September 14, 2007

Doubling Down While Retreating

MoveOn has found its use of the word "betrayal" so clever, it's extending the franchise. In this case, however, they apply it to George Bush and his plan to stick with the surge until its natural denouement:

Just days after the group's political action committee caused a firestorm with a full page New York Times advertisement calling Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us," MoveOn has launched another commercial using the "betrayal" theme. But this time the group is firing away at a safer target: President Bush.

In an ad titled "Betrayal of Trust" released this morning, MoveOn has scripted a fairly rudimentary commercial that flashes "130,000" several times to reflect the number of troops that will still be in Iraq next summer under Bush's redeployment plan.

“He’s given us a sham draw-down plan," said MoveOn spokeswoman Nita Chaudhary. "30,000 troops by next July is not a plan to end the war. "

As the Politico notes, using the term in this sense and applying it to President Bush represents a tactical redeployment over an event horizon, in Jack Murtha-speak. To the rest of us, it's a retreat from the criticism that blew so hot that it wilted some of the Democrats they support. The result has been a recasting of the use of the word betrayal to a less objectionable context.

Their first ad accused a highly decorated and well-respected military commander of betraying the nation that he has dedicated his life to serve. This just accuses a President of bad governance, well within the bounds of legitimate criticism. They're still wrong, but at least they have learned better than to besmirch the reputation of a military commander in a theater of war.

Substantively, they're still off base. Bush didn't promise an end to the Iraq war by next summer, so the use of the word "betrayal" doesn't make much sense. He has said all along that the surge was a temporary measure meant to build the right circumstances for political reform, and it has worked better than most had hoped. He's pulling troops out a little faster than first thought, thanks to Congressional pressure from people like John Warner, but he has followed through on his insistence on pressing the advantage the surge has produced, at least in Anbar and around Baghdad.

At least MoveOn has moved on from its vicious attack on the military, and for that small measure of improvement, we can be grateful.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (48)

Posted by Scott Malensek | September 14, 2007 12:50 PM

The most dangerous thing about MoveOn isn't it's public influence, and it's not even its private direct influence on Democratic Party leaders. It's the INDIRECT influence on the Democratic Party leadership via interconnectivity with other far left groups. These groups are proud to call themselves various alliances etc, and MoveOn is but one of them. It's ironic that Al Queda is a terrorist organization primarily consisting of various councils where members run other terror groups/affiliates, and its in a similar organizational structure that MoveOn and other anti-war groups have put themselves.

IF the combined influence of MoveOn and the other far left groups that influence/buy/"OWN" the Democratic Party continue,

IF these groups continue to push farther and farther away from American ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as perceived to be rights equally endowed to all humans

IF Al Queda continues to move its rhetoric away from the faux religious and towards the politically left,

THEN the Democratic Party will eventually become little more than a Sinn Fein for Al Queda

Doubt it? Which one of those three IFs are not on the prescribed path?

Posted by Hope Muntz | September 14, 2007 12:58 PM

Well said, Scott!

Kucinich is already auditioning for the job of Gerry Adams.

Posted by Jeff | September 14, 2007 1:00 PM

Fortunately, the majority does not want to end the war. Only a radical leftist fringe wants to cut and run.

Therefore, moveon is preaching to its choir (or in their case, maybe a more appropriate metaphor is passing the bong around to other potheads).

Posted by Carol Herman | September 14, 2007 1:11 PM

There used to be a brand of cigarettes called Carlton's. They had the worst advice from their advertising agency; and ran with a head pounding ad that screamed at ya; while trying to portray itself as "the last word in class."


As to our General Petraeus, all the Bonkeys did was create a name recognition he didn't have, prior.

We can see a lone American, here, standing tall. Among the very small people that get voted into office. They've got nothing to be proud of. And, their name calling will backfire.


Let them run. Let's see how it feels when angry Americans have to slice and dice their votes on election day.

And, here, I'm giving the Bonkey's two advantages. ONE: THE MOST CORRUPT LAWYERS. And, TWO: Hillary.

Is this a "money" contest?


It's one where the winner, ahead, will stay the course. (And, double on that "no" against Gingrich. Who stays on the outside, throwing spitballs.)

