MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor

[stephanie]

We need to get ahold of our reps and ask them to call out the Democrats for their answer on this....:salute:

Do Democrats in Congress agree?
by Pete Hegseth
09/09/2007 5:28:00 PM

Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."
Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for

us.'

So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?

MoveOn.org has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this war--MoveOn.org and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?

Pete Hegseth is executive director of Vets for Freedom and an Iraq War veteran.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/091rhesh.asp

[PostmodernProphet]

well, he WOULD be a traitor to everything that Moveon.org stands for.....which would be total capitulation......

[BoogyMan]

It would appear that the pre-emptive attacks on the character of Petraeus are over and now the full agenda of the loony left is revealed.

They first tried the L.A. Times hogwash about Bush writing the report for Petraeus, then they tried the "no written report" garbage, and now this.

Disgusting to say the least.

[stephanie]

This would be a good time to pin down the Democrats running for President, if they agree with this ad...

They need to stop getting a free ride from these groups like move-on, and the liberal leaning media...

Contact your Republican reps and ask them to call out the Dems. on this...

:salute:

[avatar4321]

This would be a good time to pin down the Democrats running for President, if they agree with this add...

They need to stop getting a free ride from these groups like move-on, and the liberal leaning media...

Contact your Republican reps and ask them to call out the Dems. on this...

:salute:

I agree. especially since they are screwed either way they go. If they support Petraeus, they lose Moveon money. If they support move on they lose votes.

[stephanie]

I agree. especially since they are screwed either way they go. If they support Petraeus, they lose Moveon money. If they support move on they lose votes.

:salute:

[stephanie]

Call, write, email, fax....your Reps on this...
Ask them to call out the Democrats if they agree with this ad...
It's time to take the gloves off.....They've stepped way over the line this time....


:salute::salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

Call, write, email, fax....your Reps on this...
Ask them to call out the Democrats if they agree with this ad...
It's time to take the gloves off.....They've stepped way over the line this time

I don't know....maybe we should fax our Democratic congressmen and tell them we are Dems......and demand they join Moveon in calling him a traitor......they may be stupid enough to do it if you ask them to........

[retiredman]

If I were a democratic legislator taking funds from moveon.org, I would write and ask them for written clarification of their remarks concerning Petraeus. Given the fact that the word "betray" has multiple definitions - only one of which is drectly tied to being a "traitor", I would ask them to state which meaning of the word they intended when they made the statement.

[Monkeybone]

they mean that he is betraying them by not calling for the pulling out of Iraq. so i would take as either traitor or letting us down is their definition of betraying.

[MtnBiker]

is is

[Abbey Marie]

Despicable. If this is "supporting our troops", I'm sure they don't want the support.

[BoogyMan]

If I were a democratic legislator taking funds from moveon.org, I would write and ask them for written clarification of their remarks concerning Petraeus. Given the fact that the word "betray" has multiple definitions - only one of which is drectly tied to being a "traitor", I would ask them to state which meaning of the word they intended when they made the statement.

Wow manfrommaine, the level of 'benefit of the doubt' afforded MoveOn.org is eye opening. You know exactly what MoveOn.org means by this attack on the character of our military commander in Iraq, at least be man enough to admit it.

[retiredman]

Wow manfrommaine, the level of 'benefit of the doubt' afforded MoveOn.org is eye opening. You know exactly what MoveOn.org means by this attack on the character of our military commander in Iraq, at least be man enough to admit it.

how the hell do YOU know exactly what I know? And, absent that knowledge, lay off the attacks on my manhood.

[darin]

Wow manfrommaine, the level of 'benefit of the doubt' afforded MoveOn.org is eye opening. You know exactly what MoveOn.org means by this attack on the character of our military commander in Iraq, at least be man enough to admit it.

Absolutely - It's mind-blowing, really. For as much as MFM lords over people because of his military service, you'd think he'd side MORE with GENERAL OFFICERS. He MUST know what it takes to get to that level of military - I know he's SEEN it. IIRC MFM was E7?E8? When he retired. He would have been near the top of the enlisted food chain on MOST boats. Surely he'd have BIT of loyalty towards those in service.

