Self Editor

Forum: pol
Page 2975
Subject: General Betray Us

Posted by: Pancho Villa - [47161721] Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 11:57

I;m suprised there's been no comment on MoveOn.org's full page ad in the NY Times

I find this ad to be offensive and repulsive, and predict it will have long-term negative effects on the Democratic party's chances in 2008, not only in the Presidential race, but the Congressional as well.

It is an incredible miscalculation that serves no purpose other than to give ammunition to the right that liberals are incapable of supporting the US military. The American people will accept insults about lots of politicians(Cheney comes to mind), but to insult a military commander, especially at a time when he is in the process of some modicum of success on the battlefield, reeks of partisanship beyond debating the pros and cons of the Iraq conflict.

Democratic presidential hopefuls would be wise to condemn the ad immediately.

Perm Dude
ID: 35848138
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 12:06

I think it pushes the line, but doesn't go over it. The ad is clearly focused on the General himself, and his own words being at odds with the facts. It isn't anti-military.

The truth is that a huge percentage of Americans want us out of Iraq, and are therefore already disinclined to agree with Patraeus on Iraq.

Razor
ID: 136523110
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 12:27

I didn't catch who it was, but someone on NPR yesterday was very critical of the ad and said Patraeus is part of a group of people that were brushed aside by the Administration early in the war but whose success and objectivity are now being leaned on now that the war is not going well. He argued that Patraeus was not a puppet of the Administration. Rather, he said that Patreaus was being asked to do it all himself, which is why some of the rhetoric appears to be the same. I agree with his argument that attacks on Patraeus' character are not where the Iraq debate needs to be headed.

ukula
ID: 5828138
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 12:40

I'd like to order a large basket of "Freedom Fries" please.

I'm personally insulted when anyone criticizes any of my politicians or military commanders. We as Americans have no right to undermine to progress that we've made in Iraq. Over 650,000 Iraqis no longer have to fear anything anymore, no longer have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or anything about their future. They have "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to thank for that. "But they have cellphones!!!", I hear people say. How many of us would trade in our loved ones for a technological upgrade?

I can't believe anyone would stoop so low as to call General Petraeus, General Betray Us. Can you just imagine the incredible amount of hurt they just imposed on him and his family? His feelings must be hurt tremendously. Damn those anti-war nuts!!!! - they don't care who they hurt!!! Don't they realize that we're waging this war in the name of peace?? How many more Iraqi civilians and US soldiers must die before these communist left-wing liberals realize all of the good we're bringing to Iraq.

Where are my Freedom Fries??? I want my Freedom Fries!!!!

Support Our Troops!!!!

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 12:55

Petraeus was appointed by Bush to lead the military command in Iraq. Who has he betrayed? In actuality, Petraeus has implemented policies that have had an overall positive effect on the ground in Iraq.
That said, if anything, the ad would be more spot on if he had been portrayed as "General Don't Tell the Whole Story", as he ignores and evades certain situations that are germane to our occupation. His silence on Al-Sadr's orders to the Mahdi Army for a basic 6 month cease fire is deafening. His silence on Kirkuk is deafening. His silence on who controls security in Basra is deafening. His silence on Turkish and Iranian shelling of Kurdish border villages is deafening(although he did implicate Iran arming militias without offering evidence).

Even more guilty of this evasion is Crocker. Following Garner, Bremer, Negroponte and Khalilzad has done nothing for continuity in our diplomatic relations with Iraqis, but at least Khalilzad succedded in pressuring a government to be formed and subsequently a constitution to be written.
What has Crocker accomplished, except watching the government basically dissolve into a SCIRI/DAWA-controlled ally of Iran, is a further distance between the sects.
The Kurds passed their own energy policy and are signing contracts with foreign oil corps in defiance of Baghdad. Of course, when the oil company is Hunt Oil Co. of Texas, who, as as Josh Marshall points out

Hunt, in addition to being the son of legendary Texas John Birch Society extremist H.L. Hunt, is also a pal of the president's. Indeed, President Bush has twice appointed Hunt to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So while the president is striving to get the Iraqis to meet these benchmarks one of his own pals -- and more importantly, political appointees -- is busy helping to tear the whole thing apart.

I can see why Crocker wouldn't want that brought up in Senate hearings. Now, why aren't Democrats focusing on meaty issues like that?

Perm Dude
ID: 40851312
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 13:05

A good point. The political appointees have a lot to answer for, and less ability to duck hard questions.

The whole idea of having Petraeus testify seems a little silly to me. This just gives more cover to Bush, to cover himself in respect intended for the military doing their jobs while avoiding the question of whether they should be there in the first place. The bigger question isn't whether the military is doing its job there, creating the space necessary for the Iraqis to bring about a political and diplomatic solution. It is whether we should be there at all.

Every single problem that the Administration warned us would be a result of us leaving "too soon" has actually already come about as a result of us staying.

This skit, however, explains much:

Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 13:13

I find this ad to be offensive and repulsive

Why? because it makes a bad pun with his name? Just look at your post 4, you have quite a few issues with his honesty. Simply reporting to Congress a few "not as bad as we feared" points while ignoring major problems is not being honest.

You may not like the ad, it may not have worked for you, but you aren't a political pollster or ad executive, it may be a very effective ad amongst the undecideds. Personally, I agree with the small print, but fear that most people will not read that far. I am insulted that news media write headlines about "troop reductions in less than a year". What a joke. Let's throw a bone to Joe Sixpack who dislikes this war but whose attention can be diverted with a few headlines, then just proceed with whichever way is most profitable.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 13:54

Simply reporting to Congress a few "not as bad as we feared" points while ignoring major problems is not being honest.

But the Congress had the opportunity to question Petraeus(and Crocker) about specifics in Iraq and failed to do so. Petraeus report had to parrot the administration's talking points, but how does that excuse Congress for such lame generalities as,

Sen. John Warner, in his courtly Virginian manner, cut to a key question: "Are you able to say at this time, if we continue . . . that that is making America safer?"

Petraeus responded, in a low-key manner, "I believe that this is the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."

"Does that make America safer?" Warner persisted.

"Sir, I don't know actually," Petraeus said. He explained that he has been thinking about the mission in Iraq. "I have not stepped back" to look at the global picture.

Petraeus' answer seems honest there. But why is Warner asking Petraeus such a banal question that calls for an opinion in the first place?
Because, as SZ points out, Joe Sixpack who dislikes this war but whose attention can be diverted with a few headlines.

Joe Sixpack doesn't know Kurdistan from Uzbekistan, but Congress should. Here's more BS questioning from Lindsey Graham:

Under questioning by Graham, Petraeus acknowledged that his own son, an ROTC cadet at MIT, "may well" go to Iraq after graduation.

"There's no 'may well,' " snapped Graham. "He'll either be in Iraq or Afghanistan. You know that, don't you?"

Graham continued: "And the recommendations you're making make it more likely that your own son is going to go to war. You know that, don't you?"

"That's correct, sir," Petraeus answered.

What does this have to do with military progress in Iraq? What a waste of time.

Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Thu, Sep 13, 2007, 14:40

I completely agree with you, Congress was tossing softballs and it is infuriating.

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 11:29

I'm still on record as opposing the MoveOn.org ad as an insulting attack on Petraeus, especially as it ran prior to any testimony or presentation. I also still believe it will cause tremendous damage to future Democratic election opportunities.

However, after further review, I have to condemn Petraeus for his lack of candor and honesty relating to border issues with Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkey and Iran.

In an embarrassing capitulation to Turkey:

Just recently US Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force - Iraq (MNF-I), delivered his much anticipated report to Congress on the current situation in Iraq. His speech was accompanied 13 slides used to illustrate a variety of points. The first slide is called “Major Threats to Iraq”, a simple map of Iraq with yellow labels showing geographic regions in which various groups are causing problems for, one can presume, the US-led coalition forces and/or the Iraqi government.

The city of Mosul, which has been troubled for years, remains a virtual no-go zone for anyone but some of its residents. Most natives of the nearby Dohuk or Erbil provinces would not attempt to enter the city for any reason. Thus, it is no surprise that the yellow label “AQI” (al-Qa’ida in Iraq) appears between the cities of Mosul and Tal Afar, both in the Ninewa (Mosul) province. On the map, due north of Mosul and just under the Turkish border in the Dohuk province is another yellow label reading “PKK” (Kurdistan Workers Party). As Dohuk is perhaps the safest province in Iraq, it is curious that one of the “Major Threats to Iraq” seems to be based there.

