PETRAEUS HEARING: GOP Blasts MoveOn “BetrayUs” Ad
This is funny. She no doubt thinks she's helping, but the dumb look on Petraeus's face when she holds up the MoveOn advert tells it's own story. When she says that Petraeus is not "cooking the books for the White House", I can't be the only person who hears Nixon saying, "I am not a crook."
Tags:
12 comments:
Your anti-military bias comes through once again. BowelMoveOn.org and the radical liberals have overplayed their hand on this one. Attacking the integrity of this man was a terrible mistake on their part (on your part it's expected) and the American people don't buy it. The military is a revered institution in the US and the loony left has just played into the hands of the right. A recent poll you cherry picked numbers from had 68% of Americans claiming that they most trusted the military to prosecute the Iraq war, not the Democratic congress.
Your offensive on this site against Petraeus is as offensive as it is misguided, and yet one more item in a seemingly never-ending list of indicators how you just don't quite comprehend the nuances of American politics nor do you understand the American people.
With all your posting about General Petraeus on here though, I can assume that you watched or listened to his testimony for yourself? Or did you need some moonbat bloggers or columnists to drum up your arguments for you?
Attacking the integrity of this man was a terrible mistake on their part (on your part it's expected) and the American people don't buy it.
What bollocks you talk sometimes, Jason. Once again, you are repeating right wing talking points as if they represent some kind of truth.
This is a common theme amongst the right wing nutbags who always assume they represent Middle America (if the Democrats don't follow the Republican line they will always somehow "be punished"); they were even saying this before they were defeated in the mid terms.
In the same poll you refer to, 53% of Americans do not trust Petraeus to give an honest assessment of how things stand in Iraq.
So are you referring to any poll that backs up your claim that the American people have somehow grown to trust Petraeus on this subject, or are you, once again, presuming that your own prejudices somehow represent those of most Americans?
Then when the General states that the testimony (the one you neither watched nor listened to, by the way) was written by him and not provided to the White House, Pentagon, or Congress ahead of time, you are stating that he is lying. It's a rhetorical statement, obviously, because that is exactly what you are doing.
And if you actually believe that the majority of Americans supports BowelMoveOn.org's despicable ad (as you indicate), then it is yet another indicator of how completely you misunderstand my country and its people.
Once again, you are repeating right wing talking points as if they represent some kind of truth.
In what way then are you qualified to make any claims as to the esteem (or lack thereof) that the US public holds the military, never mind any other analysis of Americans? You can't even tell the difference between a Republican and a hawk. Your understanding of this country, our politics, and Americans in general is cartoonish at best.
Then when the General states that the testimony (the one you neither watched nor listened to, by the way) was written by him and not provided to the White House, Pentagon, or Congress ahead of time, you are stating that he is lying.
I did watch it on YouTube by the way, so your assumption that I have not seen what he says is false.
And yes, he is lying when he states that the government had nothing to do with what he was saying. The very fact that his statement was timed to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary suggests this was stage managed by the government for maximum effect. I'm not saying that they wrote the words, but I believe they knew in advance that his message would suit their cause.
And if you actually believe that the majority of Americans supports BowelMoveOn.org's despicable ad
I never said that they supported it. I did, however, point out that a recent poll indicated that 53% of Americans did not trust Petraeus not to sugar coat what he had to say about Iraq.
In what way then are you qualified to make any claims as to the esteem (or lack thereof) that the US public holds the military, never mind any other analysis of Americans?
I have quoted the poll result and imagine that you don't have any other poll to counter the one I quoted which is why you are now flaffing about. You claim that Americans are outraged by this, what evidence do you have to support your claim?
I did watch it on YouTube by the way, so your assumption that I have not seen what he says is false.
I can only find short select clips of the hours of testimony he gave. Perhaps you could point me to a link?
And yes, he is lying when he states that the government had nothing to do with what he was saying.
