NRO’s Goldberg Chastizes MoveOn, Forgets His Own ‘Spineless’ Attack On Generals In 2004
NRO’s Goldberg Chastizes MoveOn, Forgets His Own ‘Spineless’ Attack On Generals In 2004
On Tuesday, National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg approvingly linked to a column by the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, in which Cohen slammed Democratic presidential candidates for not criticizing MoveOn.org’s Gen. David Petraeus ad in the New York Times. Goldberg said Cohen had a “pretty good” take on the Democrats’ “spinelessness regarding Petraeus.”
In a September 11 2007 editorial, the National Review Online also took “the Left” to task for questioning the “honesty and patriotism” of Petraeus. As editor-at-large, Goldberg presumably approved of, if not contributed to, the editorial’s position.
But Goldberg hasn’t always been so critical of those who question the integrity of American generals. As Attaturk pointed out yesterday, in January 2004, Goldberg uncritically posted an e-mail from a then-active duty reader that savagely bashed generals as “a gigantic pain in the ass” who are “dishonest”:
[General Wesley Clark] acts just like the vast majority of general officers that it has been my displeasure to deal with during my 16 years in the U.S. military. Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment. […]
- Generals are ambitious in the same way that wolverines are aggressive. It’s their defining trait. […]
- Generals are dull. I don’t mean this in the cant-tell-a-good-joke kind of way. I mean the anti-intellectual, zero-curiousity, hasn’t-read-a-real-book-in-years kind of dull. […]
- Generals are arrogant. Generals truly believe that they are completely right 100% of the time and woe to those underlings who demonstrate that this isn’t so. This trait is what makes generals so dangerous. They will ignore sound advice and do the stupidest things imaginable, all because “Well, I’m a general, dammit, I know what I’m doing and. . . ugh, what was the question again?” Generals can be damn near unreasonable when they get their minds made up and it’s almost impossible to get them to see an alternative way of doing things. […]
- Generals are dishonest. This is a tricky charge to throw out, but it’s the sad truth. I’ve seen more out-and-out lies from general officers than any other people in the military. In a weird way, they are just like professional politicians in this regard.
Apparently, it’s never appropriate to attack a general unless you’re Jonah Goldberg.
(HT: Atrios)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
94 Responses to “NRO’s Goldberg Chastizes MoveOn, Forgets His Own ‘Spineless’ Attack On Generals In 2004”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
What a damn hypocrite!
September 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pmAhh, the refreshing smell of hypocrisy…
September 21st, 2007 at 12:50 pmComment by Jake D. — September 21, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
“{General Wesley Clark] acts just like the vast majority of general officers that it has been my displeasure to deal with during my 16 years in the U.S. military.”
Was Clark running for President for the last 16 years? I also note the term “vast majority” which would imply more than just Clark.
I wonder if Bush was disgusted?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pmAnother right-winger telling us to “do as a say, not as I do.” What a shocker.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pmcaption:
Kouch-potato Karaoke
September 21st, 2007 at 12:53 pmEh — Goldberg is becoming even more irrelevant than he ever was. He and his ilk are running out of ways to defend our occupation of Iraq, so they are resorting to finding demons to rail at. Sort of like the guy in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” who was still itching for a fight even after all his limbs were lopped off. Moving on…
September 21st, 2007 at 12:53 pmBasically what this comes down too, as long as the general in question is toeing the line, then everything is hunky dory, but of they don’t agree, then they are lying. Petraus has already shown his political ambition. I don’t think he would have been placed in charge if he hadn’t been vetted by the White House to parrot the talking points.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:53 pmEdit: “do as I say, not as I do.”
September 21st, 2007 at 12:53 pm“Hypocrisy†is condemning or calling for the condemnation of another person when the critic is guilty of the SAME act.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Jake D. — September 21, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
How ironic, and hypocritical. Toss in disingenuous, and ya got a hat trick!
September 21st, 2007 at 12:55 pmKouch-potato Karaoke
Comment by Nevar — September 21, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Doesn’t Kos refer to this one as “Pantload”?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pmC’mon Jake, no need to carry water for Mr. Goldberg, he’s a big, strong, Serious Man who can take care of himself.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pmJonah Golberg has literary flatulence. He doesn’t have the spine to answer the questions the Moveon ad raised.
Notice this is still in the news cycle. Tells me the Bush administration is worried.