What is the nature of the PKK threat to Iraq and the coalition forces? Thousands of PKK members to reside at the sprawling PKK base in the Qendil Mountains, which straddle the Iran/Iraq border and are quite far from the yellow label on Petraeus’ map. Over the past few years, the PKK has exchanged fire with Turkish security personnel, and its sister organization, PJAK (Kurdistan Free Life Party), has struggled against the forces of the Iranian regime. However, since the US entered Iraq in March 2003, the PKK has not raised arms against any Iraqi forces, and the PKK has not targeted US or other coalition forces. Indeed, while anti-US criticism is quite common in the Middle East and can be heard from all sides, including those who the US is fond of labeling as allies, the PKK is not a part of this chorus. In an interview with the British Daily Telegraph yesterday, Murat Karayýlan, the de facto military leader of the PKK movement, stated, “The US and Britain came to Iraq to establish a democratic system, but this scared the Iranians, so they negotiated with us and offered many things to attack the coalition. But we told the Iranians that the US and Britain were going to solve the Kurdish problem and we will be with them.”

link

But it doesn't stop there. As expected, Petraeus condemned Iran for interference in Iraq:

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, said on Monday the flow of Iranian weapons into Iraq has increased but that Iranian Quds force trainers had withdrawn.

"It appears that that is increasing and we do not see a sign of that abating," Petraeus said of weapons flows, citing increased attacks by one type of roadside bomb technology and rockets that U.S. military officials link to Iran.

"The Quds force itself, we believe by and large those individuals have been pulled out of the country as have the Lebanese Hezbollah trainers that were being used to augment that activity," he said.

link

As noted in bold, "it appears","officials link" and "we believe" are not statements of solid evidence, but estimations, calculations and conclusions.
So, one has to wonder(not really) why undisputable truths of Iranian incursions into Iraq (not "it appears, we believe or officials link") are completely ignored:

Attacks by Iranian troops on Kurdish and Christian villages of the Iraqi federal state of Kurdistan: 450 families driven out by continual artillery attacks.
Iranian troops have in the past few days repeatedly carried out artillery attacks on Kurdish and Assyro-Chaldaic villages in northern Iraq. According to information received by the Society for Threatened Peoples (GfbV) in Arbil about 450 Kurdish and Christian families from the province of Sulaimaniya have had to flee after their houses were hit or shells fell in their fields and gardens.

link

These are not isolated instances. This is a continual circumstance. One might ask,
"Why would the US military and political leaders not respond to, or at least publicly condemn, such transgressions as cross-border artillery attacks on Iraqi citizens? Why would the media be complicit in not reporting such transgressions?"

And, of course, the answer is simple. The US would have to also condemn Turkey because it does exactly the same thing - lobs artilley across the border into Kurdistan while we look the other way, call the PKK terrorists and say nothing about PJAK.

But like I said, you'll see nothing of this in Petraeus' report, except the false claim that the PKK is a major threat to Iraq. Pitiful.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 19:10

The flap over the cost of MoveOn's ad.

So how deep was the discount MoveOn.org got for its famous ad suggesting General Petraeus is a traitor?

The Times tells FOX News that the published rate for a similar ad is a little under $182,000. MoveOn confirms to the New York Post that it paid only $65,000 — a discount of almost $117,000. A Times spokeswoman denies the rate charged indicated a political bias.

Republican Senate Whip Trent Lott told FOX News, "I assume the New York Times gave them the friends and family discount."

That's from Brit Hume, the so-called "straight shooter" over at Fox News. The text was actually a transcript of his "Grapevine" segment from his show.

From today's (Times rival) NY Daily News:

All Giuliani needed was one bogus newspaper story and $64,575 in campaign cash, both of which the Republican presidential hopeful used yesterday to spawn a bonanza of free publicity in the conservative blogosphere.

In one of the more transparent stunts of the 2008 presidential race, Giuliani began the day by accusing The Times of selling the Democrat-friendly MoveOn.org a "heavily discounted" ad on Monday that cast U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us."

But Giuliani's facts were challenged. Any advocacy group seeking to place a single, full-page, black-and-white ad in The Times on "standby" over a seven-day period - the paper picks the day - pays what MoveOn.org did, $64,575, sources said.

The New York Post reported The Times charges a higher rate, $181,692, setting up erroneous charges MoveOn got a "lefty" discount. But the higher price is for ads guaranteed to run on a specific day, said Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.

All of which were details-schmetails to Team Giuliani, which leaped at the chance to hit three of the right's top liberal demons.

"These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom," said Giuliani in his ad, just above a Web address for his campaign.

Here's the Fox News home page.

Here's the Brit Hume page at foxnews.com (where the lead story is still "The New York Times gives MoveOn a deep discount").

Here's the NY Post Home Page (where the 4th item under the "News Alerts section" is "Giuliani Attacks Clinton in Campaign Ad".

Anyone care to show me the retractions?

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 19:17

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 19:20

Even the normally reliable Ed Morrissey is duped by the right-wing media's hack job on the Times.

Perm Dude
ID: 138411411
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 19:57

Glenn Greewald on the Right's hypocrisy

Starting to be redundant...

Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 20:07

MITH and PD,
You know full well that retractions never carry the same weight as the original accusation.

And this accusation of preferential rates makes the entire ad fiasco even worse for Democrats than I originally thought.

A really, really stupid idea.

Perm Dude
ID: 138411411
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 20:24

We've entered the nasty part of the campaign already. It'll only get worse if Clinton gets the nod, unfortunately. If Obama gets it, it'll be like the Illinois Senate race all over again.

That said, it is time Dems stop shying away from this whole "unpatriotic" charge. Republicans will keep trying to pin in on Dems (any Dem) until either Democrats effectively counter it, or Republicans start looking silly doing it.

Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 20:58

While they are at it perhaps the Dems might shy away from the whole "Joe Sixpack" charge, especially if they intend to represent themselves as the party of the common man.

tree on the treo
ID: 39831915
Fri, Sep 14, 2007, 21:34

the dems have to stop being nice. it helped cost kerry the presidency, and if the dems don't start fighting back, it'll cost them again.

that's why I like hilary. I think she'l go for the balls and squeeze squeeze squeeze...

Perm Dude
ID: 18341511
Sat, Sep 15, 2007, 18:19

Is that more of what we need? Someone to squeeze the balls of their political opponents?

Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Sun, Sep 16, 2007, 10:31

...because we all know Americans really warm up to a ball-busting woman.

Perm Dude
ID: 59831168
Sun, Sep 16, 2007, 10:44

I agree. I also think that a ball-busting man is exactly what we don't need either.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 911552612
Sun, Sep 16, 2007, 13:37

An agenda of "stop being nice", valid or not, certainly doesn't apply to bashing Patreus. He isn't America's enemy and the anti-war left should realize he isn't their enemy either.

Perm Dude
ID: 10845189
Tue, Sep 18, 2007, 14:13

McCain: Throw them out of the country

What an idiot.

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Tue, Sep 18, 2007, 16:17

The Bigger Picture

I think MoveOn did not think it through if there could be negative repercussions to their aligned party with the ad, but in general, I am not bothered by it. At the end of the day, Petraeus' role as Bush's spokesperson and contradictory stats about the effectiveness of the surge are far more outrageous than this ad. Ad-shmad. It's America; the right to make ads like this is American. What's outrageous is the faux outrage from the right and the lack of backbone by the left to say that the spirit of the ad is correct: the military man Petraus aint doing the country any favors by continuing to endorse an endless unwinnable occupation.

walk
ID: 2530286
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 08:58

The President of Hypocrisy

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 10:25

re 21 I disagree MITH. I think the ad, is right on the money. Gen Petraeus is not serving the needs of the military, he is no0t serving the needs of the nation, in endorsing a continuation of the shrubbery debacle in Iraq. What he is serving, is his own political interest. In so doing, he is IMHO, selling out the country for his own benefit and that my friend is precisely the definition of "enemy of the state".

In a sense, its hard to blame him, when one considers the senior military personnel forced into "retirement" by this admin and/or its underlings. That however, doesnt excuse a General Officers shirking of his greater duty and the oath he, along with all other uniformed personnel swore, to protect this country from enemies both foreign AND domestic.

In failing to do so, he is IMHO, indeed "betraying" us, and that makes the moveon.org ad, dead on the money. Being accurate, the org certainly has nothing to apologize for, nor should the Dem party, distance itself from the ad. Rather, they should embrace it, defy and confront those who would claim it tobe shameful.

walk
ID: 2530286
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 11:04

Courageous post, sarge33rd. I agree. Petraeus' job is not to be the spokesperson for our foreign policies. Bush et al exploited him as a puppet hoping that his military credentials would buffer criticism and temper details about the surge's effectiveness. I think the ad would have been more politically effective had it been one showing Bush & Cheney as puppeteers holding the strings of Petraeus instead of slamming Petraeus straight-up (he's still a subordinate afterall taking orders from the president). Nonetheless, Petraeus' testimony is very micro focused trying to justify a band-aide approach to staunching a huge gaping wound that requires much more than the troops we have and more so the lack of diplomacy being undertaken. It's sad that many folks in our country are potentially sidetracked by the faux outrage from the right over this ad instead of the real outrage they should have over the real failure and major future consequences of our war. "Aaaaaaah, I think I'll just go to the mall." Some war.

