Move on fires back and hard ..

[Spider]

Hell i am considering joining move on .......
http://www.moveon.org/
Move on fighting the man ..... Congress shall tell no one to sit down and shut the **** up ....... if they want that , we stop paying taxes .........

[Bronco Bob]

Apparently the Senate never heard of the First Amendment.
Oh, that's right, W says the Constitution is just a
"goddamn piece of paper."

[The Lone Bolt]

Here's the actual text of the resolution:

SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS.

(a) Findings.–The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, by a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007.

(2) General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the United States Army Command and General Staff College.

(3) General Petraeus earned Masters of Public Administration and Doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University.

(4) General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major combat operations and subsequent stability and support operations.

(5) General Petraeus supervised the development and crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional experiences.

(6) General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

(7) During his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and other awards and medals.

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) Sense of Senate.–It is the sense of the Senate–

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/8bf19b17-120c-4e04-a9b8-e8d46497f9bc

I don't see anything about the Senate ordering Moveon or anyone else to "shut up." The last time I checked Senate members were American citizens too and entitled to free speech. They have just as much a right to criticize Moveon as Moveon has a right to criticize Gen Patreaus.

[W*GS]

Why would anyone subscribe to one of the playthings of one of the wealthiest men in the world?

Y'all know George Soros created and sustains MoveOn, don't you?

[alkemical]

Why would anyone subscribe to one of the playthings of one of the wealthiest men in the world?

Y'all know George Soros created and sustains MoveOn, don't you?


So what's your opinion of NewsCorp?

[Rohirrim]

Here's the actual text of the resolution:



http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/8bf19b17-120c-4e04-a9b8-e8d46497f9bc

I don't see anything about the Senate ordering Moveon or anyone else to "shut up." The last time I checked Senate members were American citizens too and entitled to free speech. They have just as much a right to criticize Moveon as Moveon has a right to criticize Gen Patreaus.

I knew you were a right winger, but I didn't think you'd go this far. I guess now I know where you're coming from. Left, right, left, right, march in step... You should read Kinsley's take on the other thread. He hit the nail on the head.

[The Lone Bolt]

I knew you were a right winger, but I didn't think you'd go this far. I guess now I know where you're coming from. Left, right, left, right, march in step... You should read Kinsley's take on the other thread. He hit the nail on the head.

So you believe that the Senate has no right to critcize Moveon?

And can you show me exactly where in the above resolution that the Senate orders anyone to "shut up"?

Or are you just going to call me more names?

[Bronco Bob]

Here's the actual text of the resolution:



http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/8bf19b17-120c-4e04-a9b8-e8d46497f9bc

I don't see anything about the Senate ordering Moveon or anyone else to "shut up." The last time I checked Senate members were American citizens too and entitled to free speech. They have just as much a right to criticize Moveon as Moveon has a right to criticize Gen Patreaus.

And here is the text of the MoveOn ad. I don't see anything in it attacking
the US military as a whole or the troops on the ground specifically.
All I see is MoveOn questioning the independence and impartiality of
General Petraeus in regards to his testimony before Congress:


General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election,
he said there was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus,
the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously
going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General
claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre
formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported
that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated
Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any
other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that
those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious
civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are
desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops
will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.


Show me where in the ad that it "impugns the honor and integrity of all the members of the United States Armed Forces."

Show me where in the ad it makes "any effort to attack the honor and integrity of all the members of the United States Armed Forces."

And most importantly, show me were the ad is factually incorrect.

If you can't do this for me, the Senate Resolution is just a bunch of Hogwash.

[Rohirrim]

Why would anyone subscribe to one of the playthings of one of the wealthiest men in the world?

Y'all know George Soros created and sustains MoveOn, don't you?

As his financial success mounted, Soros applied his wealth to help foster the development of open societies. In 1979, Soros provided funds to help black students attend the University of Cape Town in apartheid South Africa. Soon he created a foundation in Hungary to support culture and education and the country’s transition to democracy. (One of his projects imported photocopy machines that allowed citizens and activists in Hungary to spread information and publish censored materials.) Soros also distributed funds to the underground Solidarity movement in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet physicist-dissident Andrei Sakharov. In 1982, Soros named his philanthropic organization the Open Society Fund, in honor of Karl Popper, and began granting scholarships to students from Eastern Europe. Bolstered by the success of these projects, Soros created more programs to assist the free flow of information. He supported educational radio programs in Mongolia and later contributed $100 million to provide Internet access to every regional university in Russia.

The magnitude and geographical scope of his philanthropic commitments, coupled with the core principle of fostering open societies, has allowed Soros to transcend the limitations of many national governments and international institutions. During the 1980s, Soros financed a trip by young economists at a reform-minded think tank in China to a business university in Budapest; he also established a grantmaking foundation in China to foster civil society and transparency. In 1991, he helped found the Central European University, a graduate institution in Budapest that focuses on social and political development. Soros spent $50 million to help the citizens of Sarajevo endure the city’s siege during the Bosnian war, funding among other projects a water-filtration plant that allowed residents to avoid having to draw water from distribution points targeted by Serb snipers. Most recently, he has provided $50 million to support the Millennium Villages initiative, which seeks to lift some of the least developed villages in Africa out of poverty.

In 1993, Soros created the Open Society Institute, which supports the Soros foundations working to develop democratic institutions throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. His network of philanthropic organizations dedicated to building open societies has expanded to include more than 60 countries in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Despite the breadth of his endeavors, Soros is personally involved in planning and implementing many of the foundation network’s projects. His visionary efforts have produced a remarkable record of successful philanthropy, including efforts to free developmentally challenged people from life-long confinement in state institutions, to provide palliative care to the dying, to win release for prisoners held without legal grounds in penitentiaries in Nigeria, to halt the spread of tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, to create debate societies, to promote freedom of the press, and to help resource-rich countries establish mechanisms to manage their revenues in a way that will promote economic growth and good governance rather than poverty and instability.

In 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was one of his main priorities. During the 2004 campaign, he donated significant funds to various groups dedicated to defeating the president.
From OSI

Now, you can feel free to list the accomplishments of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Addison, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, the Carlyle Group, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, etc. etc. etc. Let's see who has done more for world wide democracy, shall we?

[The Lone Bolt]

Show me where in the ad that it "impugns the honor and integrity of all the members of the United States Armed Forces."

OK, I'll agree this part is too broad an interpretation of the ad and is inappropriate.

Show me where in the ad it makes "any effort to attack the honor and integrity of all the members of the United States Armed Forces."

The Senate resolution reads " (2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces". It is not specifying the Moveon ad in this line but rather is making a statement about such attacks in general.

And most importantly, show me were the ad is factually incorrect.

If you can't do this for me, the Senate Resolution is just a bunch of Hogwash.

The Moveon ad is factually incorrect on a number of points.

Read here: http://forwarddeployed.com/2007/09/11/the-effort-to-destroy-general-petraeus/

and here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=topnews

[Rohirrim]

So you believe that the Senate has no right to critcize Moveon?

And can you show me exactly where in the above resolution that the Senate orders anyone to "shut up"?

Or are you just going to call me more names?