By the way, what we saw the Bonkeys do? Which is a derivative of BDS; is that at some point Bush's popularity can rise, again. ANd, then they'd get swamped.

The very fact that Bush intends to push a big travel agenda next year; means headlines. Not just here. But to wherever he goes. Maybe, he'll have what to celebrate?

Let alone the realization that we're not in Vietnam anymore. And, the Iraqis aren't the same as the Vietnamese; who cooked their own goose.

How do you clean up the terror let loose in Irak? One neighborhood at a time. One block at a time.

And, even our mistakes, there, won't get repeated.

The sunnis waited a longer time than the Shi'a, to get our military support. Which means? Even if Irak is divisable into three parts; each part will have its own defense. (Not just the Kurds.)

And, the Shi'a? Well, to get to American trained police, they have to give up Sadr's goons. And, Chalabi's goons. Probably already part of the equation.

How long will we be in Irak? How long were we in Germany? Oh, yeah. As to troop withdrawals, we can't get out of south korea soon enough to suit me.

By the way, Ehud Barak, just a few months into his Ministry at the Israeli Defense Department; has left calling cards. For Hamas. And, for syria. Spooked they are! Whether you see the signs or not. Since it's already happened, it happens to be easy enough to call.

You'll also notice Condi is quiet.

Bush has a steady record that his White House doesn't leak. Doesn't gush. And, seems to know how to deal with perverts; even when they hold a wide stance in the toilet.

Can Larry Craig, ahead, make life miserable for others? Well, he does enjoy the weirdest of sexual "tricks." And, it's in congress that the GOP's leadership falls short. So short, they could hold their meetings in the toilet. Or at some hotel where they'd all show up in prom dresses.

On the other hand? You think the next President will be dealing with freaks? Or will the tables turn? When someone new approaches to bet.

In other words, while I can't predict this, I expect the Bonkeys to run around this country swearing they know "how to get along." How will you take to the Bonkey's wiggling their donkey ass?

Posted by kimsch | September 14, 2007 1:20 PM

Transcript: "In 2006, George Bush had 130,000 troops stuck in Iraq. Americans had elected a new congress to bring them home. (130,000-130,000 = 0) Instead George Bush sent in 30,000 more troops. (130,000 + 30,000 = 160,000) Now he's making a big deal about pulling out, you guessed it, 30,000 (160,000 - 30,000 = 130,000) so next year there will still be 130,000 troops stuck in Iraq. George Bush: A betrayal of trust."

The funniest part of the above is the part in italics...

Who's fault is it that there are still so many troops in Iraq?

Posted by kimsch | September 14, 2007 1:23 PM

myt italics didn't show above. The highlighted sentence was:

Americans elected a new Congress to bring them home (130,000 - 130,000 = 0)

Posted by kimsch | September 14, 2007 1:25 PM

Myt should be My and Who's should be Whose. I don't feel well. Please excuse the typos.

Posted by NoDonkey | September 14, 2007 1:27 PM is the crazy aunt in the attic, except she's not in the attic any longer - she's hand in hand with the Democrat Party candidate for President.

Hillary Clinton is an unqualified, unaccomplished dingbat who is being led around by her crazy, smelly, ugly, intoxicated, no-account aunt.

No way Hillary gets the prom queen vote with this albatross wrapped around her chicken neck.

Once again, the media will be unable to drag a bad candidate across the finish line.

2000, 2004 and 2008 elections: Media - O, the American People - 3.

Posted by John Wilson | September 14, 2007 1:38 PM

Eli Pariser claims to have spent an ungodly sum of $300 million financing political campaigns. This is from a kid who might be 30 now. For that money gets monthly meetings with the democratic leadership and daily interaction with their staffs. Soros has found a way to control the government and it isn't pretty. When you hear the deafening silence from the democrats over that insane NYT ad, that's the $300 million doing the talking.

Posted by Justrand | September 14, 2007 2:04 PM

note the "STUCK IN IRAQ" homage to John Kerry as well.

Posted by DC | September 14, 2007 2:06 PM

I think this MoveOn group should be called “MoveOnDotBetrayUs”, at least that way their web address is not given out. If enough people did that, Limbaugh would likely start calling them that.

