Thanks to republicans wasting time in Congress, kooky sites like townhall.com, and even bloggers like hugh, moveon.org received OVER FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS in donations on the day of this silly resolution. Their best single-day receipts ever.
I'm feeling a little cheap for only sending them $250... keep up your good work and maybe I'll send 'em more! |
|
..Rudy's personal life is going to be fair game. Oh,(as Dirty Harry said to the felon)make my day!
Please,God...Oh,Pleassssssssse say it's true that they're going to make that Big of a F---Up! |
|
|
Bush mentioning Move On Dot Org in a press conference is beneath the presidency. Besides, he never gets critical of generals, he replaces them, especially if they happen to be correct (Shinseki, Abizaid and on and on and on and on and on.) That the Cons have made Move On their anchor issue shows how that ain't got jack to run on. Clinton is not my candidate but she is running the table on the other Dems and several Republicans I know say that she's the most impressive. Her campaign to date has been flawless. The Republican field is a sorry lot. Can any of you tell me which Republican is an agent of change in the field? If you think this election will be about anything but a change, you're dreaming. Republicans are going down in flames, book it. And thank almighty God for that. What a bunch of incompetents. |
|
Cabal Member - you are correct. I doubt Hillary would have achieved the position of WalMart Housewares Manager, given Ms. Rodham's propensity for hurling ashtrays (do they even make those any more?) at people's skulls.
I think she'd be hidden back in the stockroom, away from the customers. |
|
Super Bowl III, the Colts were talking about how nobody could stop their devastating blitz, but Namath and the Jets saw something in the films. They said "Please let them blitz..."
The same could be said for Hill.....please let her get the nomination. She'll never win.
A large segment of the population would NEVER vote for her.....the MALE part, especially the ones with ex-wives..... |
|
the housewares dept at the aforementioned WalMart.
She's not qualified.Which gives you the general idea of qualifications for the pathetic US Senate these days!Really sad. |
|
Make no mistake. The shadow of Soros is growing over this country's political system.
The Republicans need to expose this clowns ill intent.
Queen Hillary and the Democratic Party are Mr. Soro's little bit*hes.
Time to shine a little light on this wealthy cretin and expose him. |
|
Two things to remember here:
#1.)
The democrats requested and fully approved of General Patreus reporting on the "surge", it's affect on results. For the democrats----or LaborLawyer to backpeedle, obfuscate, renege on this aforementioned request is pathetic
#2.) For LaboriousLawyer to compare the scrutinizing/challenging of John Kerry's military record as tantamount to democrats challenging General Patreus' findings is Bulls**t. General Patreus is not a campaigning politician---PERIOD. John Kerry was not only a campaigning politician, he broached the subject of his military record and kept talking about it ad nauseum. It was open for scrutiny. It was HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL, his records, from the moment he stepped off the theater in Vietnam. Period. Treating General Patreus as if he occupies similar status to John Kerry is beyond laughable. And LaboriousLawyer should be ashamed of himself for suggesting or inferring such a connection.
Period. |
|
Being an unqualified and an unaccomplished lightweight, Ms. Rodham's one page resume consists of tea parties and "I was there when", but nothing at all substantive.
Ms. Rodham is the least qualified, Presidential contender in United States history.
So what else does Ms. No-Load here, have?
Her moonbat, lunatic left base. Who lead her around by the nose. She's nothing without them. (Actually, she's nothing with them, but the irresponsible lunatics do cast votes.)
Does anyone who graduated from Pre-K, believe this woman can even slightly handle the Presidency?
There are probably 20,000 people walking around Washington right now, who are more qualified to be President than Ms. Rodham. There are probably 1 million people in our country who are far better qualified, than this neophyte.
Without hubby, Ms. Rodham would be managing the housewares department of a Peoria WalMart. And not doing a very good job at it.
|
|
a Senator basically using the military as an opportunity for political grandstanding in an attempt to help his party win an election?
As much as I despise Hillary, this was a waste of time considering the real problems that the Congress could be spending its time on.
And it is part of the reason why the approval rating for Congress is as low as it is.
|
|
Most Republicans, and most people with any knowledge of history and military affairs, reject the idea of running wars by opinion poll, but, since the Hillary defenders insist on bringing them up over and over:
"Gallup poll reports that 61 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of General Petraeus, up 9 percent in just one week.
Fifty-four percent of those surveyed said they believe Petraeus' plan for removing troops is the right pace or too quick. [!] By contrast, only 33 percent view the withdrawal as moving too slowly.
Pew reports that nationally “57 percent of Americans who read or heard about Petraeus' testimony approved of his recommendations for Iraq, while only 28 percent of respondents said they disapprove. A majority of those surveyed (51 percent) also said they believe he presented the situation as it really is.
