Blackburn focused more on MoveOn ad than troop deaths.
By on Sep 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Blackburn focused more on MoveOn ad than troop deaths.
Yesterday on MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson show, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) repeatedly condemned the recent MoveOn.org ad about Gen. Petraeus. But when host David Shuster asked her for the name of the last soldier from her district killed in Iraq, Blackburn faltered. Schuster informed her of the soldier’s name and added, “When was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody?” Watch it:
UPDATE: Carpetbagger has more.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
good for schuster
September 25th, 2007 at 10:32 amWhen is MSNBC going to get rid of the passive agressive shill Tucker and give Shuster his own show? Tucker has lower ratings than Beck and Grace, for goodness sake. MSNBC should take a hint from Olbermann’s ratings and recognize that they the opportunity to appeal to a growing audience that has long been aliented by cable news.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:35 amShuster did the right thing. Where’s Carlson? On vacation? If it had been Tucker, he would have been all over the MoveOn ad as if it was responsible for all the ills in the world.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:36 amwhat can you expect? she is a BUSHIE, and BUSHIES ARE FU*KING DUMB & TRIVIAL!
September 25th, 2007 at 10:37 amsee? it’s just that easy.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:38 amWOW! If only we could see more of this type of questioning.
MSNBC–Please give Shuster a full time gig.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:38 amwoo hoo! go david shuster!
and take care, man… always watch your back…
September 25th, 2007 at 10:40 amyou and keith… can’t be too careful… we need yous!
.
Schuster has got a brass set. Good for him. The Moveon ad asked questions that hadn’t been addressed. It pointed out suspect data gathering and it questioned the rationale behind that suspect data.
The ad is a target because it’s easy to chest thump and support a General. It’s much harder to take a sober look at the mess that is Iraq.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:41 ammore schuster, courtesy of tpm:
“MSNBC’s David Schuster shared some very interesting news with his viewers last night: He said that pro-war GOP Senators who are up for reelection have repeatedly refused to go on MSNBC and have directly turned down multiple invitations to appear on the network and discuss the war.”
September 25th, 2007 at 10:42 amI caught this just by chance yesterday, as I typically watch Hardball but always change stations when I hear Tucker Carlson….
September 25th, 2007 at 10:51 amso I saw this happen with Schuster….and I have one thing to say:
Schuster–YOU ROCK!!
He didn’t just catch this moron with this ONCE–he must have re-iterated the point three different times, as this bimbo didn’t know when to say uncle and just kept setting him up over & over.
It was a beautiful thing to behold.
i hate the sniping, ignorant sniping, that is directed at FREE SPEECH,
but a positive, unintended, though often reliable, consequence of all this hoopla is the repetition of that MOVE ON ad: BETRAY US?
yes, yes BushCo is betraying US.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am.
The ad is a target because it’s easy to chest thump and support a General. It’s much harder to take a sober look at the mess that is Iraq.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 25, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Unfortunately, we have had way too much chest thumping from the ad’s critics and absolutely no rebuttal of any of the ad’s content. The righties hope that by questioning the patriotism of anyone who supports the ad, it will distract people from the fact that they can’t refute what it says.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:53 amgive that man a show for pete’s sake!
September 25th, 2007 at 10:59 amkeep it up indeed:
“Independent voters tilt toward Democratsâ€
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070923/ap_on_el_ge/irked_independents
September 25th, 2007 at 11:00 amComment by Toliver — September 25, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Shoot…the name of ANY soldier killed from her district would have sufficed. Given the suffering and sacrifice that the people in her district are going through, it sure as hell wouldn’t hurt her to keep up with the names of the dead. Apparently she hasn’t bothered herself to contact the families who have suffered a tragic loss and offer her condolences. Then again, I’m sure she has plenty of staff members who take care of that for her, so that she doesn’t have to.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:10 amToliver, was the General truthful when he didn’t include car bombs in his data? Is the General being truthful when he ignores the religious civil war going on in Iraq? Is the General acknowledging the ethnic cleansing going on?
All legitimate questions that are ignored by the right. The last 3 months have been the deadliest summer yet but that’s also ignored.
You will be stuck on the “Betray Us” tag but ignore the content. Why is that?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:11 amI caught it last night, and it made my day. The look on her face as the interview concluded was priceless! I downloaded it and took unnatural glee at watching a wingnut chickenhawk plucked in real-time!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:12 am“When was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody?â€
Schuster is my new hero…
September 25th, 2007 at 11:15 amShe gets her ass kissed by FOX it’s disgusting.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:16 amYou will be stuck on the “Betray Us†tag but ignore the content. Why is that?
Comment by hellinabucket — September 25, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Because that’s all he got to go on… and on, and on, and on…
September 25th, 2007 at 11:17 amWow… I never thought there would be a day when Tucker EXCLAMATION POINT would have something journalisticly relevant and useful on the show. Congrats to Shuster for giving Tucker EXCLAMATION POINT something that he cannot do.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:20 amMoveOn took in nearly 1/2 million dollars the day after the ad ran.
You won’t hear that on any MSM outlet.
They’re close to raising a cool million to counter with another ad.
Whining instead of winning; the truth hurts, eh Neoturds?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:21 amBTW, do any trolls have an answer for a question I’ve asked many times: “Why is General Petreus not subject to criticism in any form?”
September 25th, 2007 at 11:21 amWell, that’s one lady who will never be on MSNBC again LOL!
David Schuster became my hero (well, one of them, after Keith, John Stewart and Steven Colbert) during the Libby trial and he continues to move up the ranks in my book. They need to give him his own show – he is absolutely fearless!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:22 ambut but I know a chaplain! lol
September 25th, 2007 at 11:23 amShe gets her ass kissed by FOX it’s disgusting.
Comment by Guido OBGYN Lover — September 25, 2007 @ 11:16 am
I’ve always felt that more than a few of the righties out there in the media were simply opportunists following the money. They saw folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reily getting rich and followed suit.
Now that Olbermann is really starting to grow in popularity and “succeeding”, you’ll probably see others, like Schuster here, try to emulate that success. S/b interesting when this sort of pushback becomes all the rage in the media.
Wonder what the Tucker Carlsons and Glen Becks will do? it’s going to be wildly entertaining to watch them try and distance themselves from BushCo and their own words.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:23 amThat’s because MoveOn is NOT fringe. It’s very mainstream liberalism. It is, indeed, far left, but it is NOT fringe! The beltline reporters don’t understand that yet. They think it’s a “fringe” group because it’s on the internet and because it is SO far away from Reaganomics (their brains move slower than ours, so 20+ year old politics is still very “today” to them). It’ll take them probably 40 years before they realize that the internet itself is mainstream.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:24 amS L O W L Y , we are seeing true journalists (Schuster, etc.) coming to the forefront and toads like Chris ‘Smirker’ Wallace and Tucker and the rest are losing whatever credibility they might have had as the truth comes out.