It seems, MFM, you choose to align yourself with those who are weak-in-character; those who would see us appease Terrorists.

[retiredman]

Absolutely - It's mind-blowing, really. For as much as MFM lords over people because of his military service, you'd think he'd side MORE with GENERAL OFFICERS. He MUST know what it takes to get to that level of military - I know he's SEEN it. IIRC MFM was E7?E8? When he retired. He would have been near the top of the enlisted food chain on MOST boats. Surely he'd have BIT of loyalty towards those in service.

It seems, MFM, you choose to align yourself with those who are weak-in-character; those who would see us appease Terrorists.


I do side with general officers. When have I EVER "alligned" myself with moveon.org. And I retired as an O-5.

[darin]

I do side with general officers. When have I EVER "alligned" myself with moveon.org. And I retired as an O-5.

You're obviously apologetic to their cause/claims, as witnessed in this thread.

O5? That surprises me a LOT! But now I remember you saying that when you first got on board.

Leaves me even MORE scratching of the ol' noggin to see you positions on various topics.

[BoogyMan]

how the hell do YOU know exactly what I know? And, absent that knowledge, lay off the attacks on my manhood.

Now that the whining is over, how about simply addressing the fact that prior to his report minds on the left are made up, who needs to hear the facts that the commander on the ground in Iraq might have to bring up and cloud the delusion.

[glockmail]

Wow manfrommaine, the level of 'benefit of the doubt' afforded MoveOn.org is eye opening. You know exactly what MoveOn.org means by this attack on the character of our military commander in Iraq, at least be man enough to admit it.
Par for the course. maineman doesn't man up for much of anything. :pee:

[retiredman]

Now that the whining is over, how about simply addressing the fact that prior to his report minds on the left are made up, who needs to hear the facts that the commander on the ground in Iraq might have to bring up and cloud the delusion.


I anxiously await the general's report. I would never suggest that he would forsake the troops for the president.

[retiredman]

You're obviously apologetic to their cause/claims, as witnessed in this thread.

O5? That surprises me a LOT! But now I remember you saying that when you first got on board.

Leaves me even MORE scratching of the ol' noggin to see you positions on various topics.


I am not apologetic for anyone. I share the concerns of moveon.org...and a large majority of the american peope, about the wisdom of our continued presence in Iraq. I do NOT agree that they should besmirch anyone in uniform.

[retiredman]

Par for the course. maineman doesn't man up for much of anything. :pee:


if it ain't "ski-boy" whining away again! You get 'em tough guy! :finger3:

[darin]

I am not apologetic for anyone. I share the concerns of moveon.org...and a large majority of the american peope, about the wisdom of our continued presence in Iraq. I do NOT agree that they should besmirch anyone in uniform.

This is given THEM the benefit of the doubt:


Given the fact that the word "betray" has multiple definitions - only one of which is directly tied to being a "traitor",

[glockmail]

if it ain't "ski-boy" whining away again! You get 'em tough guy! :finger3: Any here's you: http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/sheepshag.gif

[retiredman]

This is given THEM the benefit of the doubt:

according to dmp's dictionary? I disagree. I GIVE them nothing. And if I were a democratic congressman, I would not GIVE THEM anything either. THe only issue would be whether or not I could continue to take their contributions and, since contributions are the lifeblood of politics, I think I would ask them to clarify before I returned their check.

[theHawk]

We need to get ahold of our reps and ask them to call out the Democrats for their answer on this....:salute:

Do Democrats in Congress agree?
by Pete Hegseth
09/09/2007 5:28:00 PM

Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."
Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for

us.'

So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?

MoveOn.org has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this war--MoveOn.org and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?

Pete Hegseth is executive director of Vets for Freedom and an Iraq War veteran.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/091rhesh.asp


It wouldn't surpirse me if we see this as the next phase of the anti-war movement. Since their movement has been a complete failure, especially now that the leading Democratic candidates for the Presidency will clearly continue the war. They've been telling everyone that they 'support the troops' but I think its going to move into a total anti-military movement. I wouldn't be surprised if they start saying all troops are 'traitors' and start giving them the 'Vietnam' treatment.