US News & World Report’s “Political Bulletin” highlighted polling that found when “[a]sked, ‘If General Petraeus asks for the troop level to remain in place for another nine months, would you approve or disapprove this proposal,’ 54% approve it; 43% disapprove. Independents track the overall response, with 53% approving the proposal and 43% disapproving it. 80% of Republicans back the idea while 67% of Democrats oppose it.” |
|
The dems have turned in to a bunch of whores. Move-on is their handler and tells them which corner to work on.
By the way Laborlawyer, when you write the words "Keith Olberman has it exactly right" you immediatly loose all credibility. |
|
Hillary is right on the Moveon.org ad.
Hypocrites abound in the cult formerly known as the GOP, but Hillary, bless her heart, isn't buying into the distraction - any more than she's buying Bush's propagandizing and politicizing the military is.
The best thing Hillary and the Dems can do is to follow the sentiments of the majority of the American people and shut down the obstructionists in both houses of Congress. The majority of Americans are hoping against hope that they will stand firm and punch the GOP in the gut - finally - by not backing down to the bully forces of thuggery.
Bush put Patreaus on the line as his political stunt for the war. That opens Patreaus to backlash from opponents of Bush. |
|
I'm surprised that in all this discussion the nature of Hillary and Bill's peculiar relationship to MoveOn doesn't come up more often.
As I would think most of us remember, "Move On" originally referred to Monica and impeachment. In this sense the Clintons' connections to MoveOn are more intimate than those of any other Democrats. Indeed, the relationship is foundational, and you have to wonder whether there isn't a much bigger story there in addition to what's obvious on the surface, possibly hidden under a typically Clintonian series of deniable back-channels and cutouts.
HRC may feel that she simply cannot make any kind of public break with the organization, any endorsement, or any direct public mention at all, without bringing up the whole sorry history again, but by going a bridge too far with her questioning of Gen Petraeus, she brought it up all the more tellingly, by implication.
As ever, those interested in the Clintons - and do any of us have a choice in the matter anymore? - would do well to read up on the psychological mechanisms or "reaction formation" and, even more to the point, "the return of the repressed." Much that happens with this couple will become less surprising. |
|
Neoconscum,
This is in addition to everything else about this report. No "lefty revisionism" here. That's what neocons are for. If the administration had any credibility there wouldn't be a need for Petreaus to deliver it. Here's a link about this for your enlightenment. Don't break your kneecap when your knee jerks as this is from a "liberal" website.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/09/iraq-meeting/
As far as your comments in regard to Bush/Clinton, all I can say is that they both suck. Neither are honest, nor do they have any honor. They have done a fine job wrecking the nation. Future historians will record this period of history as the Bush/Clinton years for all the corruption, mismanagement and treason that occured under their administrations. |
|
..be delivered to congress by General Petraeus. Good Gweeef...Lefty Instant Revisionism never ever
rests.Billy C is a pychpathic narcissist who is dissembling whenever his precious lips are moving.Read Andrew Sullivan's TRB piece on the subject in Feb.'01 issue of The New Republic entitled,"Psycho".GWB is honorable,straight forward,focused...Oh,and doesn't sleaze around a
sickly co-dependent wife,currently running for National Soap Opera Leader...errr...Demo Prez candidate.
Banjo1: Nope,you're correct.To this day Mr."I Served in VietNam for 3-months 38 years ago"Kerry
has not let the Full Records see the light of day.
The MSM,of course,never nailed his feet to the floor on the subject.But,hey,it's seared... seared,I say,into his memory.
|
|
|
Hillary's dislike for the miliary is nothing new. It goes back to the 60's with her and Bill. What the MSM won't report is the lack of civilian respect for the Clinton's by the rank-in-file soldiers. I was at a number of functions in the 90's where the Clinton's and the military were present and the low level whistles, less than crisp salutes and half-hearted hoo-aah's let anyone know with a military background that the Clinton's and the military are still engaged in a mutual dislike. Yet, the military will perform there duty with honor to protect our nation even for a commander and chief like Hillary Clinton who sees them as thugs and liars. |
|
|
Everytime the left does, people remember how much they detest Kerry for his betrayal of his comrades, an act he will never live down. By the way, has he ever released records that say whether his discharge was honorable or otherwise? |
|
|
Huge..the refrain "A vote for democrats is a vote for.." is tried and tested..in fact it worked very well in November of 2006 |
|
|
|
In fairness to Petreaus it should be remembered that several Republican congressmen met with Bush and told him it would be better for Petreaus to deliver the report as the Bush administration had no credibilty due to all the previous lies and false claims they told and made.
When it comes to lying and half truths Clinton has nothing on Bush. Bush learned well from Clinton. |
|
stands with her leader, Soros...