Perm Dude
ID: 30851217
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 11:21

In the end, public opinion of the war did not change, despite the efforts of the administration to put the face of a good soldier on their own failed policies.

We're again faced with Republicans who have sold their soul to a utterly discredited and failed policies, and Democrats who lack the balls to do the right thing. I'm afraid Dems (who really are the only party who can make the necessary changes to this disaster) have undermined their own momentum and chances at success by continuing to not only pull their punches but to continue to hand the Administration what the Administration wants.

pd

PS: Walk, check out the blog. I threw a pic up their yesterday.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 11:58

I'm afraid Dems (who really are the only party who can make the necessary changes to this disaster) have undermined their own momentum and chances at success by continuing to not only pull their punches but to continue to hand the Administration what the Administration wants.

I have to agree PD. The Dems, IMHO, REALLY need to quit defensing and start attacking the Republican Party. Attack the record, attack the policies...NOT the claimed media policies of family values et al, but the implemented policies which are historic fact.

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 13:00

The Dems, IMHO, REALLY need to quit defensing and start attacking the Republican Party

So, is an insulting ad aimed at Petraeus(before he even gave his report) attacking Republicans? We all know Bush is clueless. But that's not Petraeus' fault. It sounds more like you want Petraeus to be political, rather than to execute his appointed duties.
I have already expressed my displeasure that the Petraeus' report was incomplete and flawed. However, it must be honestly stated that the surge is accomplishing some very important goals in Iraq, ie marginalizing the foreign jihadists(generically and fallaciously known as Al Qaeda in Iraq) and mobilizing the local populace in Anbar and Diyala to create thier own localized security(as opposed to relying on a Shiite-dominated and militia-infiltrated national army).

I get just as incensed as you guys when I hear Republicans and their apologists scream,
"The surge is working, the surge is working,"
but I also get incensed when Democrats scream,
"The surge is a failure, the surge is a failure."

The reality is that it is both a success and a failure. Reducing the foreign jihad presence and influence in Iraq is vital. A structure that allows for self-determination politically, economically, and provides security between the three sects is just as vital.

Rather than just generally attacking Republicans, Democrats should applaud Joe Biden for working with Sam Brownback in presenting a positive and bipartisan proposal to the Senate.
Other Republicans, like Lugar, Hagel, Warner, Snow and Paul have shown a willingness to break from the administration mantra of national unity and support for a Baghdad govermnent that is controlled by Iranian-allied Islamists under Bush's nose.

Perm Dude
ID: 7822111
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 13:10

Well, my post was about attacking the Administration, who are the ones to blame for the entire mess. I don't know if that's how sarge meant it, but coming on the heels of my post I suspect that he'd agree with me that the targets should be the politicians, particularly ones that try to hide behind the fruit salad on the chests of military men & women. At least, the ones that are agreeing with the policy-of-the-moment.

Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 13:35

However, it must be honestly stated that the surge is accomplishing some very important goals in Iraq, ie marginalizing the foreign jihadists(generically and fallaciously known as Al Qaeda in Iraq)

Well, that may be true, PV, but you know as well as I that the foreign jihadists are a tiny fraction of the participants in these battles. Every estimate I've heard is that they are less than 10% of the men picking up arms.

Reducing the foreign jihad presence and influence in Iraq is vital.

I disagree, I don't think the foreign presence is much more than a few drops upon a Pollack canvas that is the Iraq mess.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 13:40

Sarge 25

I believe its been expressed in posts that followed but IMO its folly to expect a general on the ground to level a political assessment of the military's efforts.

To steal an analogy that Wes Clark made on various talk shows last week (pimping his book) its like expecting a quarterback to tell his coach that the team is better off cutting it's loss and throwing in the towel rather than playing out the 4th quarter hard when there is no chance to win.

Patraeus' duty to us is to see his mission succeed. Issuing a report that would satisfy you or MoveOn would only further complicate that duty. Its a situation that he (and we) shouldn't be in in the first place, but it is what it is.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 13:42

It was pretty much a foregone conclusion, that the Gen was simply going to echo the administrations "claims", and thats pretty much what he did. His report showed no integrity, no inclination to call into question any of the administrations decisions/choices and pretty much rubber-stamped what shrub wanted him to say in the first place.

For that lack of intestinal fortitude, yes...the General deserves the roasting that moveon.org gave him.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 13:48

re 32...the difference in your analogy MITH, is that the "offensive line" wont be killed if they lose the game.

Yes, the Gen has the duty of fulfilling his mission. He also has the duty to preserve the integrity of the US Armed Forces. (Integrity in this case, meaning combat effectiveness.) This mission, is unattainable militarily. This mission, has already reduced morale to the point that Officers near retirement, are leaving service vs serving another tour in Iraq. Sr NCOs, are leaving service 1 and 2 years short of retirement, vs serving another combat tour in Iraq. This "mission", has been devestating to the state of readiness for our military. To return to your analogy, if the O-line was dead, if the 2nd stringers were hospitalized, if you were down to your waterboy and equipment manager, I think the QB would be entirely justified in telling the coach...throw in the towel. This game is out of hand.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 13:51

You might as well ask the White House chef to discuss the finer points of the President's preference for hot dogs and then roast the guy for failing to be honest about the President's lack of taste for fine cuisine.

Patraeus' duty is to manage and execute the plan. He wouldn't be doing a very good job if he chose to publicly criticize it - even if he was right. Politics are not his responsibility.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 13:55

Politics, and honesty, became his responsibility and one he assumed, when it became understood that his report would be public.

Perm Dude
ID: 7822111
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 14:03

That's not his job, sarge. His job is to follow the direction of his superiors, provided it does not violate the regulations of the Army.

It has nothing to do with being public. In fact, many people in the military keep themselves honest by assuming that everything they do and say can be public. Actual public testimony is not a license to politicize the process and going outside the bounds of your mandate.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 14:11

It wowuld be my contention, that by seemingly blilndly endorsing the admins policies, w/o regard to the effectiveness of those policies, and continuing this charade over there, the Gen has sold himself out TO politics, vs his duties as a career officer.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 14:12

Sarge 36

His loyalties lie with seeing his mission succeed. If assessing it candidly before the legislature means undermining his chances for success (however low those chances might already be) its not a hard choice for him to make. Its what we expect of our military.

I don't believe you made a habit of undermining through public derision the ongoing orders of your commanding officers when they didn't work as planned.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 15:17

I was a Non-Comm. Never had access to the totality of the "big picture", so no. You're right, I didnt. But to quote the General"

"Sir, I don't know actually," Petraeus said. He explained that he has been thinking about the mission in Iraq. "I have not stepped back" to look at the global picture.

THAT, was his precise duty. To view the big picture and figure out how to make the pieces fit.

Perm Dude
ID: 7822111
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 15:23

If the big picture includes Congressional politics, no, that isn't his job.

The big picture is only useful so much as to complete his mission. His job isn't to step back and see if he should be completing the task assigned to him by a superior office.

That task is the President's. No one else.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 15:30

He said he didn't know because assessing "the global picture" is not his job. His job is to successfully manage the mission in Iraq. The "global picture" is something greater than that, something that Iraq is only a part of.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 15:30

The General was appointed by Pres Bush, IIRC...almost as the CZAR of Iraqi policy. With so much hoopla re the title/authority, that wasnt it you PD, who posted that thisposition already existed...and was called the President?

Patraeus was setup by Bush, as the fall guy. If thepolicies didnt work, it would be his failure. If they did, it would be evidence that Bush was right all along. Patraeus played right into it, by selling out his duty to his subordinates and his duty to the uniform, for his own political security. I think he did this, not out of any conviction to see the mission completed, but out of the realization that every General who has stood up and said the truth, has been pushed out service. Thus, I dont see his posturing as a committment to his duty, so much as his commitment to his own career continuation.

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 15:35

Patraeus was setup by Bush, as the fall guy

I don't agree. He was set up to deflect criticsm from Bush. No one will blame Patraeus if the war fails. Some will blame Bush, others will blame "the Democrats".

I dont see his posturing as a committment to his duty, so much as his commitment to his own career continuation.