He stated he wrote his own testimony and did not clear it through the Pentagon, White House, or Congress ahead of time, and none of the above saw it ahead of time. You claim he is lying when he says this. Where is your proof? Proof by the way means a presentation of facts, not supposition or opinion.
The very fact that his statement was timed to coincide with the 9-11 anniversary suggests this was stage managed by the government for maximum effect.
You might want to take it up with Congress. By law, Petraeus had to give his testimony no later than 9/15. That means it pretty much had to be this week. So the date only suggests what you claim it does for those who were not aware of the timing specified by the law mandating this report.
I'm not saying that they wrote the words, but I believe they knew in advance that his message would suit their cause.
He said he wrote it, you said he was lying. So which is it? Either he is or he isn't? Did the White House have a general idea of what we and the Ambassador were going to report? I would hope so, since his testimony was supposed to be a progress report, and one would like to think that they were constantly providing the President with updates as to their progress. I would think that would be in their job description.
I never said that they supported it. I did, however, point out that a recent poll indicated that 53% of Americans did not trust Petraeus not to sugar coat what he had to say about Iraq.
I made the claim that BMOn.org overplayed their hand and why. The poll you quote is irrelevant as far as that topic goes.
I have quoted the poll result and imagine that you don't have any other poll to counter the one I quoted which is why you are now flaffing about.
Yes, a poll which as I indicated is quite irrelevant to my point. I don't have to have a poll to let me know how Americans feel about an institution I spent more than a decade in, an institution which I have known from the time I could walk is one which the majority of American's feel very strongly about.
But, since lord knows we can't make an analysis without a poll, a June 2007 Gallup poll stated that 69% of Americans have either a "great deal" of confidence or "quite a lot" of confidence in the US military. This approval rating has remained high over the decades, including post-Vietname in the mid-70's.
You claim that Americans are outraged by this, what evidence do you have to support your claim?
"Outraged" is your word, not mine. But, since the only thing you regard are polls (which are subjective statements of opinion and therefore by definition not fact... but I digress), there has not been a poll done yet asking people what they think of BMO.org's attack. But, there are plenty of articles to read on the subject if you'd like.
I can only find short select clips of the hours of testimony he gave. Perhaps you could point me to a link?
You really do attempt to come across as a school teacher checking upon your student's homework.
I watched his opening statement and summary on Politics TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMB_r5CKZN8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Epoliticstv%2Ecom%2F
You claim he is lying when he says this. Where is your proof?
I don't have any proof. However, I know when I'm being sold a turkey, and that man's selling a turkey.
I made the claim that BMOn.org overplayed their hand and why. The poll you quote is irrelevant as far as that topic goes.
No, it's not as 53% of Americans in that report thought that Petraeus would not give an honest report and would sugar coat what he had to say about how things were going. Which is exactly what MoveOn.Org claimed he had done.
But, since lord knows we can't make an analysis without a poll, a June 2007 Gallup poll stated that 69% of Americans have either a "great deal" of confidence or "quite a lot" of confidence in the US military.
You seem to be confusing respect for the military and whether or not people believe Petraeus is being totally honest regarding the situation in Iraq. One can respect the military and still believe that Petraeus is sugar coating the Iraq conflict.
And, as you admit that no poll has yet been taken regarding MoveOn's ad, then - as I suspected - you are working on supposition, imagining that your prejudices are universal.
I watched his opening statement and summary on Politics TV.
Well then, if you watched the opening statement that's surely enough to make your own objective opinions in context regarding his hours of testimony.
Well then, if you watched the opening statement that's surely enough to make your own objective opinions in context regarding his hours of testimony.
Yes, that's more than enough in order to do that. Frankly I was bored half way through as there wasn't a single thing that he said that most of us hadn't been predicting he would say for months on end.
And one doesn't have to watch the entire laborious testimony to find out what he said, that's what newpapers are for, Jason. Did you watch the entire thing? And if so, why? Surely after fifteen minutes you'd got the gist that the glorious surge was working, that more time was needed and that Petraeus had bought Bush his much desired excuse to pass this shameful exercise in failure on to his successor?
