Author Topic: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ  (Read 5996 times)

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« on: September 12, 2007, 07:22:24 AM »
Regardless of your opinion on the Iraq War, the main point here is that the Democratic side cannot debate on the issues, only engage in character assassination.

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

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Important as was yesterday's appearance before Congress by General David Petraeus, the events leading up to his testimony may have been more significant. Members of the Democratic leadership and their supporters have now normalized the practice of accusing their opponents of lying. If other members of the Democratic Party don't move quickly to repudiate this turn, the ability of the U.S. political system to function will be impaired in a way no one would wish for.

Well, with one exception. MoveOn.org, the Democratic activist group, bought space in the New York Times yesterday to accuse General Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House." The ad transmutes the general's name into "General Betray Us."

"Betrayal," as every military officer knows, is a word that through the history of their profession bears the stain of acts that are both dishonorable and unforgivable. That is to say, MoveOn.org didn't stumble upon this word; it was chosen with specific intent, to convey the most serious accusation possible against General Petraeus, that his word is false, that he is a liar and that he is willing to betray his country. The next and obvious word to which this equation with betrayal leads is treason. That it is merely insinuated makes it worse.

MoveOn.org calls itself a "progressive" political group, but it is in fact drawn from the hard left of American politics and a pedigree that sees politics as not so much an ongoing struggle but a final competition. Their Web-based group is new to the political scene, but its politics are not so new. More surprising and troubling are the formerly liberal institutions and politicians who now share this political ethos.

In an editorial on Sunday, the New York Times, after saying that President Bush "isn't looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public," asserted that "General Petraeus has his own credibility problems." We read this as an elision from George Bush, the oft-accused liar on WMD and all the rest, to David Petraeus, also a liar merely for serving in the chain of command. With this editorial, the Times establishes that the party line is no longer just "Bush lied," but anyone who says anything good about Iraq or our effort there is also lying. As such, the Times enables and ratifies MoveOn.org's rhetoric as common usage for Democrats.

Late last week, for instance, we heard it said of General Petraeus that, "He's made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual." This was from Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate.

The Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, said Thursday that General Petraeus would not be the author of his report; it would be written "by Administration political operatives." He opened yesterday's hearing, moments before General Petraeus was to speak, by saying, "We cannot take anything this Administration says on Iraq at face value."

So far, only two Democrats that we are aware of have repudiated this political turn. Joe Lieberman, already ostracized from the party for dissent, called the MoveOn ad an "act of slander that every member of the Congress--Democrat and Republican--has a solemn responsibility to condemn." And Joe Biden, after the MoveOn ad was read to him on "Meet the Press" Sunday, replied: "I don't buy into that. This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth."

These are the exceptions. Another of the party's activist groups, Democracy for America, released a statement about the time General Petraeus began to speak: "It is offensive that our commander-in-chief has ordered a four-star general to mislead Congress."

As General Petraeus finished his statement yesterday, Senator Chris Dodd's Presidential campaign spammed an email about "the accuracy" of the report: "The fact that there are questions about General Petraeus's report is not surprising given that it was brought to you by this White House." Thus in Mr. Dodd's view, General Petraeus, returned from the Iraq battlefield, is a complicit ventriloquist's dummy.

Can this really be the new standard of political rhetoric across the Democratic Party? There was a time when the party's institutional elites, such as the Times, would have pulled it back from reducing politics to all or nothing. They would have blown the whistle on such accusations. Now they are leading the charge.

Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy.

Today General Petraeus testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Its Democratic Members include Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Jim Webb. This would be the appropriate setting to apologize to General Petraeus for the MoveOn.org ad. Or let it stand.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

RadioFreeSeaLab

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,200
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2007, 07:43:25 AM »
Regardless of your opinion on the Iraq War, the main point here is that the Democratic side cannot debate on the issues, only engage in character assassination.

On that point, you and I agree.  Character assassination sells, unfortunately.


K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,540
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2007, 07:45:15 AM »
And we're suprised, how?

Oh, wait, we're not. Well, at least I'm not.