BAGHDAD (AFP) — Violence across Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since before the bombing of a Shiite mosque in February 2006 that sparked savage sectarian bloodletting, a US military commander said on Thursday.
There has also been a 50 percent fall-off in violence in Baghdad since January, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, the number two commander of US-led forces in Iraq, told a press conference in Baghdad.
"Attacks nationwide have fallen to the lowest level since before the Golden Mosque bombing," he said, referring to a bombing which destroyed the revered shrine in Samarra and unleashed a relentless wave of reprisals and counter-reprisals across Iraq that has already killed thousands of Iraqis.
"Car bombs and suicide attacks have dropped to their lowest level in a year," Odierno said. "Attacks in Baghdad have reached the lowest level this year and the trend continues to be down."
Civilian casualties had dropped from a high of about 32 per day to 12 per day, the US commander said.
"Al-Qaeda in Iraq is increasingly being pushed out of Baghdad and the surrounding areas," he said. "We are starting to see a normalization of life across Iraq and also in Baghdad."
Good news for America is bad news for Soros and his puppets. |
|
Why is it inherently and automatically "despicable and dishonest" to attack someone's military record and their medals, particularly when they invoke that record and those medals as credentials to be commander in chief -- remeber "Reporting for duty" at the Democratic national convention? -- and particularly when there are dozens of former military personnel who served with him who contest his record and those medals? Do you have anything to back up your assertion -- or are we to believe it merely because you say so?
|
|
..a Brain.Cool.We agree.He says that the Osama Talking Points meister,Keith Olberman,has Half a Brain,as well.For once,I'm in total agreement with
a kossite nutter kook on TWO OPINIONS. |
|
MOST PEOPLE ERR IN VOCALIZATION:
IT IS NOT "MOVEONdotORG
IT IS
"MOVEONdirtORG
ELENA |
|
Thank you for the link. It was informative. If the Admiral states publicly that he supports the Petreus recommendations, I believe him, and withdraw any implication to the contrary. He said some interesting things in the article:
"The next steps in Iraq, Fallon said, are up to the Iraqis themselves. He agrees with the many observers in and out of government who say the major obstacles to progress are political.
“There’s lots to be done” on the civilian side, Fallon said. “The main issue is, can [the Iraqi people] gain the trust and confidence in their government as it’s currently constructed? If they don’t have confidence in it, we’re not likely to make the progress we need to make.”
At the same time, he said, the Iraqi Security Forces must show they can take the operational lead in more areas of Iraq. “How do you get them confident?” Fallon said. “They have to be confident in leading.
“So part of this is us putting the ball back in their hands in a major way,” Fallon said. “How they react to this is going to be very interesting.”
This is what a lot of us in the middle- not supporting the President's policy but also not in favor of a precipitous pullout- have been saying. It's certainly different from the "war theatre against terrorism" talking points of the most ardent pro-war voices.
The problem a lot of us have is that the way this has been presented is that any doubt about the strategy is portrayed as traitorous in and of itself. Petreus is a good man calling it has he sees it, but in a democracy, the civilian leadership not the military has the last word.
Regardless, using the Senate to denounce private citizens exercising free speech is wrong and cheap political theatre, no matter how repugnant the speech. |
|
....and his medals questioned. That was despicable and dishonest. His anti-war statements were well known and would not have affected the election one way or the other.
I too denounce the MoveOn ad. What is outrageous is using the force of government to attack private citizens expressing their free speech rights, and the political theatre that went along with it. That's why HRC was right to vote No.
As to popularity ratings, Congress is below the President, but not by the margins you suggest (the RealClearPolitics average is 33 percent for Bush, 27 percent for Congress). But before you get to happy about that, look closer: It is democrats who disapprove of Congress because they haven't been strong enough to stop Bush. The republican filibuster strategy has been astoundingly successful, but don't delude yourself into thinking that bodes well for Republicans.
as for you irtexas, I ake a practice of not entering into discussions with people who call me names. So have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
laborlawyer, if not the man who literally wrote the book on how to fight and win this war, (it's even for sale on Amazon.com), who?
Who is more qualified to fight and win this war than Petreaus? I make no apologies for trusting this man's opinions on how to win the this war over the combined military wit and wisdom of Senators Durbin, Biden and Clinton.
You complain that "military leaders shouldn't be setting policy in public" and yet it was *Congress* who set the mandate to return and report back on any progress in the surge. Who, therefore, do you have the beef with?
Back in February, Petreaus was competent enough to earn the unanimous approval of both parties in Congress and the President. How can it get more non-political than that?
Now that he's come back and reported in the exact manner he was asked to by Congress, it seems what he has to say isn't pleasing to some who are heavily invested in America's defeat and humiliation in this war.