With the 29%ers as their only audience left (and shrinking fast), Faux and CNN will have to change course or be left with the low IQers and the 70 YO demographics. About the only ads that will sell to them will be Roid-rage Wrestling, Bass fishing equipment and Double-wide trailer sales companies.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:24 amShameful…just shameful. I admit I posted my earlier comment before I viewed the video clip, but damn, was I right on.
She stays in constant touch with those from her district who are deployed in Iraq, and their families, but she can’t even offer up ONE name of ONE soldier killed in Iraq. The first, the latest, the third…not ONE.
Shameful. Damn shameful. And she couldn’t even offer up one valid reason for ignoring what Rush did while piling on to MoveOn. What did she offer? MoveOn took out a newspaper ad and Rush didn’t. MoveOn got a special ad rate and Rush didn’t. Yeah, that’s a fair comparison.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:24 amContrast this with Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), a war supporter who supported the renaming of french fries to “freedom fries.” He attended one funeral for a constituent in his district killed in Iraq and decided to turn against the war.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:30 amBlackburn claims that she and her crack political team have been in touch with military families. One wonders how many of those families were Gold Star mothers and Military Families Speak Out, all of whom recognize that their family members are not fighting and dying and becoming maimed and crippled, disfigured and dismembered, for some ambiguous noble cause but instead are fighting and dying for the lies told to them by their government. Soldiers- resist the occupation by telling the military that you will no longer blindly accept and obey illegal orders. The best way to stop a war is to have it happen from within.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:34 am“But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men…I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. ”
Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau, 1849
Never in the history of our Country since Thoreau penned his famous (or infamous as the case may be if you are a “Government” man) has his treatise been more apropos. I recommend and challenge all thinking individuals to read the entire essay and judge for themselves the appropriateness to the Bush Administration. (Google “Civil Disobedience”)
In a post yesterday I submitted a comment that dealt directly with the tenets of the essay. My efforts only resulted in me being branded as the worst kind of radical. As I stated then, and will repeat now, if I, and Thoreau if you will, are extreme radicals then there should be a lot more of us.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:36 amEven the congressional majority that voted to the end war? Doesn’t seem smart to me. The “moderate” democrats need to go, sure, but for instance, my Rep, Mr. Brad Miller has voted to end the war every single time. Not to mention all the other good bills he votes for and bad bills he votes against. Good guy. I keep good track my representatives and senators.
Don’t lump all incumbents together.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:42 amShe needs to memorize the names of the fallen?
Comment by Toliver — September 25, 2007 @ 10:57 am
You mean the fallen troops in her district are not worth her time? Their lives are meaningless to you?
Why do you hate the troops, Toliver?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:42 amMarsha, Marsha, Marsha.
You want to stick to garbage talking points, then you will look like a bimbo. Are maybe you are one.
Marsha has a poll regarding the surge. Vote:
September 25th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I cannot get a link to post!
Here is another attempt to post her link to vote on her poll about the surge.
http://blackburn.house.gov/
September 25th, 2007 at 11:49 amRush Limbaugh IS the clustrof*%ing ADD!!
September 25th, 2007 at 11:51 amO. Bigfoot sez:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
Any time anyone, even a decorated general, decides to throw away his integrity and honor in favor of becoming the latest mouthpiece for this administration’s poisonous lies, that person forfeits any claim to respectability.
Additionally, I notice that a lot of trolls take issue with two words in the ad (”betray us”), but somehow fail to mention any of the ad’s points. Why is that, I wonder? Can’t refute any of the points moveon.org made in the ad, littlefoot? Tell us…have you even seen the ad, or are you just practicing outrage by hearsay?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:51 amThere is always something very sick about reichwing cunts.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:56 amIt’s a well known fact that righties can dish it out but they can’t take it.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:58 amHere’s Marsha’s poll results as of 11:00 am., CST.
Looks like some more egg on her face.
Post 41 has the link, go vote. Do it for Schuster!
Given recent combat operations, what grade would you give General Petraeus’ surge plan in Iraq?
The surge is working – give it more time 4.62 % (93)
It’s too early to tell – wait and see 0.74 % (15)
Not enough progress – begin troop withdrawal 5.86 % (118)
It’s a failure – pull the troops out now 88.78 % (1789)
September 25th, 2007 at 11:58 ambtw – how about a resolution condemning all the child molesters in the GOP? Plenty if them in the news lately. My daughter’s safety is WAAAAyYYY the hell more important to me than any Generals alleged fragile ego.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5icZT2eJIwU5VjIl_EPmFCLPSSu4A
September 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pmExactly – The Repukian talking points are in full attack mode on MoveOn now, as if I even need to point that out.
Ignore the “it”
Buck Fush
September 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pm47: s/b “of” not “if” (in case there are spelling/grammar cops around)
September 25th, 2007 at 12:00 pmAlso, note in $46 poll results, that ‘begin troop withdrawal’ and ‘pull the troops out now’ combine to 94.64%!
Is that data enough for all you piss soaked Trolls?
September 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pmI’d even venture a guess that my daughter is more likely to be molested by a bible-banger wingnut than she is to be harmed by a Islamic fundamentalist, given where we live. Not that I’ll allow either to occur.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:02 pmIdiot math show us that 70, 80, 90 % numbers are not considered “mainstream”. Rather than indicating a Median or Mean, as in pre-9/11 statistical calculation, “mainstream” now connotes that arbitrary quantity which most closely corresponds to RNC weekly talking point memos. Get with it, Lefties! Mathematics changed after 9/11 along with everything else.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pmMy bad, tombaker, I’ll revisit my calculus immediately! /snark
September 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pmMoveOn.org had every right to run the ad they did, however, the rest of the citizens of the United States have the right to critisize the ad as well.
What the ad did do by bashing a decorated U.S. military general was expose even more of America to the radical, out of the mainstream ideas that MoveOn.org supports.
The ad was succsessful, but probably not in any way that MoveOn was hoping for…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 25, 2007 @ 11:44 am
You haven’t been paying attention. MoveOn got a huge donation boost after this. But perhaps, like others on the Right, you never actually read the ad.
You could try that or read this.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:07 pmTom Baker is right that things changed after 9/11 in this country–a slow, but steady erosive neo-con coup against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was put into action and is on-going. Just spinning and spinning lies has, however, become less and less effective which is why there has been this huge decline in support for Bush-Cheney and their lockstep lickboots. Mathematics, on the other hand, remains immutable.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:11 pmTracy1 sez:
Indeed. How dare he ask a Congressional Representative questions about her district! The cheek!
</snark>
Then they all need to be replaced. If I was a Representative, I would have a list posted prominently in my office, and you can bet your ass I would have it memorized.