Unrelated but I’m sure this will interest some. Dan Rather’s lawsuit has the potential to request Bush to testify about his service. To this day, nobody can place him at his units on the times he says he was there.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pmTime to bring out our favorite award…
For meritorious service above and beyond the call of doodie, we hereby award you, Jonah Goldberg, the Croix de Poulet-Faucon!
Wear it proudly son, you’ve earned it!
Hey everybody, Jake D is gonna treat us all to Freedom Friesâ„¢!!! It’s the taste of Liberty on the Marchâ„¢!!! Chow down while they’re hot!!!!!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pmI don’t carry water for any man — just principles.
Comment by Jake D. — September 21, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
And I don’t pass water on any man - just Jake! :-D!!!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pmIOKIYAR, Dude!!!
Everybody knows that. Get with the program.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pmYou don’t have enough pales for all the water you’re carrying Jake.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pmGoldberg, Just another NeoCon like kristol, barnes, krautheimer, lieberman and the rest of their cockroach pile. As irrelevant as Faux Entertainment Channel.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pmExplain to me again why Neoturds can bash anyone the want, but if Progressives do it it’s Un-american.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pmComment by Jake D. — September 21, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
I am unclear about my “Ignore List” status, but if I am not on, then please see my commentary #5. You will note that Goldberg’s comments are generalizations and not specific to Clark.
If am on your ignore list please stop reading this.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pmYou know, Jakey, when the man is talking about Generals (note the plural), he’s not just talking about one man.
So, unless every single General was a presidential candidate, your defense has no merit.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:07 pmGoldberg is a toad. As for his credentials, being editor in chief of a reichwing rag like the National Review Online, that get him about the same cred as the editor of Mad Magazine. Apologies to A. Neuman et al.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm“Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions.”
September 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm—David H. Petraeus
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Jake, please make damn sure I am on your ignore list, as I’ve decided to add you to my Ignor(ant) list.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:09 pmdim wit sez:
dim wit, if you aren’t on Shakey’s “ignore list” yet, that question will be sufficiently vexing to him to merit your inclusion.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:09 pmDid Jake have a ‘hand’ in the Larry Craig scandal?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pmWasn’t Wesley Clark retired and running for President in January 2004? Kinda different with Petraeus.
Comment by Jake D. — September 21, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Jake, quit ignoring the fact that the diatribe was against generals in general, not just Clark. It really looks pathetic when you are doing it right in front of evidence to the contrary that everyone can see.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:14 pmThis fat hypocrite is the reason I dropped my subscription to the LA Times. He is a non-entity.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:17 pmkasinca, his column is regularly in the Seattle Times as well. I canceled my subscription for other reasons, but am glad not to have my blood pressure skyrocket daily when I open the editorial page and see his reichwing crap soiling the page.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pmCould nirvision be a regular poster on the ‘Snore List that changed their posting names?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pmInquiring tiny minds like Jake D. need to know!!!
Jake- I’m quit terrified and a little bit sickened about where you hold the water.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pmdim wit, The Republic of Stupidity, DRxJ - shhhh - didn’t you get the memo?
Don’t respond to “it”, don’t even type “it’s” name, pass it on.
Ignore the “it”
Buck Fush
September 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pmit’s a shame that goldberg will never have to take orders from a general.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm35:
I’m an original. I haven’t changed my name and I don’t know what the ‘Snore List is.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm“You will note that Goldberg’s comments are generalizations and not specific to Clark.”
Comment by dim wit — September 21, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
And to be fair, they aren’t even Goldberg’s comments — they are comments from an e-mail from one of his readers. Goldberg’s transgression in the matter is that he published the e-mail without condemning the writer’s criticism of the military.
But your point is well taken. Jake D. is claiming that it’s OK to criticize a presidential candidate (even if you have to disparage generals in general to do so) but it’s not OK to even question an active-duty general who may or may not be influenced by the president. Who makes up these rules, anyway?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pmJake,
Just trying to clarify your position -
From the article:
- Generals are dull.
- Generals are arrogant. Generals truly believe that they are completely right 100% of the time and woe to those underlings who demonstrate that this isn’t so. This trait is what makes generals so dangerous. They will ignore sound advice and do the stupidest things imaginable […]
- Generals are dishonest.
Do you feel that the above comments are NOT disrespectful of generals?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pmYou Dont say? Spineless double standards and hypocrisy from the loony radical right?
Its their trademark!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pmWhy is the moveon ad still news?
Its irrelevant to say the least.
