Moveon.org has an ad today in The New York Times regarding today's testimony which will certainly be that the .jpg)
9.10.2007
Surging Along
Moveon.org has an ad today in The New York Times regarding today's testimony which will certainly be that the 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
But Barry, it is going well. At any given point during the last 4.5 years we've always ever been making Great Progress in Iraq. You just ignore all that Progress because you're a dirty hippie surrender monkey who hates the troops and wants the terrorists to win.
Liberal weenies support the troops!
How interesting that you (Liberals) are willing to brand a man a liar before he says a word. Without hearing any of what he has to say. Without having seen any of the evidence he might present. Without consideration of the standards of honor and honesty he may have demonstrated during his lifetime.
Because you oppose the President.
Is there any depths to which you won't sink?
"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials-after the fact." Robert E. Lee, 1863
I hate when people say that, just because someone is a liberal, and is opposed to the war, that we don't support our troops. I hope they all come home OK. In fact, I support them so much, I want to bring them home! I just don't support the orders that they were given. (To invade and occupy a country).
Have we pulled our troops out of Germany, Japan and South Korea yet?
Wait a darned minute - the headline says nothing about what Patraus will say. It only asks a question. The answers will be more obvious AFTER his presentation. BTW - Patraus' boss, Admiral Fallon, has a very different take on progress in Iraq. Do you claim he doesn't support the troops?
I served during Viet Nam. I know soldiers whose names are on the Wall in DC. I support an intelligent foreign and military policy and the soldiers who are committed to our nation’s security. I just don’t support the mission they have been charged with in Iraq.
Just like the Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence to justify getting into the Iraq war, they also selectively pick which generals they listen to. Please recall that Bush fired several generals who offered a different view going into Iraq. General Patraeus is a very capable and ambitious officer. He'll do (and say) whatever it takes to get ahead rapidly.
I think that we are doing fine in the War. After 4 years, the greatest weapon from the world's greatest country is the enemy's suicide bomber. We get at least one every time. All we need to figure out is how to keep our troups away from them. We'll eventually win that war.
If "cooking the books" doesn't imply lying, then I misunderstand the meaning of the phrase.
And Barry's comment -- "will certainly be..." implies that the general is not to be believed.
Again, besmirching the man's honor based on nothing but opposition to Bush is slug-like behavior.
wordbile, did you actually review the long list of reports that seem to have a different take on the situation in Iraq? Let's give Patraeus the opportunity to make his case while also evaluating other qualified sources (like the NIE, the GAO, the State Dept., the commander of CENTCOM etc. etc.). Blindly following government information (propaganda?) has gotten various populations in trouble before.
I support the police also but I don't want them to get out of their police cars and be murdered by deranged idiots like the one over the weekend in Odessa.
Out of curiosity, Wordkyle, how are you any different. Time and again I've read your comments agreeing with administration positions (of the moment), apparently solely because you "support" the (this) President.
Personally, yes, I think moveon.org jumped the gun by now waiting to hear what the general actually had to say. But they are a highly charged political action group on the left (much like yours on the right), and that's just the kind of thing they do (not unlike the right-wing evangelicals and others who decry all Democrats without ever actually listening to them).
The "greatest generation" grew up in the Depression of the 30s, after that all-too-bountiful 20s, watching demogagues come to power all over Europe. They developed a healthy skepticism toward "leaders" of ever ilk.
It would do the present generation much good to learn from that example.
wk: your disingenousness is obvious. even a small amount of web-surfing will reveal that Petraeus is acting as a politician and opinion-maker rather than as a soldier (or certainly as some kind of objective, independent fact-finder).
Forget for a minute that he is supposed to be reporting on his own progress (gee, I wonder if he will give himself a passing grade?), he has a long track record of making overly optimistic pronouncements of how wonderfully things are going in Iraq -- many such pronouncements just coincidentally happening to come at the most politically opportune moments for the WH.