Oh! Is that what this is “about”, then? I thought this was “about” moveon.org “slandering” a decorated general.
Funny how when you trolls try that angle, and fail, you move right on to the next angle of attack, all while studiously ignoring the facts raised in the ad.
BTW, I notice your comrade-in-arms, Littlefoot, has been curiously silent since I challenged his vapid assertions in my earlier post. Since he seems to have recused himself, care to answer in his stead?
September 25th, 2007 at 12:23 pm58 – Right – he’s just a combat veteran whose blood was spilled while he served our country. You righties bruise easily, given all the tough-guy bluster you throw around.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:24 pmI predict that Tucker will soon depart for Fox where he’ll be right at home with the rest of the Republican cheerleaders. His daddy is probably talking with Roger Ailes now. And Schuster definitely deserves his own show on MS-NBC. I think he’s probably the most objective analyst on the network…he’s tough on all politicians that don’t come prepared.
That segment really drives home the superficiality of the Republican position on this war. But no surprise…when your Party leader won’t attend a funeral of a fallen soldier, why should they care? Every Congressperson who supports this illegal and immoral occupation ought to be required to have a loved one serving in Iraq. Maybe then, we’d see a seachange in Congress about supporting the Bush-Cheney folly.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:25 pmTracy:
1)If you claim to support a war, and believe in it, then claim you’re in touch with your “constituents” in your own area (how many soldiers are killed, at any given time, who belong to a specificed geographic location…shouldn’t she be “in touch” with that low number of people? Shouldn’t it be well known what family was affected by losing a son?
2)No, Tracy, the ISSUE IS THAT PEOPLE ARE DYING and Congress appropriates Congressional time to criticize a newspaper print ad.
You. Are. Clueless.
DISGUSTING that people would put political party before reality.
What’s right is right, and wrong is wrong…spending time blah blah blahing about an ad vs. REPRESENTING the people you’re supposed to, by being involved in CURRENT events that MATTER is WRONG.
If you can’t see that, there is no hope for you.
You people have split personalities…support the troops! blah blah blah, then when it comes down to it, f*ck the damn troops! It’s about getting a discount rate for an ad, that’s the ISSUE!
Silly me.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:25 pmIf you were to ask on the spot, as Schuster did, ANY of the representatives in congress about what the name of the last soldier killed that was from their district, none of them would probably know.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
In my estimation, Tracy, ANY elected official who cannot name a fallen sodier from their district should be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE–whoever they are! It is a shameful time when those elected to represent the people can FAIL TO READ THE INTELLIGENCE prior to asking ANY SOLDIER to go to war on behalf of their country/state/district, and then to be so callous and removed from the flesh and blood aspect of their actions NOT TO EVEN LEARN THEIR NAMES after they have made the ultimate sacrifice.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:25 pmPeople, we must push the MANTRA: Republicans don’t give a fig for you.
Tracy 1, I’ll ask you since Toliver didn’t/couldn’t answer them.
Was the General truthful when he didn’t include car bombs in his data? Is the General being truthful when he ignores the religious civil war going on in Iraq? Is the General acknowledging the ethnic cleansing going on?
All legitimate questions that are ignored by the right. The last 3 months have been the deadliest summer yet but that’s also ignored.
You will be stuck on the “Betray Us†tag but ignore the content. Why is that?
September 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pmTracy1 sez:
Indeed. Traitorous behavior in the latter is much more serious.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pmHagel isn’t in charge of thousands of soldiers.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 25, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
But Hagel is a decorated Vietnam war veteran and a Republican. None of the Chickenhawks in the WH or the comedian rusher or haniteehee or billo can claim to ever have been in combat, so they (and the trolls here) can STFU. They all turn on their own like a bunch of cockroaches.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:26 pmThe ad was succsessful, but probably not in any way that MoveOn was hoping for…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 25, 2007 @ 11:44 am
So here’s where yer hidin’ out.
Yer an F-in’ LIAR!
I never falsify stats.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 25, 2007 @ 11:29 am
You most certainly did. You tried passing off stats as current when they were 2 yrs old. Excuse me, just a yr and a half. Unfortunately for you, at the time I cuaght you, I cut and pasted that exchange into a word doc, which I still have. here’s YOUR original post, and my reply.
“… The troops have drawn conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work.â€
Comment by O. Bigfoot — August 25, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Since Little [ ] won’t link to his “sourceâ€, I found at least one of them for ya, folks. The above info is actually from a Zogby poll taken almost a yr and half ago (source below! ;-D!!). No wonder Little [ ] didn’t provide the reference. Don’t know where the rest of it comes from, but ** YAWN **, I think it’s safe to ignore Little [ ]’s “data†here.
He’s an F-ing LIAR!!!
Released: February 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 25, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Follow the link and you’ll find where L’il Dinghy got his “statsâ€.
Yer… an F-in’ LIAR!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 25, 2007 @ 11:35 am
September 25th, 2007 at 12:27 pmThis lady actually harped on the “favored rate” bit? Is her middle name “Petty”?
That favored rate is available to anyone and everyone if they allow flexibility of placement. I’m sure the GrOPers have used the same advantage at one time or another. What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?
Fear and smear doesn’t go as far as it used to, huh lady?
September 25th, 2007 at 12:27 pmThe saddest part in all of this…is this crap is what gets the American public’s attention…
Does anyone actually visit Moveon.org? “fringe” “nutjobs”?
That doesn’t fit the website in any way. How can they twist reality so much…
Americans better wake up, and read read read. I’m an information junky, and it’s PATHETIC what the average American does not know.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:28 pmThe point that Shuster made, and he made it with dead accuracy, is that this Republican commotion over the ad is just political posturing and that Republicans, as usual, do not care a whit about the young Americans dying for a chimpanzee’s folly. Republicans lift the words “Betray Us” right out of the ad, without admitting that the words that follow it, “cooking the books for the White House” were a part of that ad and summed up its message. Instead, they want to lift the word “Betray Us” completely out of context and make that their message, saying that they love the troops whereas Move On does not.
The fact that the people criticizing the ad accuse Move On of bashing the troops (which the ad never did) while they themselves cannot even remember the name of the soldiers from their districts who die lays bare naked the true agenda of the ChimpFluffing traitors that the modern Republican Party has become.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pmComment by hellinabucket — September 25, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
hellinabucket, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an answer. You asked Toliver those questions, and he responded by fleeing the thread. I asked Littlefoot those questions, and he also fled.