You're sounding like Baldwin the mind-reader now.

Perm Dude
ID: 7822111
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 15:39

almost as the CZAR of Iraqi policy

Well, no. Not at all. The General was promoted to execute the military objectives as laid out by the President and by the SecDef. He is not in charge of political policy at all.

Perhaps you are confusing David Patraeus with Lt. Gen Lute?

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 15:58

re 45...you are correct on the confusion on my part there PD.

MITH...Baldwin??? C'mon now...you'll have us both in here denying any such thing. I'm simply relating MY impressions. Of course, the fact that Patraeus said almost exactly what his and the admins detractors had predicted...couldnt have anything to do with the conclusion I have drawn. Could it?

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 16:21

The "conclusion" of yours that drew the Baldwin comparison was the idea that Patraeus' motivations for his flawed testimony were to serve his career ambitions rather than his military responsibilities.

His job is to execute the strategy. Not to critique it.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 16:39

Agreed and understood. My error, compounded by my own confusion re the two differing positions. Still, his flawed testimony, raises serious concerns. When tesatifying before Congress, your duty, is to be candid, not politically correct in your responses. (Which is why I never osught a commission. I dont play the political game worth a damn. If something is wrong, I said as much.)

Perm Dude
ID: 7822111
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 16:41

Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage

biliruben
ID: 17502215
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 17:17

Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 17:55

Actually, much of the current strategy is Petraeus's, who wrote the counter-terrorism manual like 3 years ago, and whether or not people will admit it, some of that policy is succeeding.
It was the administration and their willing pundits, not Petraeus, who abused the word "terrorist" to the point that anyone in Iraq who was armed and opposing the US fell into that category. It made the association with 9/11 without fraudulently coming out and saying Iraqis were involved. Petraeus' was partially responsible, perhaps primarily responsible, for leading the administration away from that mindset.
But as SZ pointed out, the foreign jihadists, the real terrorists, are but a small percentage of the combatants in Iraq, though the administration used them as the primary justification for the surge. That, and to provide "breathing room" for the national unity government to develop. This is where the real failure lies in relation to the surge, so if anyone should have been accused and insulted for not being candid, it's Ryan Crocker, whose job it is to report on the political aspects. Why is Crocker shielded from scorn? Is it that his name doesn't conveniently rhyme with an insult?

walk
ID: 2530286
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 18:03

I guess cos Crocker is not the front man with the medals, PV. Although, he has been part of this dual persona representing the case of the surge.

I still think this surge and the reaction to the advert misses the big pic: the surge is not sustainable, is basically a whack-a-mole strategy, and should be but a minor effort in comparison to diplomacy and efforts to obtain help from other countries (which we cannot do right now cos we have alienated all of them). At the end of the day, it seems the best case for the surge is based on curious stats and the worst case is the common sense view that the problems in Iraq are very long-term, very severe, and un-solvable by our country alone...with a military surge and with a diplomatic surge. We made a big miscalculation a long time ago and cannot solve it on our own. The rest of the case for the surge is just micro-level cherry picked analysis that in the larger scheme is but a few grain of sands towards what is necessary to stabilize Iraq.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 21, 2007, 18:34

Wasnt the last time a "surge" was attempted in the conduct of war, what we now refer to a the BAttle of the Bulge? Said surge having shortened the nations capacity to wage war by a year or perhaps even more?

Perm Dude
ID: 368192311
Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 10:32

Times says they made a mistake with the ad price\. MoveOn.org will pay the difference in the regular price and the discount rate. This doesn't answer the question of whether the Times should have run the ad in the first place (it seems more of a judgement call to me about their own standards, which gives a little more leeway, IMO).

Two things unsaid in that short article:

-Rudy, who went postal on this trying to reap political hay, received the same discount on his own NYT ad. Oops! There goes the "liberals taking care of themselves" argument.

-MoveOn.org has taken in far more money than the full price ad cost them, as a result of the ham-fisted attempt as misdirection that the Administration and various Republican presidential candidates have tried.

Seattle Zen
ID: 86541617
Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 10:54

This doesn't answer the question of whether the Times should have run the ad in the first place

You've got to be kidding! You can't seriously be suggesting that newspapers should think twice about running critical ads like this. A good 30% of the country loved this ad, who cares that the Republicans tried to spin this ad with their "America: love it or leave it" chest thumping.

Perm Dude
ID: 368192311
Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 10:56

I didn't suggest that at all--I merely said that the question of the rate paid didn't answer that question.

A reminder, Zen: A good 30% of this country loves George W. Bush.

Seattle Zen
ID: 86541617
Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 11:07

A reminder, Zen: A good 30% of this country loves George W. Bush.

Oh, I am so acutely aware of that, my good friend, painfully so.

Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 09:01

I think this leaves no doubt, that the NYT is a left-wing organization and their news has a liberal bias.

bibA
Leader
ID: 261028117
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 13:04

Perm Dude
ID: 43835259
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 13:59

No doubt, for Jag, the Times has liberal bias. So why the dustup? If, indeed, they are liberally-biased, this is exactly what you might expect.

What we are seeing is another example of Republicans, hankerchief to forehead, shocked SHOCKED! at the thought of it.

So instead of talking about the war or the ballooning budget or health care or that FISA oversight will kill Americans or how the Air Force temporarily lost six nukes we're talking about what a private newspaper charges for a full-page ad (including wasting time in Congress demanding a probe on this "scandal."

So maybe this David Shuster interview is the best way to handle this crap the Republicans are throwing out:

Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 14:51

wow. what's more red? her face from embarrassment, or her ass from getting positively spanked.

good for Shuster. i've been saying for years that those who lean left can't shy away from roughing up those on the right, because lord knows they don't.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 14:59

But of course the Republicans want to keep attention focused on the ad. That way, they dont have to answer for their 6 years of ineptness..I mean be held accountable, I mean face the music, I mean...

boikin
ID: 59831214
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 15:19

This "liberal bias" thing....IF the NYT were to report that 19% of the political appointees who had served under Bush left their jobs and had since expressed negative comments re Bush, would this be accurate or an example of their "liberal bias"? IF they were to report that the number of Republicans in government service who had been indicted during the past six years outnumbered Democrats by a 34 to 7 margin would this be an example of "liberal bias" or accurate reporting?

Because Fox would not report these stories would not necessarily mean they did not exist in the real world, would it?

I am not sure what the big deal here is, the new york tims has liberal bias and fox has conservative bias accept it and move on. there is limited space and time to report all things that happen so a newspaper and tv station are in it to make money so they look at their audience and tell them what they want to here. the piont should not be do they have bias but which way is the bias and just state it. For example if i want to know what the bush administration in screwing up this week i turn to MSNBC is want to know how the dems are screwing up i flip to fox. if want to know if is going to rain tommorrow i flip to weather channel.

as for the part about congressional hearings on this, well lets just say complete waste of time then again that pretty much what congress specializes in.

Jag
ID: 14828255
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 15:40

Most moderates, like myself, agree Fox leans to the right, but the Left will never admit the NYT is a Liberal rag.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 15:42

Most moderates, like myself...

I'm sorry. My eyes teared up from such laughter at that part, was there more to your post?

Perm Dude
ID: 43835259
Tue, Sep 25, 2007, 16:34

Note the differece:

FOX "leans to the right"
NYT "is a Liberal rag"

Jeez, wonder why the Left wouldn't agree with that...

Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 13:04

How about admitting the NYT leans to the Left.

biliruben
ID: 17502215
Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 13:10

No.

I've read too many mamby-pamby kid-gloves articles about this administration, with fawning apologists for the war-mongers to even ponder such a thing. If they lean left, it ain't my left.

Perm Dude
ID: 48532519
Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 13:49

Oh, I have no problem saying it leans left. But it is all relative. Like many on the far right, you consider yourself "moderate" and yet find Hannity, Limbaugh, and others on the far right to exactly reflect your beliefs, while your extreme partisanship (which is different from where you are on the political spectrum) trumps your political philosophy in most every case.

It comes from having a Great Leader who can't admit a mistake, I think. But if your political belief cannot withstand the occassional body blow of being wrong, you might as well not bother with a political philosophy.

Jag
ID: 14828255
Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 14:18

I find Limbaugh and Hannity far right of my opinions, although, I believe the far right is not as dangerous as the far left.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 14:29

<---pretty sure you're not paying attention to your own opinions then. You tend to echo the extreme right.

Perm Dude
ID: 48532519
Wed, Sep 26, 2007, 17:38

Doh!

Republican accidently gets discount on anti-MoveOn ad

Proof of nothing more than the sales people at newspapers need a little more training. And that perhaps there is an internal reason why papers across the country are folding.

walk
ID: 2530286
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 06:33

"I believe the far right is not as dangersous as the far left."