And people wonder why I'd vote for Al Queda in a general election before I'd ever vote for a Democrat.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2007, 08:35:03 AM »
Democrats have become completely morally and ethically bankrupt, which is the primary reason the Republican party has run amuck; it has no opposition.

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,455
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2007, 01:22:25 PM »
McRiley,

I agree with the first part of your sentence (to the first comma).  The rest of it you must have typed after you huffed a little nitrous oxide??
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2007, 01:42:23 PM »
Well, what are they going to say on the issues?  "I supported the war too, but that was different...it had high poll numbers back then."

They have no platform.  There is absolutely nothing that identifies a "typical Democrat" other than shameless pollmongering.  That's why they're stuck on the blame game, and never commit themselves to anything approaching a position on the war or anything else.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2007, 01:43:11 PM »
I wish I had some nitrous oxide   grin

Democrats have become the wackadoodle party of spittle flying hatred.  Unfortunately, that's insufficient to oppose the fearmongering power grabbing government growing spinlessrepublicans.

Euclidean

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2007, 01:44:37 PM »
I wish I had some nitrous oxide   grin

Democrats have become the wackadoodle party of spittle flying hatred.  Unfortunately, that's insufficient to oppose the fearmongering power grabbing government growing spinless RINOs.

Fixed it for ya.

Ye gods, Riley and I agree on something...

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,483
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2007, 01:54:46 PM »
Would this be the first time shootinstudent has made an entire post with which most of the forum would agree?  Ah, comradeship.   smiley


Riley, could you explain how the Republican party's "fear-mongering" differs from your constant warnings of terrorists crossing our unguarded borders? 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2007, 02:06:50 PM »
Quote
Ye gods, Riley and I agree on something...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

LadySmith

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,166
  • Veni, Vidi, Jactavi Calceos
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2007, 09:43:59 PM »
Democrats have become the wackadoodle party of spittle flying hatred.
You should copyright this.
Rogue AI searching for amusement and/or Ellie Mae imitator searching for critters.
"What doesn't kill me makes me stronger...and it also makes me a cat-lover" - The Viking
According to Ben, I'm an inconvenient anomaly (and proud of it!).

Moondoggie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 523
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2007, 11:51:33 PM »
(Putting on psychoanalysis hat).....

The Dems are so accustomed to shamless lying that one of the facets of their denial syndrome is to assume that everybody else must also be lying if their lips are moving.

The only remaining difference, as others have said above, is that the republicslimes are spineless liars.

Rome burns, Nero fiddles, the sheep bleat...film at 11.

Our elected representatives (the career criminals among them) must be laughing themselves silly over the crap that the people will swallow.  Meanwhile, they're busily lining their pockets and voting themselves sweetheart retirement deals..laughing all the way to the bank.
Known from coast to coast, almost!

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #12 on: September 13, 2007, 06:09:39 AM »
The problem with a two-party system is if one of the parties goes off into nutjob land, the other party loses loyal opposition/adult supervision.  Lack of such supervision helps to result in the Other Party Behaving Badly.  Today, it is the Reps Behaving Badly.

Yeah, the Dems oppose the Reps, but their opposition is neither adult nor loyal.

I prescribe beating with switches and a mass tarring & feathering for all elected & appointed officials and also career bureaucrats.  Nothing like a whoopin' to get your head on straight.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

RadioFreeSeaLab

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,200
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #13 on: September 13, 2007, 06:12:05 AM »
I second that, with the addition of an afternoon of electroshock therapy.

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,455
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2007, 04:21:24 PM »
Sorry Riley.  I forgot to put a smiley  (grin) after my last post.

I can't remember ever feeling so...I can't even think of an appropriate word...regarding our political zoo and the conduct of most nations.  Cripes, the Democrat leadership were calling Petreous a liar before he even presented his report and they hand picked him to do the job.  We have, geopolitically, a period of time that is perhaps fraught with more peril on a world wide basis than any time in history.  And the 2nd biggest issue world wide is a myth...human caused global warming for land's sake!  The first is a war that should not have happened, not because of the reasons most think, but because a tin pot dictator engendered so much fear among HIS OWN government, that he didn't understand the *expletive deleted*it storm he was going to get, because his own minions didn't dare tell him the truth.  Cripes, the world is shaking because one loon thinks the earth is going to catch fire if we don't go back to riding horses while he flies around in an inefficient 1970's jet, and another one didn't understand you don't spit in Superman's cape.