I’m betting that, when pressed on the issue, Tracy will behave in exactly the same manner, The neocon cockroaches scatter when the kitchen light of Truth is switched on.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:30 pmThis lady actually harped on the “favored rate†bit? Is her middle name “Petty�
Actually she insists on being called Congressman Blackburn, so she might not appreciate being called a lady.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:31 pmDo some research: The term Betrayus had been with the general for a long time before Moveon.org. Dubya chose him for that negative quality. The other generals got fired for telling the truth instead of toeing the line for the chickenshit, chickenhawk cowards in the WH.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:34 pmNo holding my breath. Just clearing my mind of the garbage and attempting to discuss the facts.
I’m not anticipating any response. That in itself speaks volumes.
I’m as guilty as anybody else here in bashing others but I’m making a concerted effort to put that aside and to confront the posters here that have talking points but little content.
It shows how shallow they are and hopefully, it shows others that come to this site.
With that said, I can’t promise that I unload on a poster that shows an inordinate amount of ignorance.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:36 pmThat I won’t unload is what I meant to type. More caffine is needed.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:37 pmHow about,
No, His data neglected to include car bombs as well as any wounded.
Yes, He stated there is no religious civil war. He is wrong and the GAO data prove it.
and prove it. His data collection is faulty Toliver.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:43 pmRighties are clearly livid-green with envy that MoveOn enjoys membership in the MILLIONS, and is enjoying a HUGE surge in membership and donations stemming from this ad imbroglio.
When a Righty is raging, it’s for one of two reasons – fear or envy, and in this case it’s both.
What a sad existence, letting negative emotions be your guiding light.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pmSchuster is a total jerk. If you were to ask on the spot, as Schuster did, ANY of the representatives in congress about what the name of the last soldier killed that was from their district, none of them would probably know. This is about the NY Times giving an unfair discount to MoveOn.org so they could run their ad. Once again it’s no wonder the NY Times, or should I say NY Slimes, is in the dump as far as circulation and stock price.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 25, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Schuster isn’t a jerk just because he asked a question that illuminated a congresswoman’s priorities. It’s true that most members of Congress (regardless of party) probably wouldn’t have been able to answer that question. However, they SHOULD be able to, whether they support the war or not. And they SHOULD place more importance on the soldiers who have given their lives for this “cause” than on an advertisement from a political action group. Our troops are real people, not just nameless bits of cannon fodder.
As far as this being about the NYTimes giving MoveOn an unfair discount, that issue is dead. The fees have been corrected, and MoveOn has paid the difference. You’ll have to find something else about the ad to criticize. Any meaningful rebuttal of the actual CONTENT of the ad?
September 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pmTracy, The latest GAO report and the Jones report are two such reports that refute the General as well as the latest Pentagon report as discussed on another thread here.
I do have to remind you that we are not currently at war. There has been no declaration of war and that is important to understand.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:11 pmRush slamming Senator Hagel and calling him a traitor to his party is nothing compared to calling a general a traitor who is in command of our troops at this very moment. Hagel isn’t in charge of thousands of soldiers.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 25, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Petraeus is failing the soldiers he is suposedly in charge of, and failing the country he is supposed to defend. Why aren’t you in Iraq, wearing the uniform? Are you just another chickenhawk Republican warmonger with a yellow stripe down your back?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:12 pmPetraeus chose to make himself a target, by becomong the face of the administration, instead of doing his job. He deserves the MoveOn smear, as he as betrayed his troops and his country. Just because he’s a general officer doesn’t mean he can’t be questioned and criticized, and, in fact, means that he should be.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pmBlackburn: Just another Busch war whore.
∞
September 25th, 2007 at 1:17 pmAri Fleischer couldn’t name the name of the wounded soldier who appeared in his own pro-war advertisement. Blackburn didn’t even pause to appear as though she was trying to remember the name of the last soldier from her district killed in Iraq, despite telling Shuster that her office (not her) works closely with the families of the fallen. Blackburn didn’t even pause to act like she was trying to recall his name because she never knew it to begin with.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm“When was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody?â€
Let all the thieves go because they aren’t murderers? ;)
September 25th, 2007 at 1:24 pmMcCain is very much a supporter of the WH.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 25, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
And is irrelevant and insane. Now, why aren’t you in Iraq?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:28 pmComment by Tracy1 — September 25, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
I applaud that you are at least trying to respond to the points made in the MoveOn ad. This is more than I have heard from any other conservative so far.
However, merely challenging a statement with “prove it!” isn’t a valid rebuttal. Anybody can say that, regardless of subject matter. When you refute, you should provide your own links, polls, or other evidence to back up your challenge. That in mind, we can pretty much discount your following statements:
“Please cite these so-called ‘independent reports’.”
“Please cite the Pentagon’s bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence.”
“Do you have link to this story?”
“Has he (Petraeus) stated that he thinks Iraq is not in the midst of a civil war?”
“Where is that poll that says that Americans think that ALL of our troops need to be withdrawn?”
This leaves two points you made in rebuttal — and I give you a fair amount of applause, because this is more than any other righty has been willing to do. Your points:
1) “When an offensive takes place there is ALWAYS a surge in violence in the short term. This IS a war in case you missed it.”
2) “Just as important…so would the insurgents, Iran, and al Qaeda (want to hear a timetable for troop withdrawal).”
I don’t think anybody here is surprised at the escalation in violence. However, this isn’t what we were promised by TIIC when the surge was proposed. We were told that this surge was necessary to secure Baghdad, to quell the violence, and that we would see results in six months. We didn’t believe this bushwa back then and don’t believe it now. No matter how Petraeus spins it, the fact remains that Baghdad is no more secure than it was before the surge (in fact, conditions have become even more restricted for American civilian visitors), and violence has been ramped up rather than quelled. One cannot excuse a complete failure to deliver upon promises by saying there’s a war on.
And to your second point — yes, EVERYBODY would be glad to see us leave Iraq (except possibly Al Qaeda — our presence there is the greatest recruiting tool they have). The insurgents will continue fighting their civil war whether we’re there or not. Iran will continue to aid the Shiites whether we’re there or not. All we are doing is fanning the flames, which is why the Iraqi civilians want us gone.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pmLet all the thieves go because they aren’t murderers? ;)
Comment by upright left — September 25, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
This doesn’t make any sense.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:35 pmVery well said missmolly. Can anyone direct me to the actual “Petraeus Report”. There is so much talk on both sides but I can’t find a link that shows the report itself. I have the GAO report and would like to compare the two but I can’t locate the General’s report.
Tracy1, we aren’t at war.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:37 pm“As far as this being about the NYTimes giving MoveOn an unfair discount, that issue is dead. The fees have been corrected, and MoveOn has paid the difference.â€
They wouldn’t have if no one would have called them on it.
It wasn’t their mistake, but the Times’. You’re good at straw men, why aren’t you in Iraq?
September 25th, 2007 at 1:38 pmBooya. Schuster is the man.