I can't really believe that you are as naive as you are pretending to be. If you can't see this whole dog and pony show is dripping with politics intended to stifle dissent, you should ask for a refund on those college funds.

And you think it is the business of the Senate to collectively attack a political expression, rather than focus on the business of the United States?

[The Lone Bolt]

I can't really believe that you are as naive as you are pretending to be. If you can't see this whole dog and pony show is dripping with politics intended to stifle dissent, you should ask for a refund on those college funds.

And you think it is the business of the Senate to collectively attack a political expression, rather than focus on the business of the United States?

Oh I see. You are just going to call me names insted of addressing the facts. OK.::)

And I think the Senate has the same right to free speech as the rest of us.

[Rohirrim]

Oh I see. You are just going to call me names insted of addressing the facts. OK.::)

And I think the Senate has the same right to free speech as the rest of us.

Post a fact. I'll address it.

I'm sure you were equally appalled that the Senate didn't stand up in righteous indignation when Rove's puppets in S. Carolina were calling a war hero like McLeland a "drunken coward." Right? How about when the Swift Boaters were attacking a certified war hero, John Kerry? Ooops. Awful silent then, weren't we? Remember Rove's operatives saying McCain fathered black babies and might be crazy from his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton? Not a peep. I guess what you support is "selective" free speech, just like Cornyn and Bush.

[W*GS]

It's interesting to see the lefties backing up MoveOn. MoveOn was created by George Soros in an attempt to single-handedly manipulate the American electoral process to his liking, using his vast wealth. The existence of MoveOn and groups like it were also enabled by Soros, with his support of the McCain-Feingold "reform" legislation, which features censorship of political speech as one of its centerpieces.

The whole MoveOn/Soros/McCain-Feingold dance ought to concern and sicken us. But since Soros has targeted Bush and the neocons, he gets a pass from the Left.

[Rohirrim]

This was written by NCOs in Iraq. It does not match up with Petraeus' testimony.

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

http://nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Instead of pretending to faint at Moveon’s audaciousness, perhaps the Senate should ask if maybe Moveon is right. Maybe Petraeus is feeding the country a line of bs. Did you ever entertain that possibility?

Bush, Cheney, Rice etc. have been lying about this war since its inception and now, suddenly, we’re all aflutter because Moveon comes out and says, “Guess what? This general is lying too.” Are we really such big suckers as that? Gee, we know they’ve been lying to us right down the line, but this guy has lots of medals, so that means he’s not lying. I got a bridge for sale… in Brooklyn.

[The Lone Bolt]

Post a fact. I'll address it.

I'm sure you were equally appalled that the Senate didn't stand up in righteous indignation when Rove's puppets in S. Carolina were calling a war hero like McLeland a "drunken coward." Right? How about when the Swift Boaters were attacking a certified war hero, John Kerry? Ooops. Awful silent then, weren't we? Remember Rove's operatives saying McCain fathered black babies and might be crazy from his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton? Not a peep. I guess what you support is "selective" free speech, just like Cornyn and Bush.

The Senate will selectively criticize according to the political party in the majority. If the Dems control the Senate they will also criticize according to thier political views, and they have that right as well. So yes, I support the right of anyone to "selectively" speak their views according to their beliefs.

But to say that such an expression is telling anybody to "shut up" is complete BS, unless you can show me specifically where this term or a similar one is contained in the resolution.

Both parties have the right to use the Senate as a bully pulpit just as the President has the right to use his/her office similarly no matter which party (s)he belongs to or what his/her political leanings are.

[The Lone Bolt]

[I]Instead of pretending to faint at Moveon’s audaciousness, perhaps the Senate should ask if maybe Moveon is right. Maybe Petraeus is feeding the country a line of bs. Did you ever entertain that possibility?

Bush, Cheney, Rice etc. have been lying about this war since its inception and now, suddenly, we’re all aflutter because Moveon comes out and says, “Guess what? This general is lying too.” Are we really such big suckers as that? Gee, we know they’ve been lying to us right down the line, but this guy has lots of medals, so that means he’s not lying. I got a bridge for sale… in Brooklyn.

OK I don't want to go into the whole "Bush Lied" debate. I've found it's futile to try to explain to the "Bush Lied" crowd the definition of the terms "lie" and "conclusive evidence" and how the objective fact is that Bush "lying" has not been proven. So rather than waste my time let's just agree to disagree.

But yes, I am open to the possibility that Patreaus is not being honest. Are you open to the possibility that he is?

Are you also open to the possibility that some of his critics, including Moveon, may not be honest or fair?

[Rohirrim]

It's interesting to see the lefties backing up MoveOn. MoveOn was created by George Soros in an attempt to single-handedly manipulate the American electoral process to his liking, using his vast wealth. The existence of MoveOn and groups like it were also enabled by Soros, with his support of the McCain-Feingold "reform" legislation, which features censorship of political speech as one of its centerpieces.

The whole MoveOn/Soros/McCain-Feingold dance ought to concern and sicken us. But since Soros has targeted Bush and the neocons, he gets a pass from the Left.

But we should be just ecstatic about the AEI, Carlyle, Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Anschutz, AIPAC, Raytheon, Bendex, Lockheed, and the rest of the military/industrial complex, Focus on the Family, etc etc etc efforts to control our government, our foreign policy, and our social lives? After all, they actually won! They put us in Iraq. Their policies are in place. They wrote our energy policies. They wrote our environmental policies. They penned our resource management policies. They've geared our tax policy to enrich themselves while bankrupting the U.S. government. Their supreme court is in charge of interpreting our laws for (probably) the next 20 years.

You Righties crack me up. The Left has one, well heeled organization backing them up - an organiztion who's efforts completely failed in the last two elections (as far as we know, eh? ;D) and yet, you Righties run around like Chicken Little when they put an ad in the paper. What a bunch of drama queens. Look to thine own house, eh?

[Rohirrim]

The Senate will selectively criticize according to the political party in the majority. If the Dems control the Senate they will also criticize according to thier political views, and they have that right as well. So yes, I support the right of anyone to "selectively" speak their views according to their beliefs.

But to say that such an expression is telling anybody to "shut up" is complete BS, unless you can show me specifically where this term or a similar one is contained in the resolution.

Both parties have the right to use the Senate as a bully pulpit just as the President has the right to use his/her office similarly no matter which party (s)he belongs to or what his/her political leanings are.

As always, you want to play word games while reality flies over your head like a winged pink elephant. Just as Bush unloaded the power of the WH on those in the media who leaked the Plame business, now the Senate, under the guidance of Bush, unloads a broadside directed squarely at Moveon, and ostensibly, the NY Times. If you can't fathom the chilling nature of such a blast, you must be wearing a heating pad. After all, the mob never says, "We're going to shoot you." They say, "We're taking you for a ride."

[W*GS]

I see Ro has the same double standard as most lefties... Disappointing.

[Bronco Bob]

It's interesting to see the lefties backing up MoveOn. MoveOn was created by George Soros in an attempt to single-handedly manipulate the American electoral process to his liking, using his vast wealth.