You know, W has really disappointed me on many levels.  I've talked to people who know people that have met him.  It is said, very reliably, that he is a warm, personable fellow who is very likeable and loyal.  He is said to be very bright as well.  He just can't seem to project his goodness and his intellect when he speaks.  He surrounds himself with some folks who I think leave much to be desired, regarding common sense or understanding the cultures they screw around with.  Charisma is lacking in a major way.  Charisma is the only thing that could save W from the knee jerk reactionary, spittle spewing liars that are present day Democrat leaders.  I believe if W said the sun rises (I know it's the Earth that is spinning) in the East, Harry Reid would call him a liar.  I think we have some Democrats who are so frightened by the power of their leadership, they are silent when they should be challenging these martinets that lead them.  I actually long for the day when the Democrats begin to deal once again with reality and even more so for Republicans to actually discover some spine.  I wonder how things would be going if Democrat leaders said they oppose invading Iraq, but since we have let's kick some ass instead of sticking their heads up their ass.  It would have been better yet if they would have voted no 5 years ago instead of telling us they were dumb asses and were fooled. (Like everyone else in the world, even Saddam it appears.  I think he thought he had WMD's too.)

We have 99.9% of the world's population who wake up each morning trying to do what ever is needed to get by or get ahead.  One tenth of one percent of the population wakes up every day trying to figure out how they can successfully perform coitus interuptus the other 99.9.  Why the hell do we put up with this pitiful small batch of mouth breathers.

Now NBC might not be the best place to get practical, correct information.  But Ol' Matt is in Iran, wandering around.  I was struck by the fact how normal it looked.  (other than the odd woman being dragged screaming into a car by Islamic thugs because they had too much hair showing)  Why in God's name would we want to harm any of those people, or them us?  (Well, I can think of one little *expletive deleted*it that would look good with Monte Cristo cruise missile up his ass)
I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding someone in Iran who wouldn't want to go on a picnic with an American or an Israeli or anyone if invited. I think you'd find the average Syrian or N. Korean or a China critter wouldn't mind if you could ask any of them in a room where they knew no one was listening.  (There's another difference between them and us.  I can ask Mustaffa if he wants to go on a picnic over a loud speaker in the middle of the street and doesn't get rise out of anyone except the guy who wants to sell me chicken and beer)  America may not be perfect, but you gotta look pretty hard to find a more noble place or people, with some notable exceptions, you know who they are.
 
How does it happen that so few can screw up so many.

I'm not sorry for the rant, in fact I'm feeling much better now.

Dick
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #15 on: September 13, 2007, 05:57:34 PM »
Once again, grampster has cut through the bullshit and gone right to the bottom line.  grin

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2007, 06:12:24 PM »
Great rant, Grampster.

You're right, as usual, about people. Most of us are just trying to live our lives.

There are some people somewhere else--down the block, in Iraq, in Iran, or especially in Illinois--who don't want us to live our lives as we choose. They have their agendas, and we have ours.

And, so, we go to war.

We can argue Iraq until Oleg's servers melt. It doesn't matter. The Fistful/RileyMC arguments will go on forever.

What matters to me is the way that the two parties are behaving. There's the Republicans supporting Bush, and then there's the Democrat presidential hopefuls who say they have a better solution. But their solution is not much different than Bush's.

This is the most important military engagement we've been involved in since WWII. The implications of the outcome will be felt for decades, if not even longer.

And so it makes me sick to see our military second-guessed by people who are looking for headlines to help their campaigns.