~Sean
September 25th, 2007 at 1:38 pm#69
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 25, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
“You “citizens†haven’t chosen to “critisize†Rush Limpballs for saying it first.â€
Calling a senator/ politican a “traitor†and calling a commanding general during a time a war isn’t even close to being a bad.
Comment by Tracy1
____________________
Where does the Move On ad call anyone a “traitor”? The word “traitor” is highly inflammatory. You do not have the right to attribute to that ad the word “traitor”. You can only refer to the word “betray”. You can accuse Move On of saying that Petraeus “betrayed” us. The ad does not call him a traitor. The ad does not accuse him of committing treason. You do not have the right to transform the word “betray” into the word “traitor” where it was never used.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pmThey wouldn’t have if no one would have called them on it.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 25, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
and you know this how? Are you prepared to point that same finger at Giuliani?
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/FEC_complaint_alleges_Rudy_got_soft_0925.html
September 25th, 2007 at 1:42 pmThe ad uses the same questionable practice as Fox has for years. Throw out an inflamitory statement in the form of a question.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:44 pmMarsha, Marsha, Marsha.
You want to stick to garbage talking points, then you will look like a bimbo. Are maybe you are one.
Marsha has a poll regarding the surge. Vote:
Comment by eve — September 25, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Did you see the results? 88% say pull the troops out now. Wow. Just…wow. I wonder how she’ll spin that? “Oh, many visitors to my site who voted in the poll saw me on MSNBC and wanted to embarrass me.”
September 25th, 2007 at 1:46 pmTracy: “Schuster is a total jerk.”
Poor Tracy. It’s very disconcerting for an authoritarian personality when someone questions the veracity of their cult leaders.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:47 pmuprightleft: “Let all the thieves go because they aren’t murderers? ;)”
This is the kind of “logic” we should expect from someone who felt Bush was preferrable to Gore and then, after four years, preferable to Kerry.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pmLet all the thieves go because they aren’t murderers? ;)
Comment by upright left — September 25, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
This doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 25, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
That’s kind of the point, bud. It’s what the story implied. ;)
September 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pmNow, Tracy is calling the fact that no war has been declared “semantics.”
Tracy, it’s over. About 88% of the American public thinks guys like you are delusional and absurd. Over 65% of the public doesn’t believe what your lovely general has to say. Over 55% of the public thinks Moveon had a right to say whatever they wanted to. Your phony outrage over their ad is just pathetic and useless.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm109 – IF we wanted to declare war on some country in the wake of 9/11 it would have to be Saudi Arabia (because Saudis provided the men, the financing and the radical ideology that propelled them), but the Bush family likes playing kissy-face with Saudi royalty way too much to ever do that.
I’m making another contribution to MoveOn today!!
September 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pmThanks for the motivation, righties!!
They use different methodology. Who makes the determination on which is the correct one to use?
Exactly my point. Why just stand behind Petraeus? He hasn’t come clean in how his data was obtained.
It’s not semantics. It’s an understanding of what the word “war” means. Congress declares war. You show an ignorance to this whole conflict. Afghanistan could have had war declared against them and the world would have stepped aside and largely agreed. The diversion into Iraq couldn’t have been because there was no evidence to support it.
We are having a rough time in Iraq because of the complete lack of planning. Not to even begin to discuss the rationale that led us there. It was done on the cheap, the military planners were ignored by Rumsfeld and Franks, Generals lost their jobs for speaking out. The #1 criteria for working in Paul Brehmer’s group was loyalty to Bush, not any understanding of the task at hand.
If you are going to stand on the side of a fool be prepared to defend the indefensible. There was absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. There was no coherent plan to transitition Iraq to democracy after the invasion. There was no reason. Can you provide any defensible reason to invade Iraq. Be prepared to defend that position.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:03 pmIf you want to play semantics that worse than what MoveOn.org’s ad insinuated about Petraeus being a traitor.
Comment by Tracy1
_________________
Utter BullS#*t. The Move On ad did not “insinuate” that Petraeus is a traitor to his country and you cannot even come up with the slightest evidence that it did. The ad accuses Petraeus of an act of betrayal in cooking the books, in other words, of slanting the information on behalf of the White House, which is essence accused Petraeus of playing politics. Betrayal is an act, which can either be big or small. Being a Traitor is a condition, a state of existence, that suggests sedition and going against everything your country stands for. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Jefferson Davis was a traitor. Virtually every politician commits ongoing acts of betrayal, by using and abusing information for his/her own political ends. Even a slight action can be a betrayal, such as a betrayal of trust. Beytral can be negative or positive, depending on who is being betrayed. A whistleblower, for example, betrays his employer, but might do it for admirable purposes. Accusing someone of committing an act of betrayal does not insinuate that the totality of someone’s actions are those of a traitor. If the right had a good argument against the Move On ad, they would try to refute the points it made and not have to resort to claiming that it insinuated anything or substituting inflammatory words such as “treason” or “traitor” for the word “betray”.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:04 pmuprightleft: “Let all the thieves go because they aren’t murderers? ;)â€
This is the kind of “logic†we should expect from someone who felt Bush was preferrable to Gore and then, after four years, preferable to Kerry.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — September 25, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Don’t blame me for the fallible logic in the story, rip. And there were quite a few other people who didn’t want Gore or Kerry/Heinz for president either. So is everyone who disagrees with you wrong, or just those who disagree politically, or just those who post here, or just Christians, or just conservatives……? ;)
September 25th, 2007 at 2:06 pmUtter BullS#*t. The Move On ad did not “insinuate†that Petraeus is a traitor to his country and you cannot even come up with the slightest evidence that it did. Comment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — September 25, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
SYLLABICATION: trai·tor
NOUN: One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/T0310500.html
OOps!
September 25th, 2007 at 2:14 pm116 – i think it’s just those people whose hissy-fit reactionism dragged us all into the bucket of sh*t we now occupy. your defensive posture leads me to believe you’re numbered among them.
sorry, colonel, for speaking for you.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:15 pmyour defensive posture leads me to believe you’re numbered among them.
Comment by tombaker — September 25, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Once again, you’d be wrong, buddy. ;)
September 25th, 2007 at 2:17 pmRegardless of what you think of the MoveOn ad, it is not congressional business. It is revolting and shameful that congress would spend even one minute on this when 4-6+ service members will die every day while they allow the current policy continue.
Well, we know where the priorities are.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:18 pmwhatever, tinky winky. you can take solace in the fact that you’re only helping motivate people like me (and there are oh-so many of us) to contribute even more $ to MoveOn so they can contribute oh-so much more to the downfall of radical conservatism.
so keep it coming – we welcome it, and i thank you for it. you being here is our little version of having mahmoud speak at Columbia – you think you’re proving something, when all you’re really doing is showing the world the depth of your foolishness.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:22 pmI don’t need a “rightâ€. It connotations are there.