Like no one on the right ever tried to manipulate the political process
using their vast wealth. I suggest you look into where the swift boaters
got their money from that they used to smear John Kerry in the 2004
election. But of course the Liberal Media never bothers to do any
reports when it's the right wing millionaires trying to manipulate
the political process. Maybe it's because there are so few on the
left it's easier to single them out. The Liberal Media would run out
of paper and ink trying to expose all the right wingers.



The existence of MoveOn and groups like it were also enabled by Soros, with his support of the McCain-Feingold "reform" legislation, which features censorship of political speech as one of its centerpieces.

The whole MoveOn/Soros/McCain-Feingold dance ought to concern and sicken us. But since Soros has targeted Bush and the neocons, he gets a pass from the Left.

The only ones sickened by MoveOn are the right wing apologists and the
cowards on the left that went along with the farce of voting on that
Senate resolution. But since MoveOn is targeting Bush and the neo-cons,
I guess that makes them the devil.

[Bronco Bob]

I see Ro has the same double standard as most lefties... Disappointing.

How is Ro's double standard fundamentally any different than your double standard?

[Rohirrim]

I see Ro has the same double standard as most lefties... Disappointing.

I obliterate your point and that's all you can say? If your **** is that weak, you shouldn't play.

[Bronco Bob]

But yes, I am open to the possibility that Patreaus is not being honest. Are you open to the possibility that he is?

Are you also open to the possibility that some of his critics, including Moveon, may not be honest or fair?

And if it comes out that MoveOn is correct and General Petraeus was cooking
the books, are you going to write your Senators and demand that they retract
the resolution condemning MoveOn and issue MoveOn an apology?

[Crushaholic]

I can translate this resolution:

"BAD Moveon.org! You should be ashamed at yourself for this ad! We're not going to do anything to you but draw attention to the ad, but...

BAD Moveon.org!"

This is much ado about nothing...

[Spider]

W*GS ........ you should be on medication

[The Lone Bolt]

As always, you want to play word games while reality flies over your head like a winged pink elephant. Just as Bush unloaded the power of the WH on those in the media who leaked the Plame business, now the Senate, under the guidance of Bush, unloads a broadside directed squarely at Moveon, and ostensibly, the NY Times. If you can't fathom the chilling nature of such a blast, you must be wearing a heating pad. After all, the mob never says, "We're going to shoot you." They say, "We're taking you for a ride."

Spoke like a true BULLSH-TTER! "Word game" my ass! First Moveon and other scream that the Senate is telling Moveon to "shut up", but then they can't show us where they are saying it. That's a FACT, and none of your biased BS political intepretations of the resolution can change that.

Show me where the resolution tells Moveon to "shut up" or DROP THE BULLSH-T!

[The Lone Bolt]

I can translate this resolution:

"BAD Moveon.org! You should be ashamed at yourself for this ad! We're not going to do anything to you but draw attention to the ad, but...

BAD Moveon.org!"

This is much ado about nothing...

THANK YOU! The Senate is criticizing only. They are not telling anybody to "shut up."

[Spider]

THANK YOU! The Senate is criticizing only. They are not telling anybody to "shut up."

Bull**** .......... I bet somewhere there is a used car salesman reading your post and wetting all over himself ....... if it meant nothing ,Bush wouldnt have addressed it

[The Lone Bolt]

And if it comes out that MoveOn is correct and General Petraeus was cooking
the books, are you going to write your Senators and demand that they retract
the resolution condemning MoveOn and issue MoveOn an apology?

Let me put it this way: if there is evidence that Petraeus intentionally offered inaccurate information to influence the American public I will indeed demand that the Senate retract the resolution.

But the Moveon ad is clearly not accurate (see above links) so therefore Moveon is probably not "correct" in their assessment that Petraeus is "cooking the books." Are you going to write Moveon and condemn them for the intentionally inaccurate information in their ad?

[Spider]

Let me put it this way: if there is evidence that Petraeus intentionally offered inaccurate information to influence the American public I will indeed demand that the Senate retract the resolution.



LOL but I thought the resolution didnt mean anything , and if it dont why retract it ?
goofy bastard

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL but I thought the resolution didnt mean anything , and if it dont why retract it ?
goofy bastard

Hey I'm just answering Bob's question. If Petraeus did in fact "betray us" then I'll be glad to ask the Senate to retract their resolution.

But all this horsesh-t political spin about the Senate telling Moveon to "shut up" is just a crock.

[Spider]

Hey I'm just answering Bob's question. If Petraeus did in fact "betray us" then I'll be glad to ask the Senate to retract their resolution.

Then be honest ..stop the double talk , if I had said the resolution didnt mean anything , I would have meant it if the reasoning was right or not .........

[The Lone Bolt]

Then be honest ..stop the double talk , if I had said the resolution didnt mean anything , I would have meant it if the reasoning was right or not .........

The resolution meant nothing in terms of telling anybody to "shut up." The resolution doesn't say that. There is no proof that the Senate meant that. Any statements to the contrary are just political spin and propaganda.

[Spider]

The resolution meant nothing in terms of telling anybody to "shut up."

Bull**** .......`dont spin , you already proved yourself to be a ****ing idiot , dont add liar to the list ........

[The Lone Bolt]

Bull**** .......`dont spin , you already proved yourself to be a ****ing idiot , dont add liar to the list ........

Fine. Once again show me exactly where in the resolution that the Senate instructs Moveon to "shut up" or anything similar. If you can't then it's you who are the liar.

[Spider]

Fine. Once again show me exactly where in the resolution that the Senate instructs Moveon to "shut up" or anything similar. If you can't then it's you who are the liar.
pretty stupid aint ya ?
you dont see me back pedaling or adding qualifiers ... the mere proceeding tells people that can think , that congress was pissed at moved on for what they said ..... passing a resolution only confirms this , in other words shut the **** up or we will do something else , consider this a warning ..... what scares me more is you are out on your own without supervision

[W*GS]

It's just funny as heck watching the Lefties spinning and obfuscating in their attempt to rationalize MoveOn.

"The Right's special interests have messed with us - now it's the Left's special interests' turn to **** with us!"

No wonder so many folks are sick of the Right and the Left.

[The Lone Bolt]

pretty stupid aint ya ?
you dont see me back pedaling or adding qualifiers ... the mere proceeding tells people that can think , that congress was pissed at moved on for what they said ..... passing a resolution only confirms this , in other words shut the **** up or we will do something else , consider this a warning ..... what scares me more is you are out on your own without supervision

Yeah yeah yeah.

*cough cough* POLITICAL SPIN *cough cough*

It just cracks me up how when the Senate passes a resolution saying "hey, we don't like the Moveon ad. We don't think it's nice", and in response Moveon and their legions of hysterical Chicken Littles scream "HAAAAALP!!! WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED!!! HAAAAAAAAALP!!!!"Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

[Spider]

Yeah yeah yeah.

*cough cough* POLITICAL SPIN *cough cough*

It just cracks me up how when the Senate passes a resolution saying "hey, we don't like the Moveon ad. We don't think it's nice", and in response Moveon and their legions of hysterical Chicken Littles scream "HAAAAALP!!! WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED!!! HAAAAAAAAALP!!!!"Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

so then you understand I am right , had no answer , and blurted out this bull**** ....you are now on the same mental level as raider fan congrats

[Bronco Bob]

Yeah yeah yeah.