Shame on those Senators who see poll numbers instead of really supporting the troops.
ExUrbanKevin
http://www.exurbanleague.com |
|
Kerry lied about his former comrades and the most effective Swift Boat ad was the one of Kerry lying before Congress in the infamous "Ghengis Khan" speech - that sealed his fate, and it was unfiltered truth - the video was not altered nor the audio edited - Kerry, not the Swift Boat Vets, was responsible for his losing - he would not / could not take back words that harmful.
Patraeus was not running for any office, and the MoveOn ad was infantile, despicable and simply not true. Idiot HRC has now voted for defeat and retreat from our enemy, and voted against the Officer in charge of our men and women fighting that enemy - a man she approved just a few months ago knowing full well what his plans were.
Patraeus set no policies - he laid out a plan for a revised military strategy in Iraq - he then carried out that plan, and the reported back to the administration and to congress what progress they had made and what they saw as the plan going forward - all those things he reported on were within his charter - when asked questions that were outside that charter, he deferred to the Ambassador or declined to answer.
Here's hoping she just helped lose the election - I cannot vote for someone who would undermine a military leader in pitched battle with an enemy that has as their stated objective to kill Americans - and I think when it is presented to them like that, most Americans would agree. Bush may have some of the lowest ratings of any President, but he rates twice as high as Congress - undermining our generals and their soldiers is just one of the reasons Congress is despised |
|
ExUrbanKevin,laborlawyer, how long do you two soak your heads in your toliets everyday?
I can't even fathom how or why you would think that Murtha or Kerry are heros to anyone but themselves. Talk about not distinguished records. You might want to do a little research on those records and why Murtha has been such a stunch supporter of the military. It is not about devotion it's money. Kerry lost because he was the liar. The Beast is the biggest liar and most currupt of them all.
You two should flush once in a while. |
|
You have it exactly backwards. Bush is the president who chooses military leaders based on political reliability.
Military leaders should not be the ones setting policy in public. They should give candid advice in private to the Commander In Chief, who should then make the decisions and accept the consquences. What is the military to make of a President who hides behind the military the way Bush hides behind Petreus? Who has really violated historical protocol in this case? |
|
Keith Olberman had it exactly right tonight: It was Bush who politicized Petreus by making him the decider of American policy (in opposition to the recommendations of Admiral Fallon, no less). The honorable thing for him to have done was refuse to play along. But that would have cost him just like it has cost every military man who dared to question this Administration.
The Senate Resolution was a cheap political stunt and anyone with half a brain can see this. The Government of the United States must not be in the business of attacking private citizens who do no more than exercise their right to free speech, no matter how repugnant that speech may be.
Watch out for the precdent you set today. Walk softly the next time you defame a military hero such as John Kerry, John Murtha, or Max Cleland.
This vote was a moment of truth: Do we Democrats again let the Republican noise machine define our national debate? Harry Ried failed the test by letting this piece of political theater come to a vote. God knows the Republicans have given him a lesson in obstruction this term. Tom Daschle, a true leader, would never have been outmaneuvered so thoroughly.
But HRC passed the test. The easy thing for her to have done was gone along. But she's seen what happens to the Democrats who've played along in the past. No Senator was more pro-military than Max Cleland and look what it got him. John Murtha was the most steadfast supporter of the military in Congress for decades, after serving with honor for decades, and look what it has gotten him. Respectful disagreement? Or personal attacks far worse than this pitiful MoveOn ad?
Kerry lost because he refused to fight back against the lies. Hillary just showed you she won't be pushed around like that. Bully for her! |
|
So she is willing to label the pre-eminent specialist in counter-insurgency warfare as a stooge for the President. Incredible. It's like Kenneth Wherry ignoring Patton's qualifications and successes in a bid to defeat Roosevelt in 1944. Sure, this Patton *says* he's an expert in armored combat, but how can we trust him to break out of the quagmire of Normandy when clearly he's just Roosevelt's stooges?
As I said, unbelievable.
As I blogged about at exurbanleague, this bodes very badly for her relationship with the military if the unthinkable happens and she becomes President. Will she chose generals and admirals based on their competency or their political reliability?
The Soviets learned this lesson the hard way in WWII. Pray fervently tonite that the U.S. won't be forced to face the same hard lesson.
ExUrbanKevin
http://www.exurbanleague.com |
|
|
Hillary Rodham Clinton is pathetic. |
|
Hillary Rodham Clinton is pathetic.
|
|
|
Hillay must think she's a pretty slick character to be able to get out of this one. You know she was triangulating the whole thing. I guess she figured that the nutroots would have longer memories and would care more. |
|
|
Hillary as President. On this Hugh, HNAV and I are in complete and total agreement. |
|
|
|