I guess that all depends on how you define danger: the actual acts of aggression (far right advocates such, and has engaged in more warfare) vs. lack of aggression which could presumably weaken us and result in attack.

I am more of an empiricist...I will take my chances with waiting to see if the "enemy" is attacking us before "pre-emptively" striking. So, for example, the far right invades Iraq and has created a lot of death for Iraqi's and Americans (much more so for Iraqi's), much more anti-American sentiment and terrorist training, but supposedly potentially prevented us being nuked or something by Saddam or a terrorist group (you have to be the judge of the perceived threat Saddam caused us). I think far-righters are more scared of these threats so they strike first, and far lefters wait to be hit cos they have a greater reluctance to start a fight. However, there's little recent hard evidence to suggest that the wait and see approach results in more danger or violence. 9/11 is not an example either (terrorist act, not an invasion). If there was a draft, I think this far right comfort with pre-emptive attacks would not be so okay. I place a very high standard for starting a war, and I think far righters are too cavalier in their thinking and where they draw a line in the sand. As a species, I don't think our human race can truly survive in the long-term if all world leaders have such a sand line. We should make every effort to avoid war and talk to each other, even if it feels wimpy and non-macho. War breeds war...what are the long-term goals of war? ("we're safer, screw you"). It's an ideological thing and a moral thing. And since we are the most powerful nation, we can set an example. Or, we can go kick some butt and make sure no looney sucker punches us first. I could be naive with my thinking, but I think our hit first approach has done a lot more harm than good, and has created a lot more of the danger we wished to avoid in the first place. "Fight 'em there so we don't fight 'em here" basically is false, and even if true, suggests we're gonna be over there, fighting, forever, which is unsustainable while fostering more anti-American hatred and ultimately more danger.

Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 08:58

Walk. I find the Left more dangerous, not only with National Security, but economically and socially, while some countries can squeak by with outrageous social programs, they would cripple the U.S. There is not one aspect of the Left's philosophy on crime, education, National security, the economy or even the enviroment, that could would improve the country and they may even destroy it, anyone that remembers Jimmy Carter can testify to that.

PD, you report the Republican accidently got a discount. Move On's discount was not an accident.

Bili, just because the NYT is not crazy left, like you, does not mean they don't lean heavily left. Using your logic, a Nazi could call Fox news a Liberal propaganda machine.

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 09:23

PD, you report the Republican accidently got a discount. Move On's discount was not an accident.

And you know this, how, exactly? Your "moderate" bias is telling you this?

You seem to be what psychologist call "projecting": Taking the bad aspects of your own party and projecting them onto the other party. There is very little about crime, national security, the economy, or the environment that the Right hasn't crippled in their time in office. The worst thing for your party (or for your argument, for that matter) is that Republicans have had unfettered power to institute the kind of changes they want without any real political interference from the Left (and, on national security issues, with help from the Dems). And every area you mention is worse, demonstratably, because your party has had its way.

Harken back to Carter all you want: When you have had the power to make the changes you want, you have royally screwed it up.

Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 09:26

I never said the Republicans were perfect, just the lesser of 2 evils.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 11:00

So Jag, lets assume for a moment, that a leftist US Govt would have instituted run-away deficit spending as a result of social programs. Things like health care, education, feeding the working poor, etc etc. Are you stating FTR, that you find run-away deficits due to an ill-conceived and ill-executed war, preferable to the theoretical run-away deficits resulting from "taking care of our own"?

Economically, I see no real difference, other than the fact that the social programs help Americans where the war effort has killed/maimed tens of thousands of Americans.

On crime...how can you maintain the false claim that the Reps are "tougher" on crime, when the statistics across the country dont bear out your claim, even while the Reps have had the power/authority to initiate all the "tough" stance programs they could have wanted?

National Security? The devestation of the US military, the demoralization of that same military, by the Reps in office, and you claim that National Security is better served by them? Isnt that tantamount to cutting off your nose in order to spite your face?

Peaceful negotiation, diplomacy...THOSE are the tools of National Security. Backed by a solid and strong military with the capacity to react. We have neither atm. So the way I see it, our National Security situation is a perilous one at best atm.

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 13:59

"But, yeah, sarge33rd/PD, I know, I know, they have messed up lately, but I also KNOW that the leftists would have done worse. I just KNOW."

Jag: You KNOW what? It's the republicans who have fcuked up our country royally NOW. You can point to Carter, but I think the argument is more about BUSH (and I think you KNOW it). Ultimately, as Sarge33rd says, they aint done nuthin' right about nuthin' -- face your fear of the left; it's just fear. However, you should be very afraid of the far right, for they are cripple our economy and military due to this occupation and at the same time, not help with matters domestically. They can't; they are stretched too thin. It's a big, big, big mess.

Oh yeah, but "the left is more dangerous..."

boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 14:18

for they are cripple our economy i hear all this talk and i never see evidence of it. we have had this discussion several times and time after time evidence has shown that on most measurements of economic success the US economies surpasses 90% of the world espically those of liberal Europe.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 14:24

surpassing 90% of the world, is no trick, given that vast parts of the world are still living an agrarian hunter/fisher standard of living not unlike that of an 19th century pioneer American.

No evidence? The national deficit? Ever increasing taxes? (Dont EVEN bring up the much vaunted sshrub tax cuts. Unless you make 200k+ annually, those other pesky little tax hikes have far exceeded the Fed Inc Tax cut you got.) Record foreclosure rates, near record BK rates, record low savings rates and record high debt rates. Yea right...our economy is hunky-dory.

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 14:25

I agree--I think "cripple" is too strong. But "damage" is probably appropriate.

Given the advance of the Euro on the dollar, I wouldn't hold the US up against Europe economically. Indeed, the most liberal of European states kick out butts in many economic areas, while maintaining high standards of health care, literacy, and other measures of citizen wellness.

biliruben
ID: 17502215
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 14:44

"Sabotage"

"Booby-trap"

or in th words of Alan Greenspan:

“My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,”

“The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” Greenspan wrote. “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose.”

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 14:48

That Rep Congress, simply rubber-stamped whatever Shrub requested.

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 14:59

I recant "cripple." I was engergized.

Greenspan, he also rubber-stamped the Bush mantra, and is now trying to aggressively disagree. Correct, but way too late. He was complicit.

link

boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:13

Ever increasing taxes? (Dont EVEN bring up the much vaunted sshrub tax cuts. Unless you make 200k+

income tax rates from around the world note this does not include other taxes like sales....it also does not include extremely rich and extremly poor.

Given the advance of the Euro on the dollar, I wouldn't hold the US up against Europe economically. Indeed, the most liberal of European states kick out butts in many economic areas, while maintaining high standards of health care, literacy, and other measures of citizen wellness.

please post a link stating that europeans surpass us in economic measures. becuase know i have post links before from europeans stating the opposite. I will agree that that weaking dollar is a real concern

Record foreclosure rates, near record BK rates, record low savings rates and record high debt rates. Yea right...our economy is hunky-dory.

these are reflections of society not economics. making bad personal finacial decsions is not the fault of this administration or any other.

The national deficit? as allways this is a concern but does this mean economy is struggling? maybe/maybe though the deficit has declined steadly sense the begginning of Bush's 2nd term.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:19

not a reflection of economics????? roflmao the hell you say? It isnt an economic matter, that Mr and Mrs Doe cant afford medical insurance and the resulting medical bills put them in front of a BK court huh? It isnt economics, that both have to work JUST to tread water, and there is little to nothing left to put into a savings account?

That there are social implications, is a given. Our society has become increasingly one in search of "instant gratification". Yes, personal choices enter into the equation, but so to do economic realities.

Because I dont know, how much of that *ahem* decrease, is from taking expenditures off budget so they "dont count"?

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:30

making bad personal finacial decisions

Reinforced, of course, by brokers and banks lying to people. The least the government could do is to penalize the lies by people selling financial instruments, particularly in the ways it has been done. But Republicans tend to characterize the whole thing as a long series of individual bad decisions.

The deficit is not only a concern right now (on the heels of the surplus during Clinton's term), but that the future obligations will make it extremely difficult to pull out of without additional revenue sources. And remember: The deficit doesn't include the War on Terror (including the Iraqi War, @ $2billion/week, because the WoT is "off budget." Coupled with the dollar drop, the loss of millions of homes to forclosure (which was where many people parked their financial futures, rightly or wrongly), and (as mentioned) the looming obligations in veteran health care and other military costs, and the pattern of wild wonton spending which characterized this Administration and the Republican apologists in Congress deserves our contempt.