*cough cough* POLITICAL SPIN *cough cough*

It just cracks me up how when the Senate passes a resolution saying "hey, we don't like the Moveon ad. We don't think it's nice", and in response Moveon and their legions of hysterical Chicken Littles scream "HAAAAALP!!! WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED!!! HAAAAAAAAALP!!!!"Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

So if it is a meaningless resolution that doesn't affect MoveOn in any negative way,
why bother? Doesn't the Senate have more important work than to pass a
meaningless resolution that serve no purpose in affecting the group the
resolution was aimed at?

[Rohirrim]

The resolution meant nothing in terms of telling anybody to "shut up." The resolution doesn't say that. There is no proof that the Senate meant that. Any statements to the contrary are just political spin and propaganda.

It must be weird living in a world devoid of implications. Hell, even my dog can read body language.

It's pointless arguing with you and Wigs, though. You never argue the point. You always deflect to a different point and try and argue that. You want to argue that if they didn't "exactly use this specific word" then no threat to stifle dissent exists (blithely disregarding that the power of the Senate is a friggin pretty big "message" all by itself). I pointed out that when the mob says, "We're taking you for a ride," that doesn't mean, "Whee, this will be fun." Of course, to someone who lives in a world devoid of implied messages, maybe it does. ;) This is the same bs argument you posted regarding how we got into this war. Yeah. Bush/Cheney/Rice didn't lie us into this war and Petraeus isn't lying now. Sure. You and 29% of the population buy that. Fine.

Wiggsy, once again in his most tiresome schtick, wants to discuss the merits of Moveon and the Left, vs. the true argument which is the merits of their argument. I posted the NCO essay which is in direct conflict with Petraeus testimony. Who's right? The point is, Moveon accuses the WH of finding a stooge in the Pentagon who will sell their policy regardless of the facts. And that's exactly what Petraeus did.

[The Lone Bolt]

It must be weird living in a world devoid of implications. Hell, even my dog can read body language.

It's pointless arguing with you and Wigs, though. You never argue the point. You always deflect to a different point and try and argue that. You want to argue that if they didn't "exactly use this specific word" then no threat to stifle dissent exists (blithely disregarding that the power of the Senate is a friggin pretty big "message" all by itself). I pointed out that when the mob says, "We're taking you for a ride," that doesn't mean, "Whee, this will be fun." Of course, to someone who lives in a world devoid of implied messages, maybe it does. ;) This is the same bs argument you posted regarding how we got into this war. Yeah. Bush/Cheney/Rice didn't lie us into this war and Petraeus isn't lying now. Sure. You and 29% of the population buy that. Fine.

Wiggsy, once again in his most tiresome schtick, wants to discuss the merits of Moveon and the Left, vs. the true argument which is the merits of their argument. I posted the NCO essay which is in direct conflict with Petraeus testimony. Who's right? The point is, Moveon accuses the WH of finding a stooge in the Pentagon who will sell their policy regardless of the facts. And that's exactly what Petraeus did.



The flaw in your reasoning here bud is that what's being "implied" (if anything) is entirely subjective and based on you're own political views. You don't seem to get that and niether does §Pinmeister.

If your political views predispose you to seeing anything conservatives or the Senate says as threatening then that's what you will see. Welcome to the Grand Illusion . . . only you are mistaking your mirage for reality.

[The Lone Bolt]

So if it is a meaningless resolution that doesn't affect MoveOn in any negative way,
why bother? Doesn't the Senate have more important work than to pass a
meaningless resolution that serve no purpose in affecting the group the
resolution was aimed at?

Sure. But doesn't everyone here have "more important things to do" than express their political opinions? Why are you here? Because you have some things you want to say, right?

Senate members were offended by the ad. They wanted to express themselves. It's called free speech, not "implied threat". The sky is not falling. Case closed.

[Bronco Bob]

The flaw in your reasoning here bud is that what's being "implied" (if anything) is entirely subjective and based on you're own political views. You don't seem to get that and niether does §Pinmeister.


No, what you don't get is the political views of the Republicans who brought
up and passed this resolution (with the help of some cowardly Democrats).




If your political views predispose you to seeing anything conservatives or the Senate says as threatening then that's what you will see. Welcome to the Grand Illusion . . . only you are mistaking your mirage for reality.

If it was so innocent and non-political why did the Republicans block
a resolution that also called for condemning the attacks on John Kerry's
war record?

Let's look at it this way. If you got into an argument with some gangbanger
and he told you he and his posse knows where you live, where your wife
works, and where your kid goes to school, would you just assume this was
a fellow that was knowledgeable about the city and its residents, or would
you take it as a threat. Notice nowhere does he say he is actually
going to kill you and your family. So I'm guessing you would have
nothing to worry about.

[The Lone Bolt]

If it was so innocent and non-political why did the Republicans block
a resolution that also called for condemning the attacks on John Kerry's
war record?

Ummm . . . .politics? ::)

Let's look at it this way. If you got into an argument with some gangbanger
and he told you he and his posse knows where you live, where your wife
works, and where your kid goes to school, would you just assume this was
a fellow that was knowledgeable about the city and its residents, or would
you take it as a threat. Notice nowhere does he say he is actually
going to kill you and your family. So I'm guessing you would have
nothing to worry about.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Your comparison of the Senate to gangsters is a perfect illustration of the political bias that's shaping your interpretation of the facts. No only are you apparently completely unaware of your own biases, but you seem to accept them as reality without question. You are seeing things through the lens of your own political views. You are interpreting the Senate's resolution as an implied threat because your unconscious political assumptions predispose you to do just that.

You perfectly illustrated my point with your analogy. Thanks!

[Rohirrim]

The flaw in your reasoning here bud is that what's being "implied" (if anything) is entirely subjective and based on you're own political views. You don't seem to get that and niether does §Pinmeister.

If your political views predispose you to seeing anything conservatives or the Senate says as threatening then that's what you will see. Welcome to the Grand Illusion . . . only you are mistaking your mirage for reality.

First, I ain't your bud. Second, the power of the U.S. Senate does not rely on anyone's perspective. It simply exists on its own. The argument that resolutions emanating from the Senate carry only "subjective" weight is sophmoric. I guarantee you the editorial board of the NY Times is chilled by it. What's really going on here is that the WH, with the assistance of their toadies in the Senate, have quite successfully deflected attention away from their own failed policies in Iraq and placed the attention on Moveon. Good trick.

Fortunately, my faith in the American people was rewarded. Even after Bush's completely fantastical speech and the Petraeus/Crocker dog and pony show - including this Moveon bs, the polls haven't moved an inch. The majority of Americans ain't buying. Maybe they've finally wised up to this cabal of lying bastards.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

First, I ain't your bud. Second, the power of the U.S. Senate does not rely on anyone's perspective. It simply exists on its own. The argument that resolutions emanating from the Senate carry only "subjective" weight is sophmoric. I guarantee you the editorial board of the NY Times is chilled by it. What's really going on here is that the WH, with the assistance of their toadies in the Senate, have quite successfully deflected attention away from their own failed policies in Iraq and placed the attention on Moveon. Good trick.