Posted by JM Hanes | September 14, 2007 3:45 PM

"They're still wrong, but at least they have learned better than to besmirch the reputation of a military commander in a theater of war."

Learned better? I don't think so! They are thrilled with the attention garnered by the Betrayus ad and the contributions which are rolling in as a result. They're now trying to extend the Betrayus franchise; they just don't have another strategically positioned military commander to besmirch. They probably think they're pressing a new found advantage by taking on the Commander in Chief.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 14, 2007 3:55 PM

Let the donkeys brey.

Since 2000, an election they just can't get over; they've managed to believe the American public actually puts stock in their antics.

Not quite.

Bush has managed, as a matter of fact, to do better the more they scream.

And, that's part of the equation.

In other words? In 2004, Bush won re-election. With more votes; rather than less.

So, what the left has done; and what the senators, themselves can't figure out;

Is how does Bush stay ahead of the clowns?

Okay. 2006 brought defeat to the GOP, IN CONGRESS!

Not enough hand signals, huh?

While the Patriots, a football team, so wanted to know more about "hand singles," they got BUSTED.

Larry Craig? Also BUSTED.

While we're about to learn more. Since Larry Craig thinks he's not finished.

And, in the senate? With "halp" from Arlen Spector? He might not be quite finished ... Since he's pulled away from his guilty plea.

So there ya have it.

The porksters in Congress think they can do "what they want." And, when they want to.

Not exciting enough, yet?

Stay tuned.

No, it's not Fitzmas ahead. We're talking about the "behind."

What happens when jerks get so excited doing stuff you wouldn't believe. While they're gonna try to fool ya.

Get ready for details about "hand signals."

Get ready to learn more about these "happy places" ... in men's toilets. Nope. Not quite cologne, either.

While I think we're gonna be in Irak longer than we3've been in germany. And, south korea. With troops who know how to make streets safer ... well, than men's toilets.

Larry Craig is a dunce. But he's been in congress since 1980. And, in the senate since 1987.

Boy those "queens" should be so excited. Because now BJ's aren't just for Bill Clinton. Story's gonna spread. Because? Hypocricy is the name of the game.

Timed for Election 2008.

With the Internet ON 24/7.

One lesson to learn about the GOP? THere's NO LEADERSHIP SKILLS IN SIGHT ON THE HILL! What a bunch of clowns!

Posted by SteveMG | September 14, 2007 4:09 PM

Does anyone actually believe that if we simply leave Iraq, the war will end? End the war just by withdrawing our troops?

The Sunni and Shia' militias will cease fighting? Al-qaeda will end hostilities. And Iran and Syria and the other regional powers will stop their intervention?

All because the US withdrew her troops?

What's the old saying?: There isn't a problem in the world that the Left believes can't be solved simply by having the US walk away from it.

Not entirely fair; but not entirely unfair either.


Posted by John | September 14, 2007 4:22 PM


Arrgh! FoxNews has gone to all OJ all the time over his Las Vegas incident. I am going to scream.

Thanks, now I feel better.

Back to regular commenting.

Posted by L88SS454 | September 14, 2007 4:24 PM

The Democrats crying about Bush leaving troops in Iraq for the next president to deal with is a little hypocritical in light of Camp Bondsteel don't you think?

Posted by Carol Herman | September 14, 2007 4:38 PM

Oh, John, it's okay. SCREAM. This time OJ used a gun. On the "memorablia collector."

And, in Vegas? What were the cops gonna do? They were looking for a lower profile than Larry Craig's got. And, a lot a good it did 'em, huh?

Drudge is running the blurbs in red ink. With the photo of OJ, front and center.

The Internet OWNS THE NEWS CYCLES. And, the speed of delivery.

Sure. It's a freak show, now. OJ? Well, he stole stuff, after all. A much smaller crime than the one the jurors gave him a "free pass" on.

But as far as I'm concerned? Oprah ain't gonna get Obama elected president. That's gone.

For which the affirmative action people, can, in fact, thank OJ. And, OJ's jurors.

How long ago? I think the OJ jurors rendered their verdict back in 1995.

So, people have been waiting a very long time to see justice "ajusted."