It just shows that conservaitves cant defend their failed policies and have to resort to nonsense in order to feel “superior”
September 21st, 2007 at 1:28 pmGoldberg also recently criticised the press for how they covered Katrina and to prove his point he quoted his own writings. SO he criticised the press at large for what he had written. What a d-bag.
The move-on ad in general is not attacking a general anyway. It is atackign a political operative of the president, because that is exactly what Petreus has been since the president fired the last commander who disagreed with himm
September 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pmWOO WOO!! the ad has poo-pooed!! and thankfully, the troops’ tours are still 15-months long instead the normal 12 months!!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pmads criticizing public officials have their root in colonial newspapers running caricatures of King George III… we have a history of this; it’s one of the liberties we’re proud of… so why the attention to this ad?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pmHmmmm… why wasnt Goldberg whined about by you cons?
Typical con double standard!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pmBTW Jake, how was the ad disgusting?
Other than the fact that its true!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pmPS: is that Sean Astin?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pmWhy is the moveon ad still news?
Its irrelevant to say the least.
It just shows that conservaitves cant defend their failed policies and have to resort to nonsense in order to feel “superiorâ€
Comment by detroitsuperfly — September 21, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Exactly right. The Republicans are desperately trying to deflect attention away from their utter and complete inability to govern. If the Democrats attempt to get to the bottom of scandals in the DoJ, in the handling of the occupation, in the issuing of non-competitive contracts here or overseas . . . it’s a witch hunt that is wasting the country’s time. When the Republicans attempt to derail the First Amendment by claiming that an advocacy advertisement is inappropriate, it’s fine with the “conservatives” and “independents” who have no real use for the Constitution.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:37 pmTheir once was a Troll named ‘IT’
Who opined more than a bit.
But he put up a list,
Proceeding to persist
Now nobody gives a shit!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pmThis post proceeds on the mistaken assumption that Jonah Goldberg exists as an intellectual or principled person. Nope and noper. He exists to help the right scream the loudest. That’s it.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:39 pmIt, See #52.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pmComment by Zimzone — September 21, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
I think the second line needs another syllable, but otherwise: two thumbs up!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pmgenerals in the armed forces of other countries must be laughing their butts off about how the big bad american general whined and cried about an ad that said “mean” things about him. that makes america look super-tough. ; )
September 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pmI guess you didnt read the body copy and are jsut knee jerk reacting.
Typcial of conservatives, no substance. Only emotion.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:41 pmTP and moveon are by themselves it seems on this issue since the majority of the Dem controlled congress voted against you.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:45 pmWhat personal attacks? I merely stated the obvious.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pm“No “personal attacksâ€, detroitsuperfly.”
sounds like someone’s just as sensitive as petraeus.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:49 pmThis talk of votes on empty resolutions meaning something is truly pathetic. How many more soldiers must die before the minority party will get off their collective butts and get to work?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pmI know, it’s like being on a playground: “Ma, he’s being mean to me!”
September 21st, 2007 at 1:53 pmDuh! (slapping my forehead) I always forget:
September 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pmIOKIOYAR!
How many rightwingers joined in the defamation of the generals who spoke out against the war?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:56 pmNO ONE is talking about the facts reported in the Petraeus ad - they are focusing on the headline. The facts are in the text. They cannot be denied.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:58 pmNO ONE is saying that Petraeus has had the nickname, BetrayUS, for a long time — and it began in the military.
How many rightwingers joined in the defamation of the generals who spoke out against the war?
Comment by Marie — September 21, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Recommend | Report Abuse
All of them. No general is allowed to disagree with the Cheerleader-In -Chief about military strategery. The Deciderer noes all.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:58 pmNo personal attacks, Jake. Its agaisnt the terms!
LMFAO!
September 21st, 2007 at 2:00 pm“Petraeus has had the nickname, BetrayUS, for a long time — and it began in the military.
Comment by Marie — September 21, 2007 @ 1:58 pm”
but how? [see #26]
September 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pmIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†does not see the difference between criticism of a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE and the current ACTIVE DUTY commander in Iraq, please let me know.
Comment by Jake D. — September 21, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
I may or may not be on the ignore list, but I do see a difference. A huge difference.
Criticism of a presidential candidate is important, but optional - statistically speaking, each individual candidate is not likely to be the next President - especially at this stage. In their capacity as candidate they are, at best, “potential future public servants.” American opinion leaders can either choose to highlight them with criticism or not.