Fortunately, my faith in the American people was rewarded. Even after Bush's completely fantastical speech and the Petraeus/Crocker dog and pony show - including this Moveon bs, the polls haven't moved an inch. The majority of Americans ain't buying. Maybe they've finally wised up to this cabal of lying bastards.Some have and some like Lone bolt will never admit they are what they are.

[The Lone Bolt]

First, I ain't your bud. Second, the power of the U.S. Senate does not rely on anyone's perspective. It simply exists on its own. The argument that resolutions emanating from the Senate carry only "subjective" weight is sophmoric.

The power of the US Senate is not subjective. Your assumption that they are nothing but a bunch of evil thugs who abuse their power to make "implied threats" is a product of your political biases and imagination. You're just blind to your own prejudices and assumptions.

I guarantee you the editorial board of the NY Times is chilled by it.

Really? You "guarantee" it? How about writing them and getting their actual take on the resolution. Easy enough right? Maybe -- just maybe -- they don't share your paranoia.

What's really going on here is that the WH, with the assistance of their toadies in the Senate, have quite successfully deflected attention away from their own failed policies in Iraq and placed the attention on Moveon. Good trick.

Oh gee. No political spin here. ::)

[The Lone Bolt]

Some have and some like Lone bolt will never admit they are what they are.

All I need is real evidence and not circumstantial evidence combined with political spin (which is what you have accepted as "conclusive" evidence::) ) and I will call it a FACT that Bush lied. Until then it's a theory not a fact. Get it right one of these days.:poke:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

All I need is real evidence and not circumstantial evidence combined with political spin (which is what you have accepted as "conclusive" evidence::) ) and I will call it a FACT that Bush lied. Until then it's a theory not a fact. Get it right one of these days.:poke:No, you need to have it shoved up your arse and come out your nose before you believe this cartel of liars are what they are. You won't accept anything less.

[The Lone Bolt]

No, you need to have it shoved up your arse and come out your nose before you believe this cartel of liars are what they are. You won't accept anything less.

Yeah yeah. When you understand the difference between a theory and a fact get back to me.

[Rohirrim]

The power of the US Senate is not subjective. Your assumption that they are nothing but a bunch of evil thugs who abuse their power to make "implied threats" is a product of your political biases and imagination. You're just to blind to your own prejudices and assumptions.

Let's use your argument. Where did I say any of that? So you agree. The power of the Senate is not subjective. You said the opposite before. So now you agree that any resolution coming from the Senate, regardless of its political message, carries a certain degree of power behind it, just given the fact that it comes from the United States Senate? The wording of the resolution was that Moveon had slandered the entire military. You agreed earlier that this was not the case. So, the resolution misstates the facts and yet we shouldn't assign any motive to it? Then what IS the purpose of the resolution, and why does it misstate the facts?

Really? You "guarantee" it? How about writing them and getting their actual take on the resolution. Easy enough right? Maybe -- just maybe -- they don't share your paranoia.

So now you have not only done away with implied messages in human language, you've outlawed common sense and the use of critical facilities as well? I'm using the "reasonable person" criteria. If a reasonable person heard that the U.S. Senate had issued a resolution condemning an act of free press carried out by the NY Times (and further, had heard that the resolution mistated facts), would they conclude that this resolution might have a chilling effect on the editorial staff of the NY Times?



Oh gee. No political spin here. ::)

Really. So Bush issues a talking point in a press conference. A Repug Senator follows it up on the floor of the Senate. Right wing radio picks up the message and Faux Noise leads with it that night. Yeah. I'm the one spinning. We've never seen this pattern coming from this WH before. Right.

I'm getting the feeling that in order to successfully defend the Bush cabal, one must eventually just do away with all forms of common sense and critical thinking.

[Rohirrim]

Chris Matthews just brought up an excellent point on his show. He said that toward the end of the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration realized they could no longer win the argument with the American people regarding the merits of the war continuing, so instead they began to lash out at those who were opposed to the war. So, they don't care if Moveon's argument is true, they just smear them as unpatriotic. Love it or leave it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yeah yeah. When you understand the difference between a theory and a fact get back to me.Uh, theory has nothing to do with the facts of the Bush cartel taking this country to war although a lot of you Bush apologists will never admit that evidenced by your continued feigned ignorance of the obvious.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Chris Matthews just brought up an excellent point on his show. He said that toward the end of the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration realized they could no longer win the argument with the American people regarding the merits of the war continuing, so instead they began to lash out at those who were opposed to the war. So, they don't care if Moveon's argument is true, they just smear them as unpatriotic. Love it or leave it.Having lived through the Nixon era and Vietnam saga this is a fact.

Nixon also secretly monitored those who he felt were unpatriotic, like John Lennon. In fact, Nixon and Hoover tried to throw him out of the country because they felt threatened by free speech.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So, they don't care if Moveon's argument is true, they just smear them as unpatriotic. Love it or leave it.

This has been SOP for the Bush Crime Family since the get-go.

Interesting that Matthews draws the Nixon parallel as Rove learned many of his dirty tricks from that administration's strategists.

[Bronco Bob]

Ummm . . . .politics? ::)



See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Your comparison of the Senate to gangsters is a perfect illustration of the political bias that's shaping your interpretation of the facts. No only are you apparently completely unaware of your own biases, but you seem to accept them as reality without question. You are seeing things through the lens of your own political views. You are interpreting the Senate's resolution as an implied threat because your unconscious political assumptions predispose you to do just that.

You perfectly illustrated my point with your analogy. Thanks!

Thank you for the $2 analysis, Dr. Freud.

It was an analogy about an implied threat without actually making a threat.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But we should be just ecstatic about the AEI, Carlyle, Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Anschutz, AIPAC, Raytheon, Bendex, Lockheed, and the rest of the military/industrial complex, Focus on the Family, etc etc etc efforts to control our government, our foreign policy, and our social lives? After all, they actually won! They put us in Iraq. Their policies are in place. They wrote our energy policies. They wrote our environmental policies. They penned our resource management policies. They've geared our tax policy to enrich themselves while bankrupting the U.S. government. Their supreme court is in charge of interpreting our laws for (probably) the next 20 years.

You Righties crack me up. The Left has one, well heeled organization backing them up - an organiztion who's efforts completely failed in the last two elections (as far as we know, eh? ;D) and yet, you Righties run around like Chicken Little when they put an ad in the paper. What a bunch of drama queens. Look to thine own house, eh?

:thumbsup: ^5

Post of the day!

It never ceases to amaze me how W*GS, Lone Bolt and other shills for Bush and his party never have the good sense to feel properly embarrassed about such a transparent double standard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It was an analogy about an implied threat without actually making a threat.

Republicans only understand convenient analogies...

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/6296/repigf3ly0.jpg

[W*GS]

LABF's prattle about hypocrisy is most amusing...

This from the guy who's a shill for Chavez - is his man juice that tasty?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/petraeus-names.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Post a fact. I'll address it.