As just one example, he wrote a NYTimes op-ed a few weeks before the 2004 presidential elections in which he touted the remarkably great progress he himself was making in training the Iraqi security forces. These claims turned out to be completely wrong, though they sure came at a good time for his boss's political fortunes.
The General is a company man, whose own fortunes have risen in direct proportion to his willingness to say and do things which have opportunistic political benefits for the WH.
Under these circumstances, I do not think anyone is "sinking" to any particular "depths" by thinking that we should take what the General says with a grain of salt.
oh and also, this whole thing about "waiting to see what he has to say" is a really lame joke of a criticism. He's been making comments in the media for 2 weeks now, and various military and WH sources (including the president during his trip to Iraq last week) have already leaked the substance of his report.
One of thousands of examples: US News and World Report headline from early this morning: "Petraeus: Surge Working, Needs More Time".
there is no suspense whatsoever about what he will say. Anyone reading the news (or even watching teevee news) already knows, including you, so just stop already with this transparently silly objection.
11:33 - Since I became a target for you, please give an example or two of where I called someone a liar before hearing what they had to say.
11:19 - Disagreement with the general's conclusions isn't what moveon.org or Barry did. They claimed that he was going to lie before he uttered a word.
I guess it makes sense to some people to trust politicians and bureaucrats about war matters more than they trust a general. Politics and bureacracy couldn't be what's wrong with the progress in the war, could they?
I don't care if people agree with the President on anything or not. I certainly don't agree with the administration on everything.
However, disagreeing with someone politcally is different from impugning a man's honor and honesty because of differences with the President.
It's a despicable tactic which Liberals gleefully use at the earliest opportunity.
Recently, Democratic Congressman Brian Baird made a visit to Iraq. Baird has been an opponent of the war. He returned saying that the "surge" is improving things there. MoveOn immediately turned on him.
The Wall Street Journal did an article regarding MoveOn.Org stating that "[MoveOn] doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to punish and silence Democrats who dare think for themselves."
Apparently, they have alot of money from some very rich liberals. As near as I can tell, this outfit has no credibility, but they should not be taken lightly because of the huge budget they have.
Watching Gen. Patraeus' presentation of charts is mind numbing. Any of these charts is dependant upon numerical definitions. Everyone knows statistics (can) lie, and liars (can) use statistics. Once we can compare apples to apples we can evaluate the General's charts. I'm wondering if the congressmen will be prepared to specifically challenge any of the claims. We'll have to wait and see.
At the risk of sounding too far to the "right," I think that a simple solution would be to let our troops kill as many of those dirty stinking Iraqis as possible and pay them extra for every ear they brought to their commanding officer! Then they could come home sooner just like the liberals want. See? Then everyone would be happy! :) Bloodthirsty Conservatives get what we want and clueless surrender monkey liberal types get what they want! that being said, I'd be surprised if Der Barry posts this...
Thanks for the propaganda, Barry. You are a true American.
Hi Wordy, You said: Again, besmirching the man's honor based on nothing but opposition to Bush is slug-like behavior.
I think it was based mostly on all the reports in the liberally biased media that is owned completely by conservatives but somehow still manages to report nothing but liberally slanted news. It was even reported in that Communist rag the Washington Post. So of course we'll take your word over their's any day.
Moveon.org is still a cohesive organization? I figured any educated person thought they were a joke after their propaganda machine failed so miserably in the last election. This is another sorry attempt at leftist "noise" trying to influence the weak-minded, Oprah watching, liberally leaning, law-school graduating, welfare collecting, James Carville admiring, Daily Show watching, Bush bashing, Clinton missing, draft dodging, dope smoking, Kanye West listening, tree hugging, Crawford ranch camping, loud mouthed no job having hippie dippie doofus protest-every-thing-that-my-parents-believe loser into drinking the Demo kool-aid!