Comment by Tracy1
____________________
And where in the body of that ad are the connotations? Where in the phrase that explains the use of “Betray Us” and that immediately follows it, “cooking the books” is the connotation that the ad accuses Petraeus of being a Benedict Arnold or Jefferson Davis? Where in the ad does it say he committed treason or was a traitor to his country?
September 25th, 2007 at 2:22 pm“Can anyone direct me to the actual “Petraeus Reportâ€. There is so much talk on both sides but I can’t find a link that shows the report itself. I have the GAO report and would like to compare the two but I can’t locate the General’s report.”
Comment by hellinabucket — September 25, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
It took me awhile to find it, too. All search engines point to noise made on both sides of the fence far more than the report itself. I finally found this PDF of what Petraeus said to Congress. Hope it helps.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Petraeus-Testimony20070910.pdf
September 25th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThank you very much missmolly. I do appreciate this.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:25 pmRegardless of what you think of the MoveOn ad, it is not congressional business. It is revolting and shameful that congress would spend even one minute on this when 4-6+ service members will die every day while they allow the current policy continue.
Well, we know where the priorities are.
Comment by DanCaveman — September 25, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Are you saying it doesn’t matter who supports our representatives then? No one should be concerned if they receive funds or other types of support from organizations whose behavior we consider reprehensible? That’s quite a slippery slope.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:28 pmwe welcome it, and i thank you for it.
Comment by tombaker — September 25, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
You’re welcome, tommie boy. Glad to help. And that donation to moveon really showed me! By the way, if you don’t give to ‘em, Soros will take up the slack. So don’t feel bad when ya can’t give any more, bud. ;)
September 25th, 2007 at 2:34 pmDo you think that the ads groups will print have to be authorized by congress? Maybe Bush should have to authorize all controversial ads?
Nice straw man. I said nothing about who supports our representatives. What I said was that it was not congressional business to waste time on the advertising habits of ANY group. MoveOn had a message and was able to pay for a venue to get it out. There is no slippery slope. This country is facing SERIOUS issues that deserve congressional attention way before this ad.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:35 pmApparently there are those who refuse to consider the context of the words “betray us” and ignore the fact that it referred to “cooking the books for the white house” (the words that immediately followed “General Betray Us” and explained them). There are those who refuse to address the points in the Move On ad and prefer to lift the words “Betray Us” bodily out of the ad and ascribe to them whatever meaning they want. There are those who refuse to recognize that “betray us” is an action that could describe the lying and the cooking of books that goes on in the political arena every day, including the actions of Generals who act like political operatives.
For those of you who prefer to hallucinate and magically intuit your own interpretation of what “betray us” means, devoid of context and completely ignoring the rest of the ad, why don’t you pick up a copy of a Merriam Webster dictionary. Go to the words in that diciontary of “General”, “Betray”, and “Us”, lift them completely out of context and then accuse Merriam Webster of the same thing you’re accusing Move On of doing. After all, you just want to lift words out of the text that defines their use and give them your own interpretration for political motives.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:44 pmNice straw man. I said nothing about who supports our representatives. What I said was that it was not congressional business to waste time on the advertising habits of ANY group. MoveOn had a message and was able to pay for a venue to get it out. There is no slippery slope. This country is facing SERIOUS issues that deserve congressional attention way before this ad.
Comment by DanCaveman — September 25, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Not a strawman at all, bud, but nice try at avoiding the point. We need to know to whom our representatives are beholden. People who think moveon was out of line in using the word betray in regard to a member of our military deserve to know which representatives are ok with that or are too beholden to moveon to oppose them. Kind of like most gay rights supporters don’t want to be associated with NAMBLA, I expect my representatives to disavow any organization that would smear a general because they disagree with his position. At the very least, they should state their opposition to the smear. ;)
September 25th, 2007 at 2:45 pmRush slamming Senator Hagel and calling him a traitor to his party is nothing compared to calling a general a traitor who is in command of our troops at this very moment. Hagel isn’t in charge of thousands of soldiers.
Comment by Tracy1 — September 25, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
That would have been a nice comeback from Rep. Blackburn, don’t you think? But no….she couldn’t even come back with that. I do believe she said (finally) that Rush was wrong, and then went on whining about MoveOn getting a break on the ad price. Boo fckin hoo.
If you were to ask on the spot, as Schuster did, ANY of the representatives in congress about what the name of the last soldier killed that was from their district, none of them would probably know.
She admitted that she and her staff (more likely her staff) constantly stayed in touch with soldiers deployed in Iraq, and their families. She even said she visits with them. She said that she and her staff were sensitive to the folks in her district because she represents Fort Campbell. However, apparently she can’t recall the name of anyone in her district who is in Iraq, because if she knew the names of the ones that were still alive, then she should know at least one name of a soldier who has died. She didn’t even apologize for not knowing his name. It would have been refreshing if she would have said something like, “I’m ashamed that I don’t know his or her name, and I’m going to make it a priority to be better informed of everyone in my district who is affected by this war.”
Hell, she has nothing on the main page of her Web site honoring the soldiers (dead or alive) from her district.
Her excuse that she doesn’t know why she couldn’t name the latest person to die is lame…really lame. She knows why, but is afraid to admit it.
This is about the NY Times giving an unfair discount to MoveOn.org so they could run their ad.
The clip above is about a caller to Rush’s show using the same term as MoveOn did in their ad (and the fact that Rush didn’t mind repeating what the caller said about Hagel) and the hypocrisy from the fact that no one on the Right offered to step up and smack Rush. Rep. Blackburn is the one who attempted to change the debate by arguing that MoveOn got a discount; if that’s all she can whine about in this case, then she’s not much of a politician and apparently she can’t debate the points in the MoveOn ad.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:46 pmTracy 1:
“Treason” is a legal term of art under Article III of the US Constitution:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Nowhere in the Move On ad did it mention the word “treason” or accuse Petraeus of engaging in any act of treason according to the definition contained in the highest law in the land.
And as far as your dictionary definitions for “betray”, you are again being dishonest. You fail to mention ALL of the dictionary definitions of “betray” in your own link:
1 : to lead astray; especially : SEDUCE
2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery
3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need
Now how and according to what context in the ad did you determine that Move On accused Petraeus of delivering anything to an enemy by treachery or failing or deserting in time of need? I note you conveniently avoided the very first definition: “leading astray”. Tell me now, how did you determine that the Move On ad, purely by lifting the words “betray us” out of context DID NOT mean that they were accusing Petraeus of leading us astray? In fact, that is what the ad suggests the words “betray us” meant, when they wrote “cooking the books” immediately after the words “betray us” and explaining them. Your own dictionary defintion to which you provided us a link supports the notion that Move On was accusing Petraeus of leading us astray and cooking the books, for political motives, and not of being a traitor to his country or of committing treason.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:00 pmTracy: “Especially when the cult followers of MoveOn.org don’t think they did anything wrong by asking for the discounted rate or the NY Times making it happen.”