Criticism of an active duty commander is vital. The top military brass are unelected politicians who have gotten to their position after a long process of managing their careers and rubbing the right elbows. They are public servants who directly hold in their hands the reputation and security of our country, and the lives of thousands of of our young people. It is our patriotic duty to ensure that the men and women entrusted with such critical assets are making the right decisions, unbiased by any political aspirations.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pmJust so, toasterhead, just so. like Teddy Roosevelt said, it’s an American’s duty to criticize, long and loud. It’s our money killing all of those people.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pmComment by toasterhead — September 21, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
You just earned more karma! Very well expressed and a critically important reminder of how the republic is supposed to operate (no, not you, TROS).
September 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pmExcellent point, toasterhead.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:12 pmWell said toasterhead. It is our patriotic duty to question.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pmHas anyone mentioned the fact yet that Goldberg is a certifiable pussy?
September 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pmGoldberg has been a staunch defender of the invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq. Naturally, he is going to defend BetrayUS, because BetrayUS has staunchly defended the invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq and is a sold-out NeoCon operative, like Goldberg and the trolls in here.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pmGoldberg’s syndicated column (phew, stinky!) appears regularly in my local paper. A couple of months back, he wrote one that invoked the name of Al Qaeda about 20 times without ever acknowledging that “Al Qaeda” has nothing to do with Iraq, or that even “Al Qaeda in Iraq” only comprises about 2-3% of the insurgency. In other words, a typical lying manipulative propagandist “conservative”.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:33 pmWhile listening to talk radio, I have noticed lately many are contributing to Moveon because of all the hype going on. I did too. All should give what they can as this appears to be our spine. When I hear Bush or others get out there complaining about Moveon… my credit card is out and the donation is made.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:34 pmIn other news: Hillary Clinton officially declared she’s not a lesbian — not that there’s anything wrong with that:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ news/ wn_report/ 2007/ 09/ 21/ 2007-09-21_hillary_clinton_im_not_a_lesbian.html
Comment by Jake D.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pmI find it amusing so many of you on the right are in lock step about Hillary….it is always a conservative, never a progressive bringing that name up. Why?
Why are you in our primary? It has to be because she would be a prime candidate to smear or you know the dems will win and Hillary is the most corporate friendly. The MSM polls appear to be for Hillary, but every progressive talk poll, polls taken on the moment so the repugs can not mess it up, are for Kucinick, Edwards…some for Obama and maybe one for Hillary.
Get out of our primary.
While listening to talk radio, I have noticed lately many are contributing to Moveon because of all the hype going on. I did too. All should give what they can as this appears to be our spine. When I hear Bush or others get out there complaining about Moveon… my credit card is out and the donation is made.
Comment by had enough — September 21, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
You and 12,000 other people, according to Eli Pariser. MoveOn raised more than $500,000 after the Senate vote yesterday.
I’m just going to pretend that the Democrats who voted “yea” on that asinine resolution had this in mind when they voted.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pmYour money is better spent buying used lottery tickets.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pmEh gads! Criminy, someone quotes Jonah Goldberg?
That’s like telling people you enjoy the taste of spit-up in your mouth.
Come hither to observe the take down on the paste-eating doughboy. and put down your coffee mug least you destroy your keyboard.
tboggs.com had a Koufax Award nomination for it…. after “Flowers for Algernon”
http://tbogg.blogspot.com/ 2005/ 05/ flowers-for-goldberg-nro-post-day-one.html
by the way the kid is mentally retarded so give him same break.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm79 - thanks for doing so - it was Goldberg who, like a huge pussy, declined Al Franken’s invitation to fight him like the manly man he claims to be. In that respect, he’s exactly like every other righty chickenhawk blowhard in the country.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pm#85 A Rove aide explained this. They did it with Kerry too. RIght now they are using reverse psychology with Hillary. Like with Kerry they choose to focus on the most beatable/polarizing candidate and project them as being the one they really fear. This 1) brings out the “base” and 2) they think it makes dems want to vote for the candidate the republicans really fear. In 2004 the aiide said the one they feared was Edwards. Right now it is Edwards and Obama.
Besides that they simply hate all things Clinton regardless of the validity of the reason for the hate.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:01 pm“MoveOn raised more than $500,000 after the Senate vote yesterday.”
No kidding! My thanks to Bush, and to the senators who wasted their day voting on a ridiculous non-productive resolution.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:19 pmMore funds, more support for MoveOn.
TP and moveon are by themselves it seems on this issue since the majority of the Dem controlled congress voted against you.