I got news for them, the only thing that's ever going to "move on" is their "fad" of thinking that the majority of Americans think the way they do! It's going to be another sad November for MoveOn.org. bwaaaahahaha!
moveon.org is just a bunch of celebrities who think their fame can influence people to do their bidding.
2:29 PM
Damn!
2:29 - where were you during the last election? Didn't you notice that Democrats won the majority in the Senate, the House and in governorships? The next election may finally give the Democrats a veto proof majority in the Senate. While MoveOn.org doesn't represent all of us liberals, living in Wise Co gives you a very distorted view of the mood in the rest of the country.
You have to understand that organizations like MoveOn and most of the mainstream print and broadcast media are run by people who were most strongly influenced by (and for some reason admired) the anti-war, drug, and free love culture of the sixties.
The drug worship has gotten us a bunch of burn out cases, and a large percentage of the the welfare state are there because of drug abuse. The free love got us a myriad of incurable sexually transmitted diseases and liberal do gooders handing out condoms to our kids. What do you think anti-war philosophy will get us? It will get us taken over, that's what. I like my liberties, and I intend to keep them. Hopefully, the next President will work as he should to reduce the size of the federal government and increase our individual liberties to the levels intended by our founding fathers.
Did any of you people pay attention in your history and civics classes?
"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
-- George Washington, First Annual Message, January 8, 1790
crud: you make a couple of decent points. I especially agree with the part about hopefully our next president will reduce the size of the government and restore our liberties (though I'm not sure how that squares with your criticism of the personal freedoms being exercised by the sixties counterculture).
But to respond to your quotes from Jefferson and Washington:
1. Be careful with this quote from Jefferson. He was referring to spilling the blood of tyrants in our own country, not in other countries.
2. Note that Washington didn't say you preserve peace by waging war, but rather being prepared to wage war. And unfortunately, as a result of the over-extension of our military in Iraq (which was not a direct threat to us), the U.S. is not prepared for war. This is the very same point made recently by Admiral Fallon, Petraeus's superior officer (i.e., we should redeploy some of our troops from Iraq to increase our preparedness for other potential threats -- sorry, don't have a link for you, you'll have to look it up).
The point being, I don't think the so-called "liberals" on this blog are against military action in general, just against this particular example of military action.
Hey crud: Who Controls the Media
I don't think you will find any connection between these companies and MoveOn but you will find plenty of connections with "the mainstream print and broadcast media." But don't ever let the facts get in your way.
Another day, another controversy.
I almost spewed milk out of my nose, seeing TS talk about facts...
Moveon.org's main benefactor is billionaire George Soros, (notorious for his hatred for Bush,) who gave $5 million to moveon, in addition to the nearly $25 million he gave to various groups devoted to defeating Bush in 2004. The money, I'm happy to say, was wasted.
Crud's comment was about the people who run the media -- namely the publishers, editors and reporters. You try to shift the focus on ownership, rather than the actual actions of the media. To wit:
A report in the Washington Post says that reporters who show bias in their reporting do it heavily in favor of Democrats. (Read the link to the list for the details. They're juicy.)
A UCLA study makes evident the left-leaning bias in the media. "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
Not to mention the most heinous example of liberal media bias, Rathergate, when Liberal media star Dan Rather tried to influence a presidential election using forged documents.
I'm stopping for space, not for lack of further examples of the media's Liberal bias.
Crud Bonemeal is correct.
wordbile, Your examples may be somewhat accurate as newspeople are (somewhat) educated and interested in the news. That possibly makes them more intelligent than some others - and therefore, more liberal. As for your "Rathergate" strawman - the documents were not the originals but the facts they portray very likely are accurate. Bush's saving grace was that the reporting officer had died so could not verify his reports. Please recall that Garry Trudeau had a standing offer of $1,000,000 for anyone who could show he/she served with Bush in Alabama. He never had any takers. Nuff said.