As for European countries, Sweden and Norway both have strong economies, higher literacy rates, better health care, and stronger currencies than the US. And they are far more liberal than anything even remotely possible in the US.

Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:35

I talk to Euros daily and I am constantly hearing healthcare horror stories. Other than speaking several languages, Euros in no way seem more intelligent than most Americans.

Every country that votes in Liberals, eventually boots them out for more conservative politicians, until they forget how bad the Liberals screw up the economy, aka Jimmy Carter, and then elect them again. It is a vicious cycle.

Tree
ID: 3533298
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:37

I talk to Euros daily and I am constantly hearing healthcare horror stories.

there is a big difference between "hearing" and "listening"...

i have no doubt that is exactly what you're hearing, because i'm fairly certain that you're not listening at all.

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:38

You're not talking to anyone from Norway or Sweden, that's for sure.

Jag sure loves Jimmy Carter. Skips over that whole Bill Clinton thingy...

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:41

and no doubt, he is "talking" with a broad cross section of the political spectrum of Europeans, and not simply members of the equally far right wing as he is himself. IOW, people who dont necessarily agree with him on virtually every topic put forth.

Of course he has to skip over that Clinton thingy PD. Those 8 years, dispell the very ice upon which he stands as he spews forth his nonsense.

Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:42

PD, I can let you talk to about 30 Swedes and a chick from Norway. They are all sick of their Liberal government. Even if it was working, that does not mean it could work for us, there are many factors that separate the U.S. from Sweden, one being our larger size.

boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:44

earlier thread on this subject

Sarge you are mistaking micro and macro economics. You say mr and mrs doe are "treading" water? why are they treading water? i am sure they could reallocate there funds in a way that they could have afforded health insurance and still lived. the question is what are you willing to trade, your cable tv, your high speed internet(look how much that costs i europe). If things are so bad why are illegal immigrants coming here working for less and still able to send money home to there families? you are so blinded by how good you have it you dont even relize what you have.

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:46

They are all sick of their Liberal government

So sick they keep voting them back in, eh?

if it was working, that does not mean it could work for us, there are many factors that separate the U.S. from Sweden, one being our larger size.

This is true. It is also true that our system isn't really "working" for us either, mostly because health care is being practiced by the beancounters.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:49

why do illegals come here? Many, because they are being murdered at home. As to how they live here and send money home...its because 28 of them live at the same address.

You are as guilty of oversimplification, as you accuse me of being "confused".

I maintain that the micro aspects of it (the individual and the family) are limited in choices due to the current realities of the macro-economics. No cocnfusion on my part at all. Simply saying that the two are not unrelated but indeed, are inextricably linked.

boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 16:59

its because 28 of them live at the same address. they are willing to do with less so they can provide for there families at home, i think that is what i was saying mr and mrs doe could do. I think we could all learn allot for those less fortunate than us.

sarge show me your conection between micro and macro that you are alluding too. clearly you are right the too are linked but how should things be done if you were in charge how could you make things a perfect world and why your system would make things better and i dont just mean you say they would. tell us from macro econmics to micro social pyscholocial reasons for its success. This is open to everyone. I am open to new ideas i think this would be a good chance for some to be shared.

boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 17:00

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 17:10

I think we could all learn allot for those less fortunate than us.

I absolutely agree. And I never understood those who decry hardworking people sending their savings home to their relatives.

Most illegal immigrants come here for ecomonic reasons.

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 17:28

Far too complex an issue for me to resolve boikin, and if I could solve it...I'd have far better ways to spend my time than conversing on a poli-forum. (Though, I think you know that and thats no small part of why you are comfortable issuing the challenge.)

Look...the Fed sets monetary policy for the country as a whole and the banks in particular. This "trickles down" through the system and is reflected in a variety of things, interest rates being amongst them. Consumer prices are thus impacted etc etc etc. For too long, the Federal govt has NOT acted on the nations behalf. But rather, on behalf of those who got the elected ones...elected. This system of "scratch my back and I scratch yours", has taken what was a 3-tier socio-economic population, and increasingly turned it into a 2-tier one. (Lower, Middle and Upper class...has increasingly over the past several decades trended toward lower and upper classes with the middle class rapidly disappearing.)

I happen to think the incomce tax system with an increasing per cenatge being paid as the income climbs higher and higher, is a fair one. I happen to think the "death tax", is a fair one. As the child of my parents, I am NOT entitled to what they accumulated. THEY ARE! Because John Doe won the genetic lottery and was born into wealth, does not automatically entitle him TO that wealth. If I make 500k annually, so what if I pay 200k in Fed Inc Tax? If I cant live (and rather well actually) on 300k/yr, while people all around me are making do on 20k...then perhaps I am the problem?

If it were me? A simpler income tax would be put in place. Graduated to where the first 25k/yr is tax exempt. Period. After that, a minimum of 10% gets paid on every dollar and that per centage increases on dollars above certain thresholds. For example (jusat an off the cuff example and NOT to be taken literally as my preferred methodolgy):

Gross Income: 500,000
less 25,000
Taxable Income 475,000
1st 50k at 10% .......tax 5,000
Rmning Tax Inc 425,000
Next 50k at 12%.......tax 6,000
Rmning Tax Inc 375,000
Next 100k at 15%......tax 15,000
Rmning Tax Inc 275,000
Next 100k at 17%......tax 17,000
Rmning Tax Inc 175,000
Next 200k at 18%......tax 31,500
Rmning Tax Inc 0

Total of TAX lines: 74,500
Check enclosed.

No deductions, NONE. No exemptions beyond the 1st 25k. NONE. The per centages themselves, along with the point breaks, would have to be determined via consult with people FAR better versed in advanced economics than I. Further, methods for defining and determining what is "gross income", etc etc etc.

I am in favor of initiating a national sales tax. Exempting medical needs and food stuffs for ex, though not "luxury" food stuffs. (Caviar would be taxed, steak would not. Nor would the purchase of a wheelchair be taxed.)

The Federal Budget NEEDS to be balanced. Period. Blind awarding of Federal contracts, needs to halt. Those who obtain those contracts MUST be held to them. No cost over-runs. You signed on saying you'd supply 500 F/A-18s at $XYZ ea and that is all you get. Now build the damn planes, to spec, on time or face suit for breach of contract same way you'd file against a contractor of yours.

Some form of Tort Reform is needed. But not in the way sought by most right-wingers. Juries, need to be better instructed/informed. A valid and legit lawsuit, needs to grant an appropriate award to the injured parties. It does NOT need to ensure that said families offspring for the next 6 generations are immediately made wealthy.

Social safety nets absolutely MUST exist. Too many times, an individual finds themselves out of work through absolutely no fault of their own. Too many small businessmen, are so utterly corrupt its pathetic. Every household expense they have, often times even hobbies, get "run through" the business so as to create the appearance of a legit write-off, and thats what they do. Write it off. These same SOBs, will work their employees for minimum wage, even after that employee has performed quite well for several years. (not all of course. But a VERY large number of them.)

There are literally, 100,000 ways to improve the national economy. To ensure that ALL Americans, have food, have medical care and have a shot at a decent life.

100

Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 17:33

Most illegal immigrants come here for ecomonic reasons
And many are here because they are escaping criminal prosecution. I love, because they are a minority, Liberals want to paint them all as honest hard working people. I am just curious what percentage of defiants have to cross before you guys think we should close the borders. I doubt any the Liberals here have work with an all Mexican crew.

101

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 17:40

did you mean deviants Jag?

As for Mexican crews...I'm in Texas. The hardest working group of people I see daily, are of Hispanic origins.

102

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 17:44

Liberals want to paint them all as honest...

red herring alert.

103

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:05

Yeah. Show me where "liberals" say that.

I doubt any the Liberals here have work with an all Mexican crew.

Such judgements highlight your ignorance (as if they're necessary). In the mid 90s I lived in SC where I worked in a yarn mill. All but one of the employees who held the same position as me were Mexican immigrants. No idea what their status were but none of them spoke English.

When I moved back to NY I took a job waiting tables. Often I needed extra cash when there were no wait shifts available I had no problem filling in as a dishwasher.

Ass.

104

Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:13

I did mean deviants and yes many are hard workers, but many are thieves. Liberals refuse to address the criminal factor because they are a minority. This is one reason Liberals should not be setting governmental policy, because of political correctness, they refuse to deal with the entire scope of problems and this covers every aspect of government.

105

biliruben
ID: 17502215
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:17

Many Republicans are thieves as well.

Would you rather lose your TV or your future?

106

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:19

"Many?"

I think if you had any real interaction with actual liberals you'd be very, very surprised. As it is, you have interactions only in your mind, with scarecrow "liberals."