I see. So your position is that discounted ad rates should be a function of political position – if you’re against the position of the administration, you don’t get the discount?
Nice going, Tracy. As usual, that makes almost no sense.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:01 pmNo one went after rush, when he called Sen. Hagel, Senator BetrayUs.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:07 pmNot only is the right hypocritical, they are beneath contempt; total scum.
tracey: Distinctions without differences; more right wing hypocrisy.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:08 pmJust another day in red state America.
tracey: The generals don’t run America, although in your brave new world, you’d like it that way.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pmWhy don’t you move to Burma and put your worship of the military to good use.
Does anyone else see the irony of the undistinguished Senate getting so up in the air about a STUPID AD.
They condemn free speech with a stupid vote, yet they do NOTHING when a CIA agent gets outed.
All those Senators needs to be dumped in next year’s elections!
September 25th, 2007 at 4:05 pmDoes anyone else see the irony of the undistinguished Senate getting so up in the air about a STUPID AD.
Comment by FunMe — September 25, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
What’s worse is representatives who fail to stand up for the reputation of a man who has dedicated his life to serving our country. Can libs not disagree with a person without smearing them? ;)
September 25th, 2007 at 4:11 pmwell said FunMe. And no, it’s not worse than outing a CIA agent.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:15 pmFunny how our trolls only want to play nice when they are at the receiving end.
Their “pundits” and talking heads have spent years calling anyone who disagrees “traitor”, “terrorist appeaser”, “America hater” -but someone they consider one of their own is not treated with the reverence they treat him, and all of the sudden “Whoa! let’s all play nice shall we?”
September 25th, 2007 at 4:20 pmI like your screen name: Gregor Samsa. You must be a big Kafka fan, as I am.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:37 pmmore of it than you have to prove it was the government of Iraq – thanks for skipping past all the other facts that link that counrty to 9/11 though – very effective of you – very honest.
is it actually a triple standard now, or quadruple, that you operate on?
GWB KISSES TERRORISTS
September 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pmlive with it. be proud of it. if you can.
Wanting a regime change does not justify invading Iraq. North Korea comes to mind. Dick Cheney himself said it was a bad idea and not worth the lives of our soldiers.
I notice you stayed away from the original talking points for the invasion. No “Mushroom clouds” or WMD talk or even AQ. All were hollow so now you state the rationale for invading Iraq is because Clinton talked of regime change.
There was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And there is no declaration of war.
Don’t let fear push you into a corner. We are all Americans and stand strongest when our laws are upheld and our govt is open. Both have not been adhered to by this administration. And we have lost too much in blood and treasure because of them.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:23 pmTracy: “Do you have some hard evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia provided the funds for the 9/11 hijackers?”
Sure. bin Laden is a Saudi who is connected by family to some of the most powerful families in the country. 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis. Saudi families, through their radical Wahabi madrassas are the biggest monetary supporters of terrorism on the planet. I’m surprised that someone as smart as you didn’t know these things, Tracy.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pmTracy: “Regime change was touted by Clinton throughout the 1990s and was a continuation of the policy goal of the U.S. since the end of the 1st Gulf War. No one questioned his suggestion….that I can remember. Now the way in which to reach that goal was never really debated and we ended up putting sanctions on a country for a decade that killed thousands of innocent people.”
#1, that’s a gross distortion of Clinton’s position. He NEVER advocated an all-out invasion of Iraq. He advocated no-fly zones and sanctions which effectively bottled up Saddam.
And if you gave one good goddamn about the deaths of innocent Iraqis you wouldn’t be such a shameless monger for this illegal war.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:18 pmupright left:”What’s worse is representatives who fail to stand up for the reputation of a man who has dedicated his life to serving our country. Can libs not disagree with a person without smearing them? ;)”
That last little statement is highly ironic considering your support for Karl Rove’s little projects.
And, when anyone fudges the facts and/or numbers testifying to congress about something as important as a war, it is almost unamerican to maintain that criticizing his numbers or analysis is out of line. Bush put this guy on the political firing line. Bush is responsible for any loss of reputation he suffers for shilling his policies. Look what happened to Colin Powell. Bush doesn’t care. These mens’ reputations were simply political tools for an extremely cynical politician.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:24 pmWhy do you insist on using the definition of traitor as one that commits treason against one’s country?
AGAIN the definition of traitor:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/traitor
“one who betrays another’s trust OR is false to an obligation or dutyâ€
We all trusted Petraeus to give a fair and accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq….you guys think that he isn’t.
Comment by Tracy1
___________________
Tracy 1, your own post at #139 provided the definition of treason and suggested it meant the same as “betrayal”. A word in the dictionary such as “treason” can apply to virtually any context. It can apply to an act in a foreign country, to an act described in a work of science fiction or in an historical novel describing an act in the past. To claim that Move On accused Petraeus of “treason” when they called him Betrayus brings this matter to the context of present-day law in the United States. In that event, treason becomes a legal term of art and its definition is found in the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in the legal definition of the act of treason was suggested by Move On in its ad.
Regarding the fact a traitor commits a type of betrayal is meaningless. Not every betrayal is the act of a traitor. Men cheat on their wives and betray them. Whistleblowers squeal on their employers and betray them. Stool pigeons betray their gang. They are not traitors to their country. You’re going about this backwards, looking for a definition (traitor) that includes a type of betrayal. The very dictionary definition you provided for “betray” stated as its number one meaning (the number one position in the definition indicating its widest use) was “to lead astray”. If you are saying that Move On accused Petraeus of being a traitor to his country, you have no proof and in fact nothing in the ad suggests that. The dictionary definition you provided, in fact, (to lead astray) entirely supported Move On’s message that Petraeus was “cooking the books”. To ascribe anything more is to magically intuit what you think was meant by “betray us” and completely ignoring the context.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:32 pmTracy, you only see what you want. I said earlier that Afghanistan should have had war declared. There was/is a just cause and AQ is a big part of that.
You have not provided one defensible reason to invade Iraq. A declaration of war (only Congress can do) is the strongest statement Congress can make. It’s a unified front that we will expend any resource necessary to squash any other country that war is declared against. It’s something that Bush didn’t go to congress to ask for. He side stepped that but has continually used (wrongly) the term “war”.
I find your argument (more like lack thereof) weak. Babble about AQ but don’t admit there wasn’t any in Iraq prior to this invasion isn’t justification.
Saying they are there now doesn’t absolve this president.
