’s where I part ways with Obama, he wants to unite, and bring together, forgive and forget, yuck. All this bullshit will come right back around if we just let Republicans get away with this presidency without being held to account for it.

    I felt that same way then, but then the Left went and nominated someone even more unpalatable. Looks like they are doing it again. Sad.

    Can you name one person on the left that is palatable to conservatives? Lieberman ain’t left, before you go there.

    Levi (76ef55)

  76. Please don’t feed the trolls, people; it keeps them in their juvenile state and blocks their growth to adulthood. Thanks.

    ras (fc54bb)

  77. If I thought Bush was going to make me a billionaire I wouldn’t vote for him.

    Really…I thought your vote was his to lose. He isn’t running now…so, I only assume you mean then…, but it’s hard to know because your opinions have very little consistent logic, just consistent rage.

    We’re talking about this because it’s relevant, as long as we’re discussing people with flawed critical-thinking skills that believe everything they see, hear, or are told.

    Well, yes…an echo chamber with levers would be a perfect leftist polling booth.

    Were in the midsts

    Is that one of those rampant “s” things you have been going on about?

    of the least fiscally conservative administration in the history of the country,

    Um….no. Adjusted for inflation, and with an eye toward not withering down the military to its weakest point…Dhimmy Carter oversaw double digit inflation and interest rates, nearly double digit unemployment and the worst economy to live in…in my lifetime. You weren’t alive yet, so your frame of reference goes back to about…yesterday.

    and Republicans that warned against massive increases in federal spending as reasons to vote against Gore and Kerry have been noticeably silent about all the massive increases that George Bush has allowed.

    Silent? Really? You must have been sleeping during the primaries and beyond.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/can_bush_hold_the_line_on_spen.html

    The politics of it is a bit complex for your sloganeering, but…the Republicans get beat up for “denying the children” or “wanting to throw away the elderly”…by leftists and their propaganda wing, the MegaStasisMedia. The Republicans kept sending back smaller versions of the leftist grab bag…or risk being lied about and losing office.

    And now we ‘re enduring the same bullshit with Obama and Clinton, and Republicans are still claiming to own the issue, even with their record-setting and horrible record on it over the past few years.

    So, is it your opinion that the Democrats would be fiscally more conservative than McCain? If not, what’s your point? Obama certainly has shown no interest in cutting back on anything except the military. He’s Jimmy Carter all over again…even utilizing Carter advisors. I’ve lived through that bunny-fearing, anti-Semite, coward’s rein once…no thanks on the redux.

    Republicans use the idea of fiscal responsibility to galvanize people against social programs that Democrats propose, but never practice it themselves, and they just count on their base to ignore their hypocrisy. Which you all do, quite well.

    You mean the way you all bathe in hypocrisy about race relations and sexual harassment? You mean the way you all ignored Teddy Kennedy’s manslaughter and Bill Clinton’s serial groping of women employees, trading sex, (then silence) for promotions and favors? For a Republican, that would have been front page news for 40 years, sexual harassment 101. But with a leftist…it’s all just sex, right?

    You mean the way you all ignored Sandy Berger stealing documents and swept the Vince Foster, Whitewater and selling secrets to the Chinese episodes…you mean that kind of hypocrisy?

    We’ve also allowed the far-right media to basically define political discourse,

    What color is the sky in your world?

    and the media ends up wasting most of it’s time talking about 12 year old questionnaires and who’s pastor said what in the total absence of any real discussion about any issues that matter.

    Oh, I forgot. The leftists don’t like it when issues of racism and social issues are discussed about THEM. That is a street that is only paved in one direction.

    For a guy with a resume’ as thin as Sen. Obama…what he thinks, who he takes advice from, what birds of a feather he flocks with…are all prima facie evidence of how he is likely to lead.

    The ‘news-reporting’ media has transformed into a ’speculative-opining’ media. 90% of it is dedicated to what amounts to junior high gossip.

    No, 95% of your media is dedicated to leftist propaganda and socialist talking points.

    Can’t help to roll my eyes whenever somebody starts going on about honor and integrity, especially in the context of an ideological debate between American liberals and conservatives. Conservatives just don’t have any.

    When your eyes roll back, do you start swallowing your tongue? That may be the source of all that frothing at the mouth you suffer.

    Leftists like Ted Rall cheered when Pat Tillman died…did you? Is that honor to you? Are you a maoist, socialist or communist? Which is your leftism of choice? Or are you an anarchist? It’s easier to know where your “honor and integrity” stem from…once you declare your particular brand of leftism.

    Because, like most leftists…you don’t seem to stand FOR anything…you simply stand against. It’s easier that way…you don’t have to actually do anything…you can sit on the sidelines and mewl about those that are.

    Anyway, we don’t have to sell out those principles (a doctrine of unprovoked preventative war is not among those principles, by the way) to be liked in the world, and certainly you can see the diplomatic and strategic benefits to being viewed in a positive light?

    Unprovoked war…you mean like the ones waged repeatedly against Israel? And where is Israel on that ranking of “being liked”? Sometimes, not being liked…has to do with being unfairly picked on and repeatedly slandered in the leftist media.

    And, for a guy who is so interested in being liked, who doesn’t like unprovoked fights, and wants the country to act accordingly…you must not have any mirrors in your glass house.

    I’m confused, aren’t we supposed to be an example? The city on the hill? Now, when the tide is turning against us, all of a sudden it’s ‘fuck ‘em.’ What would Reagan say to that attitude?

    He would say:

    “But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

    So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority.”

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  78. Levi did bring up one true point, albeit I suspect he did it unintentionally …

    … social programs that Democrats propose, but never practice it themselves, and they just count on their base to ignore their hypocrisy.

    We don’t often see Democrats being quite so honest in their comments about Democrat social programs on posts on blogs …

    Alasdair (0c1945)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5204 secs.