If this were 1940, a lot of these people would have been run out of office, or hanged.




wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2007, 06:56:39 PM »
I fail to see how this is woeful and inappropriate character assassination - particularly from Democratic leadership (ie Pelosi and Reid). MoveOn are loudmouths - that's what their brand of activists are good at and good for, just like right-wingers of the same ilk. Might be fun to dig up APS feelings on "Swift Boat Veterans" and Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a fag...

Petraeus is not immune to political pressure (which is putting it lightly) and as thinking citizens we should question the credulity of his words and position. That he's a general doesn't a) make him infallible or b) make him honest. One word for the dangers of a career military officer beholden to the White House rather than the good of the nation: Westmoreland.

Which is not to say that Petraeus is lying - only that the anger here appears to stem primarily from the idea that someone might question his motives and truthfulness. He's no different from any other individual testifying before Congress.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,483
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2007, 07:09:56 PM »



Might be fun to dig up APS feelings on "Swift Boat Veterans" and Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a fag...
Those things are just not comparable. 

Quote
That he's a general doesn't a) make him infallible or b) make him honest.
  Did anyone here say he was?

Quote
Which is not to say that Petraeus is lying - only that the anger here appears to stem primarily from the idea that someone might question his motives and truthfulness.
  Not at all.  The anger stems from the transparency of the Dem's in judging Petraeus and his report well beforehand, then attacking him rather than actually trying to deal with the real issues in Iraq. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2007, 07:20:47 PM »
When it comes to things like what moveon.org does/did, I always say there is a thin line between freedom of speech and treasonous activities.

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2007, 07:33:46 PM »
Those things are just not comparable. 
All 'character assassination' is not created equal, eh?

Quote
Did anyone here say he was?
When you start equating treating a political individual as part of the political process: yes.

Quote
The anger stems from the transparency of the Dem's in judging Petraeus and his report well beforehand, then attacking him rather than actually trying to deal with the real issues in Iraq.
Except that we all do this, continually. We correctly discount the words of anyone with a vested interest - be they a party that stands to profit from a particular outcome, or someone for whom an ideological goal has been set (and thus results may be 'tweaked' to fit a desired outcome). That's all Reid and other Congressional Democrats have done: pointed out that Petraeus's loyalties don't necessarily lie with telling Congress the reality of the situation, but with justifying both Bush & Co plans and his previous statements on the matter.

They have to do this because, as illustrated in the WSJ and here, a general's words are treated as absolute fact in the media and by most individuals, who don't want to believe that military leaders are political animals.

And, of course, conflating MoveOn with the Congressional leadership is absurd - these are not sects that happily work together or represent the same viewpoints.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2007, 07:48:04 PM »
Quote
We correctly discount the words of anyone with a vested interest - be they a party that stands to profit from a particular outcome, or someone for whom an ideological goal has been set (and thus results may be 'tweaked' to fit a desired outcome). That's all Reid and other Congressional Democrats have done: pointed out that Petraeus's loyalties don't necessarily lie with telling Congress the reality of the situation, but with justifying both Bush & Co plans and his previous statements on the matter.

"Reid and other Congressional Democrats" represent the absolute worst ethical bankruptcy this country has ever seen.  These whores are completely devoid of any patriotism or statesmanship whatsoever.  Their only focus is on regaining  power and the psychopathic hatred of George Bush.  They are without substance or principles of any kind.  Everything they do and say is measured and poll driven.  Democrats are simply a collection of pussified self serving wimps who don't even deserve to lick Petraeus's boot's let alone be in the same room with him. 

Euclidean

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2007, 07:50:36 PM »
What matters to me is the way that the two parties are behaving. There's the Republicans supporting Bush, and then there's the Democrat presidential hopefuls who say they have a better solution. But their solution is not much different than Bush's.

Ron Paul 2008 Baby!

Then I'll have a bumper sticker made in '09 that reads "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul!"

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2007, 07:59:59 PM »
Ron Paul is simply the new Pat Buchanan.  In one word: Unelectable.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: Trashing Petraeus, from WSJ
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2007, 08:06:02 PM »
Ron Paul is simply the new Pat Buchanan.  In one word: Unelectable.

Actually all but one candidate is unelectable, hard part is picking out who that person is.

Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536