You are following a fool. Which is worse.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pmupright: “And there were quite a few other people who didn’t want Gore or Kerry/Heinz for president either. So is everyone who disagrees with you wrong, or just those who disagree politically, or just those who post here, or just Christians, or just conservatives……? ;)”
Hey, if after all that’s happened, you still don’t think you were wrong to prefer Bush over Gore or Kerry, good luck in life. You’ll need it.
And, not agreeing with me isn’t what makes people wrong. I don’t think fundamentalist christians, for example, are wrong. I think they’re either insane or hypocritical, which is a different thing.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:47 pmTracy, the FBI reported to the 9-11 commission that there was strong evidence that a Saudi princess related to the ruling family provided some money for Mohammed Atta and for two of the others who were living in the San Diego area. No, I’m not going to go searching for links to this for you because we both know you don’t care. You’ve made that very clear. If you’ve been on these boards for any time, you know that I do often provide links and quotes, but for you, sorry, no. Waste of time.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:13 pmAnd, while we’re on the subject of your cult leaders buddies, the Saudis, keep in mind that at least 45% of all foreign insurgents in Iraq killing our soldiers are Saudis – that’s according to our own Pentagon. But, you go right ahead along with your cult leader and defend the royal family. It seems to be what you do best.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:16 pmTracy: “Please provide proof that the government of Saudia Arabia provided financial support to the 9/11 hijackers.”
Hypothetical question – if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been Cubans, would conservatives have been screaming for an attack on Cuba? You and I both know the answer to that question.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:18 pmTracy: “Another 30+ years of Iraqis getting slaughtered by their leader with no hope was a better option?”
Oh, come off it man. We’ve already killed more Iraqis than Saddam did in his entire career. The British believe we’ve already killed over a million Iraqis. And, Clinton did NOT ruin the country’s infrastructure with surgical cruise missle strikes and anti-aircraft batteries. Bush did that with his “shock and awe.”
September 25th, 2007 at 7:27 pmYou know Tracy, if you just keep hanging around pestering people, they’re eventually going to lose patience and start saying mean things to you, in addition to completely refuting the points you’re trying to make. Doesn’t make them wrong, doesn’t make you right, just makes the thread tedious as all-get-out.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:46 pmTracy, since you still cling to this fiction in the face of all evidence to the contrary that the guy you support is an honorable man, I suppose it is important to you to believe his claim that his dear friends the Saudis had nothing to do with it. I’m not going to beat a dead horse.
But, you could put an end to some of this bickering by simply saying whether or not you were home-schooled. Were you? Or, are you? My guess is that you are a christian with very christian parents who home schooled you. Am I wrong?
September 25th, 2007 at 7:59 pmTracy: “You assume too much.”
OK, so your belief is that if 15 of the 19 terrorists had been Cubans, we WOULDN’T have attacked Cuba….
I’m sorry, Tracy. You’re simply living in a delusional dream world of your own making.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:02 pmTracy: “No he did with ten years of sanctions.”
Tracy, you’re beginning to make me very sure I’m correct about your home schooling. Do you even know what “infrastructure” is. Santions didn’t blow up water treatment plants. Santions didn’t destroy the power plant. Santions didn’t put craters in the streets of Bagdad. Santions caused a lot of grief and hardship for Iraqis, but they had very little or nothing to do with the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:04 pmSaudi Arabia doesn’t have a government – it has a Royal family.
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.
Wahabism is a Saudi construct, and it is the splinter faction of Islam that makes people terrorists.
OBL took Wahab from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan with him back when we (GHWB and the CIA) were supporting his Jihad against the Soviet Union. Our intelligence agencies have known all about this all along.
The Bush family enjoys a very long term, very intimate, very mutually profitable realtionship with the Saudi royals. They kiss each others faces.
Everything I and the Col. and Bart have had to day on the matter is easily obtainable, verifiable fact.
Nothing you want to pester anyone here about will change that. It will be true tomorrow like it was today like it was on 9/11.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:07 pmTracy: “You are a coward then.”
Hey, you know what? F*ck you. I’ve got a small business and I can certainly agree with Bart that the last thing you want is conservatives knowing who and where you are. There’s nobody meaner and more vindictive than f*cking conservatives. They get together with their “christian brotherhoods” and “rotary clubs” and decide not to give you business. Sometimes they even vandalize your car. Sometimes, as was the case with DJ Alan Berg, they come to your house and kill you.
So, take your “coward” shit and shove it, dickhead.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:10 pmTracy, the link you provided gives no evidence that you work at that company. So, it’s still just you blowin it out your nether regions, anyway.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:12 pmGosh, Tracy, two out of three ain’t bad, you know. But, maybe you can explain to us how it is bigoted to assume someone was homeshooled. Again, as with “infrastructure,” I think you have a problem with the definition of english words.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pmTracy: “The Taliban was never the recognized government of Afghanistan.”
The Taliban was the ruling party in Afganistan. That’s why Bush and a bunch of repubs brought them to Texas and wined and dined them in the 90’s. Condi Rice gave them a nice check for their work irradicating opium fields. What the hell are you even talking about?
September 25th, 2007 at 8:29 pmHey Tracy, I just got my secretary to give Perkins and Will a call and ask for you. She was informed that there was no Tracy working there.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:33 pmBecause is doesn’t matter what the 9/11 commission report said a out the Saudi Government, which isn’t a government, because Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.
I was going to intervene with Bart and the Colonel, but your dogged insistence on immaterial points has made me decide to join them in branding you a complete idiot, fixated on starting fights, because your parents chose to saddle you with a girl’s name.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:02 pm273 – should read “it doesn’t matter……about”
just want to be abundantly clear there – no room for misinterpretation, intentional or otherwise.
Bart – this tracy person is one i’ve seen around here for a long time. clearly a kid, late middle or maybe high school, who has replaced picking the wings off of bugs with coming here to piss people off as their favorite “weird, sulking loner” pastime. has probably gotten more attention here than anywhere else, ever, so he keeps coming back, even though it’s hostile attention it is preferable to the cold indifference he finds everywhere else in life. we should just let these people know they are in a safe place, and that we are kind people, and that if they’ll open up just a little bit, they may be able to begin to form some real human relationships, the kind that aren’t contingent on impressing a harsh and demanding father, or a distant, emotionally crippled mother, or a ruthless, self-serving superior at work. at first they are recalcitrant, hostile even, but they keep coming around, hoping to make a connection that circumstance hasn’t permitted previously. they’re kind of like stray dogs in that respect – they bark and bare their teeth at first, they’re flighty, easily spooked, but if you don’t kick them, and share a bite of bologna sandwich with them at lunchtime, they eventually start to come around, and get back to being the good kind of creature they were when they were pups. i’m not saying that’ll ever happen in tracy’s case, but there’s a chance, one worth risking a little for.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:27 pma cut and runner from the start B.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:09 am