Nah. I'm not surprised the OJ would pull this stunt. Nor am I surprised at Oprah's seeking revenge. Against white folk. Cause her auntie had to work as a maid.

But that was back in the dark ages. When the affirmative action crowd actually held sway.

Will OJ 'get off' again? Probably. He's harder to catch than Larry Craig.

Seems there's stuff out there that gives some strange men real "highs."

We're just the audience. Waiting.

While in Vegas, this went down in a second rate hotel. Instead of on Bundy.

With a second rate affirmative action hire, working for the prosecution. Let us not forget how awful the3 prosecution team was.

And, there's nothing wrong with going off-course. Drudge presents the news when it's hot.

Posted by patrick neid | September 14, 2007 4:41 PM

my guess is soros and crowd will try, by what ever means, to have a head line grabbing stunt every two weeks or so until election day. we will be seeing all of the repubs dirty linen, no matter how slight, blown into mini tornadoes by the msm.

i think it may well backfire.

Posted by gab | September 14, 2007 4:43 PM

"Their first ad accused a highly decorated and well-respected military commander.."

Sounds like William Westmoreland. Or Colin Powell.

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 14, 2007 4:43 PM

Is President Bush the leader in drawing down the troops, or is it General Petraeus? I'm always suspect when a politician makes the decision as to force levels necessary to do the job.

Petraeus' testimony indicated his position concerning when and how many troops could go home, and it looks to me that Bush has faith in him and is following his recommendations.

Posted by Fight4TheRight | September 14, 2007 4:47 PM

"Americans had elected a new congress to bring them home "

Is that true? Wow. And here I thought the 2006 elections favored the Democrats because Republicans and Independents stayed home in protest over the Foley scandal and the spending binges of the Repubs in Congress!

Guess I learned something today.

Posted by NahnCee | September 14, 2007 5:32 PM

Guess I learned something today.

I really rather doubt it. Whether you're capable of learning for one thing, and whether you'll allow it to happen for a second.

Posted by Angry Dumbo | September 14, 2007 5:44 PM

I believe America disapprove of their representatives in Congress not because Congress hasn't gotten us out of Iraq, but because they refuse to act like adults and discuss strategies for victory in Iraq or at least define what victory or success should mean.

As Democrats grilled General Petraeus they offered no critique of his counter insurgency plan, no alternative strategy for the General to consider, just a repeated request that he should declare the war won on their time table. (For the record, I wanted to ask the General how long he thought WWII would have gone on if we didn't drop two nukes.)

The old strategy of claiming the center from 1996 is now declaring oneself "purple" neither blue nor red stater (in the current discussion, neither supporting, nor actively opposing (read defunding) the war. This moral equivalent posture of neutrality undermines support for the war on terrorism by claiming a sort of neutrality to the international threat of terrorism by asserting that President Bush himself is a terrorist. Moral equivalence as Mick Jagger once said means that every cop is a criminal and all the sinners saints. Following this sterling logic, it follows that cops cause crime. Uniformed soldiers and contractors building hospitals and schools in turn cause terrorism.

Democrats do not hold the White House yet, so the candidates who say "pull out now" should pledge to do so as soon as they are elected because the President is the one and only CIC. If the overwhelming majority of Americans really wanted end the war as Democrats claim, Congress would have defunded the war. Democrats (and Republicans named Hagel and Paul) seem to believe that failure in Iraq would humble us and bring our redemption to the mythical International Community that John Kerry (a decorated Vietnam vet, don'cha know) speaks of. I believe that a majority of Americans would support victory in Iraq, if they believed that victory is an option.

Posted by Rovin | September 14, 2007 6:17 PM


So many thanks to McCain-Feingold for the campaign finance regurgence.

Iran attacks our U.S. military by proxy while Soros runs the democratic party by proxy. And we wonder who's "betraying" who. Maybe raping the electoral system will allow the voters to see the parallels of Soros's proselytism.

Posted by azlibertarian | September 14, 2007 6:47 PM

"...Bush didn't promise an end to the Iraq war by next summer...."

You're right. He offered no such promise. In fact, he has repeatedly, and right from the start, said that this war would be long and hard.

At best, the success of The Surge signals the End of the Beginning, rather than the Beginning of the End.