Maybe that's the only way you can win political arguments, but it doesn't bolster your points to continue to mischaracterize the arguments of your political opponents. It makes us believe you lack the ability to deal with their real arguments.

107

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 18:23

Jag is apparently, blinded by his own hatred(s).

108

Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:01

How about the 2nd generations from illegals? Look at their crime rate %. And to make matters worse, Liberals attack businesses hiring illegals, forcing them to resort to crime and drugs and their offspring even moreso, then they want to put them on welfare to put us further in debt, not to mention the lost of manpower, education and healthcare costs. There is no rational arguement for such abhorent policy, you could not come up with worse ideas if you were intentually trying to screw the country up. Dangerous does not even begin to describe such policy.

And for the last time... Quit trying to take credit for Newt's contract with America, the only bill Clinton got passed was gays in the military and I don't think that had any affect on the economy.

109

boikin
ID: 59831214
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:05

Thanks Sarge for taking the time to write out response. I like your idea of simpler income tax system and your correct about small business there are allot of them out there just like you described, though there are many others that are not. i do wonder how getting rid of deductions would effect things like chartable giving and eduction spending would be affected for this. i guess you could extend your simple income tax by allowing you fill out a charity form that says i want these organizations to get a certain % of my tax money and if i want to donate more i can cut a check for more and the government can then send them a check. i mean it sounds a little messy but with a little computer programming it would be practically time less and easily editable.

110

Jag
ID: 14828255
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:13

Jag is apparently, blinded by his own hatred(s).

Liberal's atomic bomb and reason we have so many racial problems today, you can't have an intelligent arguement with a Liberal and not be perfectly political correct without them dropping the bomb. Here is a big one for you Sarge, many of the problems blacks are suffering from today are from their own doing. How dare I not blame everything on whitey, oh what a racist I am. Self-responsibility, a word foreign to Liberals, to quote a great lefty, google it.

111

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:18

re 109...If the only reason you are giving to charity, is for the tax deduction? I'd suggest you're not a charitable person at all, and are doing so for appearances sake only. I REALLY dont think there would be a significant drop. (Part of my reasoning, is observation from when I was in Lions Club many years ago. We had an annual "Pancake Breakfast" fund raiser. When we sold tickets for something like $7 ea for "all you can eat", we did OK. When we dropped the tickets and placed a "donations" basket at the front door, and charged ZILCH...we made out like bandits! Revenue increased by better than 60%.) People who give, give from the heart. People who dont, wont regardless of outside stimuli.

re 110....not worthy of anything further in the way of response.

112

Perm Dude
ID: 16838277
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 19:50

People who give, give from the heart. People who dont, wont regardless of outside stimuli.

This isn't true at all, sarge. The very wealthy give a ton of money to charity, and often have no income tax as a partial result. Many charitable organizations simply wouldn't exist without the charitable write-off, particularly since many people (not a majority, but many nevertheless) have their charitable deductions matched by their employers.

The United Way, the Negro College Fund, and so on would only exist as more efficient charitable organizations because of tax writeoffs.

113

Tree
ID: 408272719
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 20:35

I doubt any the Liberals here have work with an all Mexican crew.

well, aside from MITH...and myself, who has worked with mostly-Mexican crews in construction, kitchen, and bars.

How about the 2nd generations from illegals? Look at their crime rate %.

ok. i will. show me please.

114

Seattle Zen
ID: 86541617
Thu, Sep 27, 2007, 22:29

Quit feeding the troll!

115

Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 00:12

I wouldn't expect someone from Seattle to comment intelligently on racial problems. 7 out of 10 black family homes are fatherless, the dropout rate and crime rate skyrockets with children in single family homes, but just like the Libs won't acknowledge the NYT leans to left, you will never admit the core reason for the disppropriate amount of black crime, which hurts both the black victims and the assailants. Another reason why Liberals are so dangerous, they impede any hope for better race relations.

116

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 08:48

Who denies that inadequite parental involvement is a major contributer to crime rates in poor neighborhoods?

Of course the trend in fatherless families is one of the primary reasons for this. No liberals I'm aware of. Once again your impression of what "liberals" think doesn't match reality.

I should note that very stupid rightists such as yourself frequently fail to acknowledge another primary reason - that poor households require two or more incomes to provide for their families, so many two-parent families in poor neighborhoods face the same issue. To admit this would mean to defy the right's touting of the current employment rate, forcing y'all to acknowledge that newly created jobs at WalMart don't adequately replace the manufacturing jobs we lose every year. And you can't have that, can you?

Claiming the "core reason" for the crime rate in poor areas is black dead-beat-dads is the perfect shield to keep you from acknowledging any other factors which might force you to reconsider the "everything's fine" economic mantra you're trained to tout. It allows you to bash liberals with the "politically correct" label as you happily watch the class and wealth gap continue to widen.

117

Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 10:24

Manufactoring jobs are products of big business, yet I have never heard one comment by a Liberal on this forum, that would directly or indirectly help increase manufactoring jobs, in fact you would think big business was worse than Al Queda, according to some of the more Lefty posters.

118

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 10:40

SOME big business is every bit as dangerous as Al Qeada. Just a different kind of danger. A slower, more sinister, more subtle danger. (Slow that is, until their acrobatic accounting catches upto them. Do you recall Ken Lay by chance Jag???)

Others in the arena of "big business", are virtual model companies, upholding their end of the bargain to the local populace. Principal Financial Group for ex in Des Moines, IA...is an OUTSTANDING employer. Active in bettering the local community, paying highly competitive wages which allow its workforce to invest, enjoy the rewards of the efforts etc etc.

Difference Jag between you and I for ex? You ALWAYS maintain the old "right is right and left is wrong" mantra. On occassion, I'll admit the left to be wrong vs maintaining that it never is.

Simple truth...neither side, is ALWAYS right and thus neither side, is ALWAYS wrong. Until you accept that...you will continue to be what SZ said in post 114....a troll.

119

Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:04

You are half right, Sarge. The Right is not always right, Bush can be an idiot, but the Left is always wrong.

120

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:10

How can the left be so wrong when it's been the right that has screwed up this country the past 8 years? As PD said, you are projecting (Freud). I mean, the left has had no power, but you harp on how wrong they are. That's just illogical. And, you know that it's not as clean as you'd like it be in your wanna be Hannity shock-provacateur style. Hannity is probably a left leaning liberal himself. And maybe you are, too. Whatever you are, or wanna be, your team is like finishing up a tampa bay 60-100 season and yet you point to some other mediocre team that has basically been on the sidelines and say they are worse. Whatever it takes to rationalize the extreme dissonance you must feel for supporting a bunch of losers. Forget about the left, and or the left's policies for a moment, and think of current events...these current events are not good. And for the future, whomever who gets elected, they aint really set up for success now are they? Bush and his republican backed policies will take a long time to be corrected. You can deflect all you want, but that stuff flies better on Fox TV where there are few opportunities to call out the idiocy. Here, or elsewhere on the net, you are more hard-pressed. Enjoy.

121

Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:10

Sarge, what year did you admit the Left was wrong, I would like to check that out.

122

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:45

the Left is always wrong

LOL. Some moderate.

123

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:50

One Strong Ad

124

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 11:59

I have never heard one comment by a Liberal on this forum, that would directly or indirectly help increase manufactoring jobs

Is that a rightist trashing the left for failing to come up with a government solution to the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs?

Anyway, how much more easily would American companies find themselves able to employ American workers at a decent wage if modern executives weren't paid like pro athletes? Much has been made in this forum of the exponentially increasing disparity between worker pay and executive salaries and benefits. But you'll never hear anyone on the right complain, even as the GOP hands out enormous sums to large companies in the form of corporate welfare.

Here's a suggestion: how about making those government bailouts dependant on huge salary cuts to executive level employees? Is that any more intrusive than demanding that single moms on welfare forego their responsibilities to their children and go out and work?

125

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 12:04

Sarge, what year did you admit the Left was wrong

Sarge has a long history of siding with the right on a myriad of issues.

Meanwhile, Jag explains that he doesn't support social security, National Parks, civil rights, women's rights, welfare reform, better armor for troops, dividing homeland security funds according to terrorist risks, etc.

126

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 12:10

Back on topic, American Conservative calls Patraeus a "sycophant". Shall we expect a GOP-proposed Senate hearing to condemn them now?

Hat tip: Daily Dish.

127

Perm Dude
ID: 14851288
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 14:25

General Casey requests public meeting with Congress to talk about "broken Army."

This guy, who is no liberal by any stretch, is doing heroic work here on the homefront by speaking the truth about what the Iraqi War is doing to the safety and security of our country. We've made it so that we can no longer respond effectively to threats, because we're to busy in Iraq.