I don't have any proof. However, I know when I'm being sold a turkey, and that man's selling a turkey.
Which as we've established in another thread is whenever you disagree with what's being said.
Which is exactly what MoveOn.Org claimed he had done.
What the ad did was call Petraeus a traitor. Beyond despicable.
you are working on supposition, imagining that your prejudices are universal.
No, what I'm making is an observation based on personal experience. Supposition is what you, who has no relevant personal experience to draw on, are making.
Yes, that's more than enough in order to do that. Frankly I was bored half way through as there wasn't a single thing that he said that most of us hadn't been predicting he would say for months on end.
So then what you are saying is that you are so entrenched in your positions that you will not even listen with an open mind to anything that challenges those positions?
And one doesn't have to watch the entire laborious testimony to find out what he said, that's what newpapers are for, Jason.
Because it is always better to get information second hand rather than first hand.
Did you watch the entire thing? And if so, why?
Watched some of it, listened to more of it on the radio. Why? Because I like to try to draw my own conclusions and listen to things in context that can't be had from some thirty second YouTube spot.
shameful exercise in failure
I always look forward to your hyperboles. Do you have a list of words you draw from, or do you come up with them on the spot?
Which as we've established in another thread is whenever you disagree with what's being said.
That's rich coming from a man who has dismissed opinion polls as untruthful because he doesn't like what they say!
Do you always accuse other people of your own sins?
No, what I'm making is an observation based on personal experience.
No, you're not. You are imagining that everyone's reaction to an advert will be the same as your own.
So then what you are saying is that you are so entrenched in your positions that you will not even listen with an open mind to anything that challenges those positions?
The people entrenched in their positions are the Bush administration. Within minutes of Petraeus starting to talk it was very obvious that we were simply getting more of the same. Tedious.
Watched some of it, listened to more of it on the radio.
So you didn't watch or listen to all of it, whilst demanding that others must do this in order to have a valid opinion! God, you're ridiculous sometimes...
I always look forward to your hyperboles. Do you have a list of words you draw from, or do you come up with them on the spot?
Oh, it's all on the spot, Jason. A bit like your "beyond despicable" hyperbole further up the thread.
I would like to know WHO within the Move On organization placed the ad and how early it was submitted.
Actually, from an advertising/promotional standpoint it's as brilliant at Geico's Gecko.
Petraeus/Betray Us. Who will ever forget the connection?
Petraeus is presumably Greek....as, I believe, was Spartacus, a valliant slave of the Roman Empire.
If Move On was saying to our America's leading General...."say to an illegitimate leader 'I am Spartacus,'" then what's wrong with that?
We still have freedom of speech, don't we?
If, on the other hand, no one will come foreward from the Move On group to take credit for the placement of the ad....look to the Bush camp...particularly Young and Rubicam, the Bush related advertising and public relationtions firm that created the Willie Horton ad. Such whinning has all the earmarks of a cutout plot, as well.
Presidents and Generals who can't take the heat should stay out of the kitchen...particularly when the best of the cooks have already bailed out because the KITCHEN IS ON FIRE!
More importantly, what would Col. Theodore Westhusing, the beloved ethics teacher at West Point and lover of Greek contributions to Western Civilization say about the ad were he alive? And if you don't know who Col Westhusing is, you haven't read Christian Miller's BLOOD MONEY.
Speaking of Gecko's...that pretty well describes the spinless US Senate. Senate...repeat after me..."I am Spartacus!" "No, I am Spartacus." "No, here I am."
WHC
Thanks WHC, as you say it was Bush who placed Petraeus on the hot seat, it is simply despicable to do so and then claim that questioning his objectivity is out of bounds.
Unless dialogue and discussion are no longer allowed in Bush's democracy?
Post a Comment