Posted by Carol Herman | September 14, 2007 8:09 PM

The WAR in Irak lasted all of 17 days. You know that, right?

Tommy Franks led the war effort while in his office in Florida. You know that, right?

Where we took a wrong turn was a military failure, all right. We weren't geared up to stay and offer security. The Japs didn't do this for themselves, overnight. And, lots of American soldiers in germany were shot at by snipers. Because that's just the way it was.

Still, we made quite a footprint, I guess, by allowing Stalin to come out all over Europe and stomp on a few countries. You didn't know that?

So, it's not as if the europeans or the asians are somehow missing enough lessons to know that Americans, if we will it, can remain strong.

That Code Pink and the Bonkeys have marketeers who sold them on the word "Betrayal?" What's the big deal. BRAYING can be created with the same strokes of a pencil. And, the braying isn't gonna win the Bonkeys more votes.

Well, yes. They know how to steal 10% (from those who are dead. And, from those who've registered their dogs as democraps.) Nobody goes to jail.

But would it be enough?

It wasn't enough to get immigration "approved" up on the Hill. Something frightened those congress critters. Was it "wide-stance" Larry giving away the ballgame? You know. Hand signals. Expensive haircuts. Fine suits. But really; you've got sympathy for the crap that serves on the Hill? More than half of them would love Hillary to "win." So they can continue doing their "fun and games."

What's it gonna take to really change this system?

Posted by dhunter | September 14, 2007 8:29 PM

And Democrats didn't win the house and senate by running on: turn tail and Run, surrender faster than a Frenchman. They said they had a better way, a smarter war, a redeployment.
They new even the dumba-- Paris Hilton watchers and Britani fan clubbers wouldn't like quiting, losing, walking away and turning the country over to the extremists that sawed heads off innocent workers and journalists.
The independent middle roader not paying attention til a week from election day, wouldn't even go for that, ONLY the HARD CORE DEMS would, and that wouldn't have been enough to win anything.
Next time may be different because now we know who they really are...TRAITORS!

Posted by MarkT | September 14, 2007 8:54 PM

MoveOn did not get a discount from the NYTimes. The accusers have now admitted they were offered the same rate:

"The president of Freedom’s Watch, Bradley A. Blakeman, said: “The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000"

They are now reduced to arguing that MoveOn got more choice in when/where the ad would run.

Posted by AndyJ | September 14, 2007 10:15 PM

When Hillary proised to never be "Swiftboated" during this campaign I bet she never thought she would be the first to use the "Swiftboat Defense". Defending the right of a PAC to say anything vile, offensive, disgusting in the name of "Free Speech" will come back to haunt her.

Refusing her "Sister Souljah" moment when it arrived on a plate was a display of the type of Presidential character I don't want in the White House.

If she won't stand up to her own party, who will she stand up to?

Posted by Carol Herman | September 14, 2007 10:56 PM

Up at InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds just linked to Rudy's spot, where he attacks Hillary for her nasty comments to Petraeus.

First off, I'd like to observe that I don't have TV. So to see a "TV ad" means something's changed in this country.

And, it also means you're not just capturing people tuned into something else; when you link to something up on U-Tube, now, you're doing so, willingly.

Rudy's ad is EXCELLENT!

And, that's something you get only from the Internet. In other words? Rudy's add get "recycled" through the Internet format. And, it's getting seen.

So, you could ask, why are people looking?

I think people are very upset at what happened to Petraeus. And, as Rudy's ad points out, in 2002, Hillary was hot to vote FOR going after Saddam.

Perhaps, few people remember, but back than it seemed our President was really dragging his feet.

We heard about the weather. And, then, we heard Turkey wasn't letting our troops "stage from their country," wiping out the "flanking move, Tommy Franks wanted to have. Instead of just a drive up out of Kuwait.

The other thing we're unable to count, yet, is what's happening to Bush's approval ratings. Because it seems they're still way up, higher, than the way people are rating congress.

Does this portend a dislike for senators? How can you tell?

Kerry did not win in 2004.

Senators have also failed to win the presidency, before that. Yes, they're cozy with the enemy-media. But you think this "halps?"

You think Osama got mileage, now that he's dead, out of the videos that get presented as news, now?