128

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 14:35

Obviously both of the two above state in far superior verbiage, what I was trying to say earlier re my impressions of Gen Patraeus and why I felt no qualms with the Betray-Us ad run by moveon.org. They are saying what I tried to, but couldnt apparently find the right words...

The US military IS...broken.

Gen Patraeus has been toeing a political vs military line; in that he has tried to appease the politicians, not properly utilize the requisite military forces. (and he apparently hasnt informed Washington, that we dont HAVE sufficient military forces at our disposal. ie, we cannot field sufficient personnel, and we cannot rotate sufficient numbers, to maintain combat effectiveness.)

Gen Casey, I see as doing his patriotic duty to the military. SOunding the alarm, which so clearly and desperately needs to be heard. Gen Patraeus OTH, I see as being the stereo-typical Washington "Yes man", which we have had FAR too many of over the past several years.

129

Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 15:14

So because Patraeus doesn't say what you want, he is traitor. I really believe Liberals want us to fail in Iraq and the economy to crumble to further there own agenda.

130

Perm Dude
ID: 14851288
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 15:17

Sarge never says Patraeus is a traitor.

131

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 15:18

We ARE failing in Iraq. And to even suggest that I or others WANT for us to fail, is asinine to an extent I cant even begin to describe. Failure there, means the deaths of more and more US soldiers. THAT, is the last thing I want. (Yep, I'd even favor another term of shrub if it meant fewer deaths.) You continue, and continue and continue...to regurgitate the same meaningless crap, that AC does. to make a living passing as a journalist.

You're blind...
you're ignorant of the truth..
and you're blissful because of it.

132

walk
Dude
ID: 32928238
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 16:47

Well, I really believe the neocons want us to fail in Iraq to further their agenda, so there, you idiot!

Why are we not succeeding in Iraq? Too few soldiers from the outset, dismantling the Iraqi army at the outset, and no plan to stabilize the country and provide an infrastructure. The cynic could argue this was all done intentionally, and continues to be "just enough to maintain forces," so that we have to stay in Iraq so that we have permanent bases and much more control or potential to control the oil. Is that the kinda argument you want to have? Goes both ways, except it's YOUR team in power calling the shots and YOUR conservatives who are making the policies. All the liberals can do (and are doing, thanks to the lame Dems) is whine and suggest solutions, but they are not implementing them. At least complain about something freakin observable and tangible done in the last 4 years.

133

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Sep 28, 2007, 16:57

So because Patraeus doesn't say what you want, he is traitor. I really believe Liberals want us to fail in Iraq and the economy to crumble to further there own agenda.

Am I alone, or does Jags comment appear as though there is an observation-conclusion, except that there appears to be a vast disconnect between the stated observation and the resulting conclusion? IOW, even if we concede that his first statement were accurate (a concession I am not making FTR), how does that lead us to the conclusion given in the second statement?????????

134

walk
ID: 2530286
Sun, Sep 30, 2007, 09:45

Thomas Friedman, Sept 30

Not sure where to put this, but thought it was worthy of inclusion somewhere...

135

Baldwin
ID: 125312919
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 03:35

Fred Thompson re: the current media/Limbaugh imbroglio.

Congressional Democrats are trying to divert attention from insulting our military leader in Iraq and pandering to the loony left by attacking Rush Limbaugh. He is one of the strongest supporters of our troops, yet Democrats claim he is not being strong enough. I wonder who General Petraeus and his troops think is most supportive?

I have always liked the way this guy cuts to the heart of the matter.

136

CanadianHack
ID: 31645103
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 05:04

Baldwin

The heart of the matter is the war in Iraq and how poorly/well it is going, if it is worth sustaining the effort, what "success" would mean at this stage and if it is even possible. Republicans have already changed the topic from the war in Iraq to how people talk about the war in Iraq (is it OK to attack Gen. Patraeus is already a change in topic to the question of is his report accurate - which it isn't in many ways - and where do we go from here).

Fred Thompson's line is completely irrelevant to the major issue. But Thompson does drive a red pickup truck (at least from where his limo dropped him off) so you can pledge him your support.

137

walk
ID: 2530286
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 06:14

Well, Thompson is also claiming that Saddam had WMD and so we were justified in starting the war -- and as proof points to the gassing of the Kurds, 15 years ago. Maybe this is the heart of the matter to him, but I think that'd be more like the appendix or benign cyst of the matter.

138

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 08:13

The heart of that matter is that Democrats in Congress are tyring to divert attention from insults and are pandering to the far left?

Its not that the process of condemning free speech - whoever the speaker is - is an embarrassing and absurd waste of time in Congress?

You really think Congress was doing good work with the condemnation of MoveOn? Was the lack of motions to condemn free speech on the left the reason that their approval ratings have been so poor?

Yeah, he's a real straight shooter, getting right to the heart of the matter.

139

J-Bar
ID: 23913411
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 14:06

hey have you seen the new full page ad by moven.orq

***picture of Barack Obama***

caption reads

VOTE for Barack Obama
or is that Balack Osama
or something like that.

140

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 14:11

^ thats even beneath JAG. (not much, but it is.)

141

J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 19:44

Sarge are you saying that the above ad would not be ok? Freedom of speech and all.

142

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 22:02

Worthy of a Senatorial condemnation? Please. That's what you want the country's most powerful legislative body spending its time on?

143

J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 22:41

not at all

is that what you got from it lmao

144

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Thu, Oct 04, 2007, 23:33

My apologies for assuming you were taking part in the currrent discussion. I wasn't sure at first but your reference to free seech in 141 seemed to confirm that it and 139 were reactions to 138.

If they weren't, what in the world is your point? That it's not nice to say mean things?

145

J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 08:09

yes, its's not nice to say mean things. but my response was not directly aimed at 138 it was just to point out that a letter here or there and the person involved in the ad can make alot of difference to some so called proponents of free speech.

i agree a complete waste of time for this, rush limbaugh, and just about 90% of the "issues" that our congress, administration, and media feel are important to us.

146

Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 08:55

letter here or there and the person involved in the ad can make alot of difference to some so called proponents of free speech

Not me. The General Betray Us ad and your "Balack Osama" bit, whether it comes from you or Move On are both inappropriate. Don't know exacly what Limbaugh said or under what context it was so I can't comment on whether it was also inappropriate (as if Limbaugh is any stranger to inappropriate comments, regardless) but all 3 are clearly free speech and of course none are worth more than a brief moment of Congress' time.

J-Bar, since you apparently haven't specifically commented on it (you referred only to the movement to condemn Limbaugh) I'm curious about your opinion of Congress' condemnation of MoveOn.

147

Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:14

I find the condemnations silly and Reid about as disingenuous a politician as you can get. I saw the conversation, when Rush made the "phony soldiers" comment it seemed a reference to Jesse MacBeth, who pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for pretending to be an injured Iraq war veteran and as the phone conversation went on, Rush said he was talking about MacBeth but Dems like to point out, it took a minute and 50 seconds to clarify, with the flow of a radio show and giving the callers time to speak, this seems reasonable. I am not a Rush fan, but this is clearly a retaliatory attack by the Democrats in light of the Patraeus fiasco.

148

Jag
ID: 14828255
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:43

Another way you can tell Rush was talking about MacBeth and not soldiers opposed to the war is he says so. Rush has never hid his feelings on any subject or tried to be politically correct.

149

sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:46

Rush has never hid his feelings on any subject...

On the contrary. Are you aware of why he got fired from the KC radio station his Dad either ran or owned? (Sorry, but memory fades and I cant recall if his Father was the owner or just the General Manager.)

150

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:52

Agreed, which is the second reason for why post 135 and the quote within it are silly. I really don't know why Baldwin and others on the right are always so quick to resort to a claim the left is engaging in "diversionary" tactics.

Not that the type of retaliation that we agree occurred is any better than the diversion that he and Thompson claim, of course. But the notion of creating a diversion (as if to suggest GOP-led condemnation of MoveOn had accomplished anything) is just silly (not to mention praising Thompson cutting to the heart of the matter).

That said, I haven't paid much attention to all this so I could be wrong but I do suspect that some Democrats may have seen the Limbaugh condemnation as more of an opportunity to display the general silliness of these motions, which of couse would be an entirely counter-productive measure, anyway.

151

Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 10:53

150 responds to 147.

152

J-Bar
ID: 2095417
Fri, Oct 05, 2007, 14:28

Mith the "this" in my sentence referred to the topic of the thread sorry I was not more clear

Forum: polPage 2975Subject: General Betray Us

Forum: pol
Page 2975
Subject: General Betray Us