I'm sure you were equally appalled that the Senate didn't stand up in righteous indignation when Rove's puppets in S. Carolina were calling a war hero like McLeland a "drunken coward." Right? How about when the Swift Boaters were attacking a certified war hero, John Kerry? Ooops. Awful silent then, weren't we? Remember Rove's operatives saying McCain fathered black babies and might be crazy from his experiences in the Hanoi Hilton? Not a peep. I guess what you support is "selective" free speech, just like Cornyn and Bush.

But those examples were different... ;)

http://www.bartcop.com/purple-heart-band-aid.jpg

[Rigs11]

LABF's prattle about hypocrisy is most amusing...

This from the guy who's a shill for Chavez - is his man juice that tasty?

Talk about hypocrisy. Weren't you using the homophobic card a few days ago?

[W*GS]

I realize a board full of football fans will recoil from any insinuation of homosexuality. Of course, Rigs11's mancrush on LABF pretty much requires he has to leap to LABF's defense...

[jhat01]

Talk about hypocrisy. Weren't you using the homophobic card a few days ago?


No that was me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF's prattle about hypocrisy is most amusing...

This from the guy who's a shill for Chavez - is his man juice that tasty?

In W*GS' mind, anyone who corrects the falsehoods he posts re: Chavez is somehow a "shill" for the latter.

Gotta love that Limbaugh logic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Talk about hypocrisy. Weren't you using the homophobic card a few days ago?

:yep:

Notice how graphic he's been getting with his references lately?

Sure sounds like a man of experience talking. ;)

[W*GS]

In W*GS' mind, anyone who corrects the falsehoods he posts re: Chavez is somehow a "shill" for the latter.

You didn't correct any falsehoods at all - you posted straight-up pro-Chavez propaganda. You've been swallowing Chavez' lies (and much more besides) for quite some time now. I've merely been pointing out how gullible (and stupid) you've been...

[W*GS]

Whenever anyone criticizes Clinton, LABF accuses them of being obsessed with Clinton's genitals - regardless of the nature of the critique. He also accuses folks of kneeling and bobbing for Bush.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Rigs11]

Hey Wigs you wouldn't happen to claim yourself a christian too would you? Cause that would complete your right wing application.


Projecting again, I see. Using homosexuality as some sort of insult is very telling.

Of course, you probably enjoy lesbian smut, so you're a hypocrite too.

Then..

I realize a board full of football fans will recoil from any insinuation of homosexuality. Of course, Rigs11's mancrush on LABF pretty much requires he has to leap to LABF's defense...

[Bronco Bob]

Whenever anyone criticizes Clinton, LABF accuses them of being obsessed with Clinton's genitals - regardless of the nature of the critique. He also accuses folks of kneeling and bobbing for Bush.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

So which are you, the pot or the kettle?

If you hear a jackass out in the field, do you feel the need to start braying too?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Whenever anyone criticizes Clinton, LABF accuses them of being obsessed with Clinton's genitals...

Um, that's because the party for which you are a shill was obsessed with the whereabouts and activities of Clinton's honker for 8+ years, genius.

In other words, you brought the rep on yourself.

[defenseman]

Oh I see. You are just going to call me names insted of addressing the facts. OK.::)

And I think the Senate has the same right to free speech as the rest of us.

He's just like moveon.org, two peas in a pod. So what else is new....dman

[defenseman]

Chris Matthews just brought up an excellent point on his show. He said that toward the end of the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration realized they could no longer win the argument with the American people regarding the merits of the war continuing, so instead they began to lash out at those who were opposed to the war. So, they don't care if Moveon's argument is true, they just smear them as unpatriotic. Love it or leave it.

Moveon.org's "betrayal" ad was sheer lunacy. end of story. If you condone it, you have a problem. As far as their position, have at it. Make your Mr. Soros proud, I could care less. Just do not smear a general for the sake of smearing a general WITHOUT the facts to back it up.........dman

[Spider]

Moveon.org's "betrayal" ad was sheer lunacy. end of story. If you condone it, you have a problem. As far as their position, have at it. Make your Mr. Soros proud, I could care less. Just do not smear a general for the sake of smearing a general WITHOUT the facts to back it up.........dman

Huh ?
here is the ad , why dont you pick out what is lunacy , and whats wrong ?
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.”
Washington Post, “Battling for Iraq,” by David H. Petraeus. 9/26/04 (see below)

And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq , said ”We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”
The Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan. 8/31/07

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.
GAO report, 9/4/07
NIE report, 8/23/07
Jones report, CSIS, 9/6/07
Independent AP investigation, 9/1/07
Independent L.A. Times investigation, 9/1/07

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count.
“Time to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman. 9/7/07

The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front.
“Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l

According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there.
The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07
National Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy Raz. 9/6/07
Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.” 9/5/07

We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Newsweek, “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07
Ibid from the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad”
McClatchy, “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel. 8/15/07
The New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07
Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.
We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops.
The New York Times, “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, is Wary of Cuts,” by David Sanger and David Cloud, 9/7/07
The Washington Post, “Petraeus Open to Pullout of One Brigade,” by Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman. 9/7/07.

But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
The Hill, “Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence,” by Patrick FitzGerald. 8/10/07
Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.