Comment by Roger_Roger
September 21st, 2007 at 4:22 pmIt appears you can not check the pulse of the progressives by the voting trends of our so called dem led Congress. This can be seen with Congress’s 11% approval rating
Jake you are about as independent as a tapeworm.
I do agree with severus. I mean why have your weak candidate run against Obama, or Edwards, both photogenic, and in many ways comforting, when you can get Hillary in there, and trash the shit out of her?
September 21st, 2007 at 4:27 pmJonah Goldberg and his loser mother Lucianne were given their false fame in the 90’s from the womb of Newt Grinch fathered from the corrupt loins of Kenneth Star hating Bill Clinton as full-time employment.
This clown and his “mommy” are not worth your time!!
September 21st, 2007 at 4:27 pm#
“MoveOn raised more than $500,000 after the Senate vote yesterday.â€
No kidding! My thanks to Bush, and to the senators who wasted their day voting on a ridiculous non-productive resolution.
More funds, more support for MoveOn.
Comment by Marie
I am beginning to see the light of this very long tunnel…. such great news.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:34 pmExcuse me while I send a credit card donation to moveon.org…they need to continue to call the thugs in the crime family what they really are…liars.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:01 pmComment by dixie blood — September 21, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Thanks for the memory nudge, Dixie,
Below is a synopsis of Jonah’s “lineage” from Wiki:
September 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pmI would have used “Portray US” meaning GW BOTCH instead of the other tag.
However, the Repugniscums have used the following words to describe ordinary citizens who disagree with them, even if they are 1000 miles more removed from politics than Portray US:
commies
losers
unpatriotic
hippie scum
liberal losers
n1iggers
racist
f*ggots
jews
terrorist
enemy simpathizers (sp?)
scum
useless alive…
I could go on. The point is that the MSM scumbags never call out Repugniscums for their name calling and ALWAYS phuck over the left at the slightest afront!!!
September 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pmI could go on. The point is that the MSM scumbags never call out Repugniscums for their name calling and ALWAYS phuck over the left at the slightest affront!!!
Comment by dixie blood — September 21, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Well, that’s what BushCo has paid the MSM to do, so no surprise here!
September 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pmGreat point dixie blood. Thin skinned and thick skulled.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pmWell, that’s what BushCo has paid the MSM to do, so no surprise here!
Comment by upside99 — September 21, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Absolutely no surprise that BotchCo (sic) 8-)) continues to pay the dues that Ronnie RayGun started (using the reich-wing Christianistas) and his Daddy continued. The MSM sucks (except KO and Cafferty) and the left will never gain a position in the middle of the road again until this crooked and tilted MSM is busted up and put back in the hands of the people.
Otherwise the blogs will wipe them out!!!
How stupid can the MSM continue to be?
September 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pmHow stupid can the MSM continue to be?
Comment by dixie blood — September 21, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
With Kutsie Katie Couric as one of the three main talking heads, the answer seems pretty clear!
September 21st, 2007 at 5:28 pmWith Kutsie Katie Couric as one of the three main talking heads, the answer seems pretty clear!
Comment by upside99 — September 21, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
That’s right! The parade of air-heads just continues to get more lofty.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pm# 91 - “… I am a registered Independent, not GOP or Democrat.”
Comment by Jake D. — September 21, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
So is Bill Orally (Rupert Murdoch’s Bucket Boy), now!
{:-)
You’re in great company now!
September 21st, 2007 at 8:12 pmI made another contribution to moveon.org today….did you?
September 21st, 2007 at 8:52 pm# 108 - “Guilt by association is a logical fallacy in formal debate.”
Comment by Jake D. — September 22, 2007 @ 12:36 am
You’ve never formally debated anyone on this thread or on any other TP thread that I have read, troll. All you have done is distract from other’s debate and put those who have denounced you for the troll that you are on your silly “Ignore” list.
I associate you with Bucket Boy because, despite your lame protestations otherwise, like Loofa Bill, you consistently carry water for the looniest of the NeoCons.
This thread is about Jonah Goldberg’s hypocrisy. It is no surprise that you have defended the self-identified NeoCon/Republican Goldberg vociferously on this thread. All the trolls in here have.
UNDER THE BRIDGE, NASTY TROLL!
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 amThis character has had a splendid military career as a chickenshit, chickenhawk, warmongering, armchair ranger. Why anyone listens to these lying cowards, I will never know. Anyone connected to the word neo-conservative is a coward who most probably has never worn a uniform. Goldberg is young enough to enlist.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pmHow’s that book coming, Jonah? Whale got your book?
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 am