Again. We still at the stage where the ads are being produced. The stores haven't opened, yet, for business.

So, it's a good thing people are paying attention.

I still think, for Hillary, her WORST NIGHTMARE, would be in "winning." Let alone what "surprises" Bill could pull; lowering his pants for fat ladies.

You thought a Fat Lady had to sing?

I thought we'd get to see the "dancing." Or writhing, actually. ANd, with Castro dead; soon we'll hear about this, too. And, that can open up a whole new market for Cuban cigars. "Just. In. Time. Ha. Ha."

I know I'm so addicted to my computer; that I gave up not only my TV, but the papers that used to get delivered to my doorstep.

Even the speeds with which we get to see developing stories, appear, is quicker.

Not sure, but I think Little Green Footballs said that t'marra, there's a Meeting of Eagles in DC. And, Code Pink swears they're gonna be out in "droves." Packs? A few? Who knows? But I can't wait to see the pictures people take with their cell phones.

And, while General Petraeus doesn't need me to make him feel good; I do think that his exposure on the Hill gave him the advantage. In today's world lots more Americans know his name.

Where's the downside?

While I think Bush's poll numbers are also UP.

Sure hope next week he offers the AG nomination to Ted Olsen.

Be nice to see some heroes marching towards the Hill. They ain't loaded for bear, over there! Just a bunch of midgets. In clown cars. OH, yeah. And, Arlen Spector offers them his moral compass. What a jackass. SHows ya. The GOP has a "few," too.

Posted by Kelley | September 14, 2007 11:06 PM

The difference between the Dems and Bush's plans.

The Dems plan to end. Bush plans to win.

The Dems aren't interested in winning, only in ending. Bus isn't focused on ending; he is focused on winning. Once we win, then we can figure out the ending.

If the end is put before the win, how do we win? The answer is we don't.

By winning we can have a satisfactory ending, too. But by ending first, we lose the ending.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | September 15, 2007 3:02 AM

Billy Clinton was such a dirt bag liar and boat anchor for the Dems that MoveOn was created blow lots of smoke.

Before 9/11 Al Franken kicked off the liar theme with his book and MoveOn and the Dems have been throwing the word "liar" in every direction at their opposition.

Billy Jeff was such a liar that the only recourse was to try level the playing field with accusations of the same.

Clinton's serial lying and shenanigans lost Al Gore the WH and the Dems the Congress, the MoveOn thugs are determined to win it back by reducing their opponents in the minds of the public, to the same Clintonian level.

Posted by ajacksonian | September 15, 2007 7:06 AM

Taking 'betrayal' retail and finding the market isn't buying... still it will be pushed as the New Coke of brand names.

Congress, as a whole, has been: incompetent, spineless, incapable of doing its job or even understanding it, mercenary, corrupt. Both parties, no question of it. There are, perhaps, a handful or double handful of good members scattered through the body, but that is a true minority in the Congress we have.

Whenever I hear about 'too much paper work for people to fill out' with things like the VA or federal taxes, there is one body that mandates that: Congress.

Whenever I hear about 'not enough of X, Y or Z' for the Armed Forces, the realization that Congress oversees outlay, infrastructure and spending means when you don't have enough of something it is due to: Congress.

Actually enforcing immigration laws and scoping the size of the court and justice system is done by: Congress.

The list of ills in America due to taxation, regulation, the expansion of the laws and regulations (what is it, more than 2/3 of all federal regulations have been passed since 1972?), failing infrastructure... all that goes to the feet of Congress.

Americans have this strange belief that democracy is supposed to be neat and clean forgetting that it is supposed to be the voices of the People heard in their diversity, not just down to two managed viewpoints. Democracy is not a neat or clean system, and one of the most useful systems for driving good ideas forward for the Nation and that does not come from 'party backing' but citizens concerned about their Nation. That used to have duels fought in the 19th century by Congressmen: their positions meant something to them, to the death. Fist fights on the House floor were not unheard of, which is why local police were given the ability to step in and break things up.