The Washington Post, 9/26/04
Battling for Iraq

BYLINE: David H. Petraeus

SECTION: Editorial; B07

LENGTH: 1239 words

DATELINE: BAGHDAD
Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.
The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.
In recent months, I have observed thousands of Iraqis in training and then watched as they have conducted numerous operations. Although there have been reverses -- not to mention horrific terrorist attacks -- there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do. The future undoubtedly will be full of difficulties, especially in places such as Fallujah. We must expect setbacks and recognize that not every soldier or policeman we help train will be equal to the challenges ahead.
Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. 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. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished.
Most important, Iraqi security forces are in the fight -- so much so that they are suffering substantial casualties as they take on more and more of the burdens to achieve security in their country. Since Jan. 1 more than 700 Iraqi security force members have been killed, and hundreds of Iraqis seeking to volunteer for the police and military have been killed as well.
Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. Two of these battalions, along with the Iraqi commando battalion, the counterterrorist force, two Iraqi National Guard battalions and thousands of policemen recently contributed to successful operations in Najaf. Their readiness to enter and clear the Imam Ali shrine was undoubtedly a key factor in enabling Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to persuade members of the Mahdi militia to lay down their arms and leave the shrine.
In another highly successful operation several days ago, the Iraqi counterterrorist force conducted early-morning raids in Najaf that resulted in the capture of several senior lieutenants and 40 other members of that militia, and the seizure of enough weapons to fill nearly four 71/2-ton dump trucks.
Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January, in time to help with security missions during the Iraqi elections at the end of that month.
Iraqi National Guard battalions have also been active in recent months. Some 40 of the 45 existing battalions -- generally all except those in the Fallujah-Ramadi area -- are conducting operations on a daily basis, most alongside coalition forces, but many independently. Progress has also been made in police training. In the past week alone, some 1,100 graduated from the basic policing course and five specialty courses. By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct.
Iraq's borders are long, stretching more than 2,200 miles. Reducing the flow of extremists and their resources across the borders is critical to success in the counterinsurgency. As a result, with support from the Department of Homeland Security, specialized training for Iraq's border enforcement elements began earlier this month in Jordan.
Regional academies in Iraq have begun training as well, and more will come online soon. In the months ahead, the 16,000-strong border force will expand to 24,000 and then 32,000. In addition, these forces will be provided with modern technology, including vehicle X-ray machines, explosive-detection devices and ground sensors.
Outfitting hundreds of thousands of new Iraqi security forces is difficult and complex, and many of the units are not yet fully equipped. But equipment has begun flowing. Since July 1, for example, more than 39,000 weapons and 22 million rounds of ammunition have been delivered to Iraqi forces, in addition to 42,000 sets of body armor, 4,400 vehicles, 16,000 radios and more than 235,000 uniforms.
Considerable progress is also being made in the reconstruction and refurbishing of infrastructure for Iraq's security forces. Some $1 billion in construction to support this effort has been completed or is underway, and five Iraqi bases are already occupied by entire infantry brigades.
Numbers alone cannot convey the full story. The human dimension of this effort is crucial. The enemies of Iraq recognize how much is at stake as Iraq reestablishes its security forces. Insurgents and foreign fighters continue to mount barbaric attacks against police stations, recruiting centers and military installations, even though the vast majority of the population deplores such attacks. Yet despite the sensational attacks, there is no shortage of qualified recruits volunteering to join Iraqi security forces. In the past couple of months, more than 7,500 Iraqi men have signed up for the army and are preparing to report for basic training to fill out the final nine battalions of the Iraqi regular army. Some 3,500 new police recruits just reported for training in various locations. And two days after the recent bombing on a street outside a police recruiting location in Baghdad, hundreds of Iraqis were once again lined up inside the force protection walls at another location -- where they were greeted by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
I meet with Iraqi security force leaders every day. Though some have given in to acts of intimidation, many are displaying courage and resilience in the face of repeated threats and attacks on them, their families and their comrades. I have seen their determination and their desire to assume the full burden of security tasks for Iraq.
There will be more tough times, frustration and disappointment along the way. It is likely that insurgent attacks will escalate as Iraq's elections approach. Iraq's security forces are, however, developing steadily and they are in the fight. Momentum has gathered in recent months. With strong Iraqi leaders out front and with continued coalition -- and now NATO -- support, this trend will continue. It will not be easy, but few worthwhile things are.
The writer, an Army lieutenant general, commands the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. He previously commanded the 101st Airborne Division, which was deployed in Iraq from March 2003 until February 2004.



aboutpresscontact ushome

[Rohirrim]

Moveon.org's "betrayal" ad was sheer lunacy. end of story. If you condone it, you have a problem. As far as their position, have at it. Make your Mr. Soros proud, I could care less. Just do not smear a general for the sake of smearing a general WITHOUT the facts to back it up.........dman

Who smeared the general? Moveon? The ad I saw asked a question. Faux Noise uses the exact same format every night. Example: Are the Democrats aiding the terrorists? The only one I heard smearing the general was his boss who called him a "chicken **** ass kisser." Moveon went too far, AFAIC, because they sank to the same level as Faux Noise. By doing that, they set themselves up to become the focus, rather than the legitimate question they were trying to ask, ie. Is General Petraeus telling us the truth, or is he just a stooge of the WH sent to sell Bush's policy? I posted the NCOs' essay. Did you read it? Why is their take different from the general's?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The only one I heard smearing the general was his boss who called him a "chicken **** ass kisser."

Funny - I haven't heard dman complain about this. :D

[TailgateNut]

Sure. But doesn't everyone here have "more important things to do" than express their political opinions? Why are you here? Because you have some things you want to say, right?

Senate members were offended by the ad. They wanted to express themselves. It's called free speech, not "implied threat". The sky is not falling. Case closed.

If they JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES, do it on their own DIME and TIME. Don't use taxpayer dollars to waste time which should be spent doing AMERICAS' business.

Why do they feel the public has no right to express their discontent with the cabal of liars currently still at the helm.

Welcome to NAZI AMERICA!

[W*GS]

Hey Wigs you wouldn't happen to claim yourself a christian too would you? Cause that would complete your right wing application.

Thanks for dancing, Boy Wonder...

[W*GS]

Um, that's because the party for which you are a shill was obsessed with the whereabouts and activities of Clinton's honker for 8+ years, genius.

In other words, you brought the rep on yourself.

Hardly. I don't shill for the GOP - please show me where I have. I have never used Clinton's sexual peccadilloes as a means to criticize him, either.

You, however, do indeed shill for Chavez. Why?

[TailgateNut]

Moveon.org's "betrayal" ad was sheer lunacy. end of story. If you condone it, you have a problem. As far as their position, have at it. Make your Mr. Soros proud, I could care less. Just do not smear a general for the sake of smearing a general WITHOUT the facts to back it up.........dman


NO, you and your sick party only condone smearing Generals who sacrifice their careers in order to be able to speak the truth about this ill conceived war. It's ok to smear them, isn't it? You didn't stand up and cry "foul play" then.
Petrayus, one star for each MAJOR LIE! At this rate he should EARN his next star soon!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

NO, you and your sick party only condone smearing Generals who sacrifice their careers in order to be able to speak the truth about this ill conceived war. It's ok to smear them, isn't it? You didn't stand up and cry "foul play" then.


True that is. :yep:

Same right-wing double standard, different day. :oyvey:

[TailgateNut]

The problem this administration has with anyone who speaks out against them and their means and methods is that they realize they are the minority, that they have exposed themselves for who and what they are (liars and cheaters) and that their time is running out. They realize there is no "good end" to what they started, so they need to stretch it out long enough to be able to hand the whole pile of **** to the next president. The when the inevitable happens, they can plame someone else for the failure.

This war and all of the sacrifices (deaths) are the responsibility of BushCo and all of you who voted for this asshole!

[Rigs11]

Thanks for dancing, Boy Wonder...

Thanks for proving your hypocrisy jewpublican

[W*GS]

Thanks for proving your hypocrisy jewpublican

Doesn't your arm get tired of doing the Nazi salute all the time?

[The Lone Bolt]

NO, you and your sick party only condone smearing Generals who sacrifice their careers in order to be able to speak the truth about this ill conceived war. It's ok to smear them, isn't it? You didn't stand up and cry "foul play" then.
Petrayus, one star for each MAJOR LIE! At this rate he should EARN his next star soon!

And how many stars do Moveon get for every LIE they published?

Notice the selected quotes by the Moveon.org advertisement. When dealing with these leftist groups it is important to actually read in entirety what someone wrote instead of just believing the selected quotes from these people. So let’s look at what Petraeus actually said:

Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq’s security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight — and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.