Wordy, There are just as many or more studies that show the liberal bias is a myth. How else can you explain the FACT that so many people STILL believe the many lies about 9-11/Iraq/WMDs/Osama, etc.?
The CEO's are conservative and many have admitted that their editorial policies come from the top down.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting> found that journalists are "mostly centrist in their political orientation. "FAIR uses this study to support the claim that media bias is propagated down from the management, and that individual journalists are relatively neutral in their work." Accusations of liberal media bias have been compared to coaches who work the referees in sports hoping they will cut their team some slack. It's a part of the conservative strategy.
Just count the number of liberals and the number of conservatives on the talk shows next Sunday.
I prefer to get my news from sources outside the U.S.
Plus the secretary who typed the original memo said that the facts were accurate.
8:38,
Citing Garry Trudeau is about the most ignorant thing I've seen on this blog. Firstly, It was $10,000, not a million. Big difference. Secondly, research how this CARTOONIST who is married to Jane Pauley fell for the biggest practical joke in the last 10 years when he and The Guardian magazine collaborated on a story that GWB had an IQ of 91 and Bill Clinton had an IQ of 180 ~ neither of which was true. The magazine and the CARTOONIST both were forced to make public apologies and retractions, oh yeah, just like Dan Rather. Do your research before you pop off there, genius. I don't know why I even waste my time on this blog with all these blowhard liberals. Oh yeah. it's so much fun being right all the time!
Hey TxSheehan, Did the secretary say which political party she belonged to or did Dan ask? And she must have one hell of a memory if she can remember everything she ever typed.
Fake but accurate! That's the best Danism ever. Even better than "If frogs had pockets they would carry handguns."
Hey Big Barry,
Moveon paid the Times a hundred grand to run this ad, how much did they pay you?
My God, even Nancy Pelosi CONDEMNED the ad... now that she's in, I don't guess she's afraid of Moveon...
Hey Sheehan, If the media is owned and run by conservatives, why are they not reporting all the money Norman Hsu gave to Hillary?
Support of this war and these warmongers is both rediculous and expected of "conservatives".
"anon" 8:38 - "more intelligent, therefore more liberal" -- just before you get your facts wrong about Trudeau's offer. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.
The point about Rathergate was this: the documents were forged, not "not the originals." It was done with an intent to deceive, and Dan Rather played loose with the facts, figuring he'd get away with it.
TS: You toss all your flotsam into one basket -- WHAT "lies" about [fill in the blank]? If you want to discuss the ignorance of the American people, then make sure you mention "U.S. Americans" and South Africa, as well.
As for FAIR: 1) It refers to itself as a "Liberal media watchdog," so it starts off with a bias (as opposed to the sources I cited, which are NOT conservative by nature.) 2) It actively pushes for censorship of information it doesn't like; in 2006, FAIR criticized U.S. media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, taking issue with the assertion that "... Hugo Chávez is an autocrat who has consolidated one-party rule". FAIR has frequently defended the Chávez government against such criticism [from Wikipedia]. So FAIR is a Liberal activist group.3) The FAIR "study" you cited was self-administered. The journalists defined themselves as "centrist." The study has no outside independent viewpoint of how the journalists actually cover the news.
The same article goes on to state that the journalists voted for Bill Clinton in large numbers, and defines this stance as "centrist."
"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents" - Walter Cronkite
I have no problem with someone who disagrees with the strategy or report. I do have a problem with any legitimate organization who would impugn the honesty and integrity of a 30 year veteran with an untainted record who is leading our troops in war.
I would expect this from Al Jazeera, but not an American organization. This is an attack on an American General. It has gone from calling the President a liar to calling a General a liar. Go ahead and disagree, but if you must publicly defame someone's character, you might as well be a tabloid.
This same thing happened about a half century ago. Senator Joe McCarthy called General George Marshall a traitor and visciously attacked his character in the name of politics. This is history repeating itself and it's tragic for the U.S. Get ready, the fallout will be very similar.
DC
Post a Comment