The history of our work is not inevitable and at the time of the founding came not only a discussion of what democracy *is*, but of how it fails and republics, too. In the realm of human affairs, democracy is only now starting to enter a period of true testing to see what its historical impact will be on humanity. It has failed before and even in Nations during our lives. When democracy becomes 'neat and clean' it points to the decay of democracy and no longer appealing to the common man for input... National Socialism and Communism were both very legislatively 'neat and clean' systems. In fact democracies in decline do go to war, that is the prime lesson of the 20th century.

By the yardstick set by the founders we are failing in our understanding of democracy and republic. The usual outcome of that is chilling as the last century has shown and even as the founding generation saw it.

Posted by PapaTodd | September 15, 2007 8:49 AM

End the war End the war That's ALL I hear from the Dems. Don't they know that BOTH sides have to agree (or get pummeled) to end the war? You can say it all day long, but until the other side capitulates......
Simple Stuff

Posted by Scott Malensek | September 15, 2007 9:04 AM

"end the war"
"New Direction"

all are newspeak from Big Brother Soros and his wide-eyed followers for a single word in the dictionary:


Posted by gaffo | September 15, 2007 9:06 AM

Captian sayeth:

"At least MoveOn has moved on from its vicious attack on the military"

huh? So Captain, when did ONE general all of the sudden become the whole United States Military?

I guess Truman was insulting the whole military when he sacked McCarther too.

you can do better than this Captain. I've seen better in fact.

Posted by gaffo | September 15, 2007 9:27 AM

the Flying Packiderm had a good post and said in part:

"I believe America disapprove of their representatives in Congress not because Congress hasn't gotten us out of Iraq, but because they refuse to act like adults and discuss strategies for victory in Iraq or at least define what victory or success should mean."

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!..and this is called?
there is a term for it.

XXXXXXXX - a situation where one can get into it easily but cannot find a way out easily.

hint: word starts with a "Q".

the flying wonder continues...............

"(For the record, I wanted to ask the General how long he thought WWII would have gone on if we didn't drop two nukes.)"

ww2 was, remains, and will continue to be uttery irrelivant to this discussion. you neoconjobs can bring that war up until the cows come home - but since it never started with a "Q" it is utterly irrelivant, since it had a begining and middle and an END. you folks need to look to another war - the one that stated with a "V" - ostriches.

Ear flier continues:

"Democrats (and Republicans named Hagel and Paul) seem to believe that failure in Iraq would humble us"

It would - you deny that it did so in 1973?
Humility is a for the one that starts with "P", when did that stop being a Vice?

"and bring our redemption to the mythical International Community"

UN is a myth? do tell. you guys are full of bluster and all rant about how bad international law is and piss on other Nation's views about us. then you cry when a 911 type event happens.

grow up - and stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.

"I believe that a majority of Americans would support victory in Iraq, if they believed that victory is an option."

No shit Sherlock. But that ain't an option now is it?

Posted by dhunter | September 15, 2007 9:46 AM

Hey Sherlock, not only is it an option it's (winning)happening right now in front of your face in spite of the best efforts of the TRAITORS on the left.
The Iraqis' are swearing to defeat AlQueada, run them out of Iraq and as Afaganistan and Iraq go so goes much of the middle east.
At a minimum we have the help of Muslims turning against extremist Muslims that have been the source of numerous attacks while the Clintoons Diddled. Rather than fire a couple of million dollar missles at an empty aspirin factory and a couple of camels.
W. is changing Muslim attitudes about radical Islam and the US liberators, and that my friend is takin it to the enemy BIG TIME.

Posted by joelunchpail | September 15, 2007 9:50 AM

Gaffo Truman was the president and commander in chief not some anti u.s organization ranting in the newspaper that supports their views

Posted by joelunchpail | September 15, 2007 10:00 AM

Move on was never elected to office all the influence they have they have purchased. I think this fact reflects on the people whose oppinions they own.

Posted by red | September 15, 2007 12:27 PM

---I guess Truman was insulting the whole military when he sacked McCarther too.

So is it your respect for the military that leads you to botch the spelling of a still revered military hero, Douglas MacArthur?

I don't believe that Truman made a point of calling MacArthur a traitor either.

Other than those two points YOU ARE SPOT ON.

Posted by red | September 15, 2007 12:31 PM

ww2 was, remains, and will continue to be uttery irrelivant to this discussion. you neoconjobs can bring that war up until the cows come home - but since it never started with a "Q"


If you lefties knew anything about history that occurred before January 2001 this might be an interesting discussion.