The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq. [Washington Post]

Moveon.org got their quotes from an editorial that General Petraeus wrote for the Washington Post in September 2004 in regards to his job of reestablishing the Iraqi Army which he began in 2004. Notice the quote "tangible progress" is not in regards to Iraq as Moveon.org claims but in regards to the Iraqi security forces that he was building from the ground up. There has obviously been "tangible progress" in the Iraqi security forces considering there was nearly none when he took the job in 2004 due to Paul Bremmer’s decision to disband the Iraqi Army. Now the Iraqi Army has been rebuilt to the point that now the city of Mosul the third largest city in Iraq is held by Iraqi security forces with the assistance of one US infantry battalion. That is "tangible progress".

http://forwarddeployed.com/2007/09/11/the-effort-to-destroy-general-petraeus/

. . . The anti-war group Moveon.org attacked General David Petraeus in a September 10 full-page advertisement in the New York Times, accusing him of being "constantly at war with the facts." Here is an annotated fact check of MoveOn.org's broadside against Petraeus.

MoveOn.org claims are in (orange); our comments in regular type.

----

very independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.
This is as inaccurate as are bald claims, by Sen. John McCain and others, that the surge "is working." Independent reports show that the results have been mixed.

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence.
Independent monitors such as Iraq Body Count agree that there probably has been some reduction in violence from the last few months of 2006, when it reached a peak. The key question is whether the violence can be brought down to a level that would allow progress in political, civil and other areas.

That's because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count.
Legitimate questions have been raised about the methodology used by the Pentagon in assessing violence in Iraq, which contrasts with the conclusions of other agencies, and may underestimate the violence. However, the Petraeus report specifically includes data for car bombs. (See Slide 4.)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=topnews

There's a lot more where that came from. Not only did Moveon get a sweetheart deal on an ad in which they called a top general a traitor, they filled it with lies which no one on the left is willing to admit.

[Rohirrim]

U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chicken****" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus's recommendation for continued high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century".

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in The Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.

Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.

Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible". The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

Fallon also expressed great scepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of U.S. occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the U.S. mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the U.S. troop strength by the end of 2009.

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus's recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus's role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus's sycophantic behaviour in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

A crucial element of Petraeus's path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between U.S. military leaders in recent history.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

[TailgateNut]

And how many stars do Moveon get for every LIE they published?



http://forwarddeployed.com/2007/09/11/the-effort-to-destroy-general-petraeus/



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=topnews

There's a lot more where that came from. Not only did Moveon get a sweetheart deal on an ad in which they called a top general a traitor, they filled it with lies which no one on the left is willing to admit.


You don't address the double standard regarding the smearing of Generals.

BTW: nice references :rofl:

How about this: Gen. BETRAY-US IS JUST ANOTHER PUPPET!

[Rohirrim]

And how many stars do Moveon get for every LIE they published?
There's a lot more where that came from. Not only did Moveon get a sweetheart deal on an ad in which they called a top general a traitor, they filled it with lies which no one on the left is willing to admit.

Ha! You crack me up. Where did they call him a traitor? Prove it! SHOW ME THE EXACT LANGUAGE WHERE MOVEON CALLED PETRAEUS A TRAITOR! Isn't that your schtick?

[W*GS]

http://www.economist.com/images/20070908/D3607WW0.jpg

http://www.economist.com/images/20070915/D3707WW0.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

Ha! You crack me up. Where did they call him a traitor? Prove it! SHOW ME THE EXACT LANGUAGE WHERE MOVEON CALLED PETRAEUS A TRAITOR! Isn't that your schtick?

They called him "General Betray-Us" did they not? Are you denying that?

Definitions of traitor on the Web:

* someone who betrays his country by committing treason
* double-crosser: a person who says one thing and does another
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitor

By definition they are calling him a traitor.

[Rohirrim]

They called him "General Betray-Us" did they not? Are you denying that?



By definition they are calling him a traitor.

Nope. Wrong again. There was a question mark. General betray us? That's a question, not an accusation. I'm sure a person like you, opposed to all forms of implied messages, would accept that for what it is. Right? ;)

[The Lone Bolt]

Nope. Wrong again. There was a question mark. General betray us? That's a question, not an accusation. I'm sure a person like you, opposed to all forms of implied messages, would accept that for what it is. Right? ;)

Oh, excuse me! They only insinuated he's a traitor (and backed it up with a bunch of lies and misinformation). Big difference!LOL LOL LOL

[Rohirrim]

Oh, excuse me! They only insinuated he's a traitor (and backed it up with a bunch of lies and misinformation). Big difference!LOL LOL LOL

Judging by all of your past arguments on this board, I thought you didn't believe in the concept of insinuation? That was a pretty quick 180. :notworthy

[TailgateNut]

Oh, excuse me! They only insinuated he's a traitor (and backed it up with a bunch of lies and misinformation). Big difference!LOL LOL LOL


So, crossing T's and dotting I's is only required of those who have opposing views.

Truth must also only be PROVEN by others, who don't follow the same herd mentality.

F-in Double Standard, which has become the mantra of the republican party and their whores!

[The Lone Bolt]

Judging by all of your past arguments on this board, I thought you didn't believe in the concept of insinuation? That was a pretty quick 180. :notworthy

It's a long, long way from actually printing the words "Betray-Us" with a question mark ::) (a very obvious insinuation) to an alleged "implied threat" in which the Senate never actually used the words "threat", "order", "shut up", etc. You're really reaching here bro.

[gunns]

I see Ro has the same double standard as most lefties... Disappointing.

And to think you could have had a V8. /

[Spider]

It's a long, long way from actually printing the words "Betray-Us" with a question mark ::) (a very obvious insinuation) to an alleged "implied threat" in which the Senate never actually used the words "threat", "order", "shut up", etc. You're really reaching here bro.

you are so full of **** , you should have brown eyes

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Judging by all of your past arguments on this board, I thought you didn't believe in the concept of insinuation? That was a pretty quick 180. :notworthy

:yep: :D

[Rigs11]

Doesn't your arm get tired of doing the Nazi salute all the time?

Nope. Gets tired from giving you the finger though.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Doesn't your arm get tired of doing the Nazi salute all the time?

Doesn't your neck get tired from talking out of the side of it all the time?

[Bronco Bob]

Interesting numbers from Rasmussen:

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times “that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us?” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.


Self-identified liberals were evenly divided—45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.

Twenty-three percent (23%) of American adults have a favorable opinion of MoveOn.org while 39% have an unfavorable opinion. Thirty-eight percent (38%) don’t know enough to have an opinion one way or the other. Survey respondents were asked their opinion of MoveOn.org before the New York Times ad was described.


Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the free-spending group while 24% voice the opposite opinion.


Ten percent (10%) of Republicans offered a positive assessment of MoveOn.org while 62% say the opposite.


Among those not affiliated with either major party, the numbers are 21% favorable and 32% unfavorable.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove

[The Lone Bolt]

Interesting numbers from Rasmussen:

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times “that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us?” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.


Self-identified liberals were evenly divided—45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.

Twenty-three percent (23%) of American adults have a favorable opinion of MoveOn.org while 39% have an unfavorable opinion. Thirty-eight percent (38%) don’t know enough to have an opinion one way or the other. Survey respondents were asked their opinion of MoveOn.org before the New York Times ad was described.


Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the free-spending group while 24% voice the opposite opinion.


Ten percent (10%) of Republicans offered a positive assessment of MoveOn.org while 62% say the opposite.


Among those not affiliated with either major party, the numbers are 21% favorable and 32% unfavorable.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove



Looks like Moveon shot themselves in the foot with this one.