And yes, Congress is a quagmire because of the presence of lefty schlubs like Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Charlie Rangel, Harry Reid, Barbara (whoa stupid) Boxer...

Posted by gaffo | September 15, 2007 4:30 PM

the hunter sayeth:

"Hey Sherlock, not only is it an option it's (winning)happening right now in front of your face"

grasping as straws are we?

get back to me in one year - then we'll see how that "serge" is going - success now means NOTHING without longterm sustainability.

success now? - yes, I agree. it also utterly irrelivant if it cannot be sustained.

which it cannot - unless we call for a draft.

you willing to go on the record here an now Hunter? call for a draft! -- well?

more blather from Hunter below:

"The Iraqis' are swearing to defeat AlQueada, run them out of Iraq and as Afaganistan and Iraq go so goes much of the middle east. "

great - let em. We'll watch from over here while they remove Al Quada from thier lands.

and more:

"At a minimum we have the help of Muslims turning against extremist Muslims that have been the source of numerous attacks while the Clintoons Diddled."

1. help? - sure. give them moral support, aid, etc..... US troops however is not a solution past 2008 summer (unless you are here and now calling for a DRAFT).

2. Klintoon?....sorry it was your Chimpster who illegally invaded and directly aided Al Quada when he turned Iraqnam into Somalia. - agaist the advise of nearly all who had direct foreign policy experience.

but go ahead - take the cowards way out and re-write history.

its all Klintoons fault.

- hows the air down there?, maybe you should pull your head out? just a suggestion.

"W. is changing Muslim attitudes about radical Islam and the US liberators,"

1. - well my B/W seeing friend..........who's attitude? Swiss? Japanese? Single Swiss 40 year old women? 12 year old Chinese boys? Muslims? - which Muslims? Turks? - the 45 yr old men or the 13 yr old women? or the Syrians? or maybe the Christian Lebanese Lesbian 25 yr olds? Wake up, on average the Joe six Pack Iraqi wants the US OUT, they do not like US nor our Troops, and they see US as the same as Al Quada - which they want out also.

all your idiot in cheif has done these past 5 years is make Al Qaeda stronger - a direct result of Iraqnam.

should have let Saddam stay in Power and we'd all be alot better off - Al Qaeda would be weaker and the US would be stronger.

You are only aiding Al Qeada with your support of our incompetant leader and his foolish losing policy.

wake up.

neocons are the enemy of America - their polciy only aids Al Qeada.

and that my friend is takin it to the enemy BIG TIME.

Posted by gaffo | September 15, 2007 4:34 PM

"Gaffo Truman was the president and commander in chief not some anti u.s organization ranting in the newspaper that supports their views"

Oh - I see, If I (just some schmuck on the street) had said McCarther was an asshole and should be fired for his arrogance in 1953 I would be a traitor.

But if the President says it....well its just fine and dandy.

- care to explain your "logic" on this one?

Posted by gaffo | September 15, 2007 4:38 PM

anyone here explain to me how insulting one General equates to insulting the Armed Forces?

Captain? -


or is just more silence and obfuscation to be expected here?

Posted by Xango | September 15, 2007 9:39 PM

If someone has to explain your question regarding insulting the General..then there is just no hope for you..
Stupid is truly forever....

Posted by gaffo | September 16, 2007 10:37 AM

so you got nothin Xango

duly noted.

all bluster and no substance.

again - maybe another here who is able to explain (unlike Xango).

how is insulting one general equivalent to insulting the United States armed Forces?

I know you all like Kings on this site - and Generals are Kings in your eyes.

Explain to me how America is founded upon Nepoleonic principles and how insulting a General equates to insutling the entire Armed Forces.

...........should i expect crickets from this site. a site that seems full of bluster and light on substance or addressing simple questions.

anyone (other than Xango -who is unable to explain a simple question, and only insults others)

Posted by MegaTroopX | September 17, 2007 10:46 PM

we can be grateful

Grateful my ass! Kick their asses, and keep kicking until they have to pull off their shirts to take a sh*t.

Of course, they'll still have to move their heads out of the way...

Post a comment