[darin]

according to dmp's dictionary? I disagree. I GIVE them nothing. And if I were a democratic congressman, I would not GIVE THEM anything either. THe only issue would be whether or not I could continue to take their contributions and, since contributions are the lifeblood of politics, I think I would ask them to clarify before I returned their check.

From my dictionary? Sure. If my dictionary is right, would it matter to you? You're appeasing MoveOn.org instead of doing the RIGHT thing and calling him out on their :bs:


Do you physically feel better being obtuse rather than reasonable? (shrug)

[retiredman]

From my dictionary? Sure. If my dictionary is right, would it matter to you? You're appeasing MoveOn.org instead of doing the RIGHT thing and calling him out on their :bs:


Do you physically feel better being obtuse rather than reasonable? (shrug)


I appease no one. I said I would ask.... if they came back and indicated that their intent was to brand Petraeus as a traitor to his country, if I were a congressman, I would return their money. period.

[darin]

Okay MFM...sure thing buddy.

[musicman]

is is

LOL - talk about saying more, with less! This is the post of the month!

[theHawk]

I just got back from lunch where I was watching Gen Petraeus give his speech. At the end some rabid liberal women started screaming and acting like total fucking loons in the back. They were all dressed up in peace symbols and pink. As she was being thrown out she was screaming like she was in pain and saying "I'm fifty years old!", trying to get sympathy.

[MtnBiker]

Code Pink!!

[waterrescuedude2000]

That this organization can say anything about a man who has spent a lot of his time on this earth defending this country. Also a man who has probably spent more time in a combat zone and in danger every day. How can these clowns say that he Betrayed the US?????? These clowns are a bunch of anti-american stinkos and they disgust me.

[glockmail]

I just got back from lunch where I was watching Gen Petraeus give his speech. At the end some rabid liberal women started screaming and acting like total fucking loons in the back. They were all dressed up in peace symbols and pink. As she was being thrown out she was screaming like she was in pain and saying "I'm fifty years old!", trying to get sympathy.
Savage played that tape at the start of his show tonight. Free speech is great like that, where Democrats can REALLY impress us logic-thinkers with their intelligence and class.

[avatar4321]

Savage played that tape at the start of his show tonight. Free speech is great like that, where Democrats can REALLY impress us logic-thinkers with their intelligence and class.

I am starting to think that logic is some abstract theory that no one really uses or gets.

[Gunny]

We need to get ahold of our reps and ask them to call out the Democrats for their answer on this....:salute:

Do Democrats in Congress agree?
by Pete Hegseth
09/09/2007 5:28:00 PM

Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."
Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for

us.'

So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?

MoveOn.org has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this war--MoveOn.org and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?

Pete Hegseth is executive director of Vets for Freedom and an Iraq War veteran.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/091rhesh.asp

What better endorsement could one have?:laugh2:

[avatar4321]

What better endorsement could one have?:laugh2:

adolf hitlers?:)

[Gunny]

adolf hitlers?:)

Hey, if they hate me (moveon OR hitler) I must be doin' something right.:salute:

[avatar4321]

Hey, if they hate me (moveon OR hitler) I must be doin' something right.:salute:

I agree.

[glockmail]

I am starting to think that logic is some abstract theory that no one really uses or gets. For every rabid liberal screamer there are 10,000 listeners, and about 1/2 of those think logically. We call these individuals: Republicans.

[JohnDoe]

Now that the whining is over, how about simply addressing the fact that prior to his report minds on the left are made up, who needs to hear the facts that the commander on the ground in Iraq might have to bring up and cloud the delusion.

Ahhhh, but can you honestly imply that "minds were not made up" on the right, before the Petreus analysis, while you condemn the Dems for having their minds made up?

Didn't you already know that he was going to say the surge was working, because the white house LEAKED this info to the press 10 days before his analysis, while talking their double speak, telling the Dems to wait on their opinion while they blasted theirs in the media?

And I think I am viewing this with CLEAR eyes and not showing my Dem colors on this opinion of mine regarding this issue...and what I stated above, regarding the circumstances that unfolded....

As far as the Move on ad.....I haven't seen it and it is not part of the link that Stephanie supplied.

But if it says that Petreus is a a traitor....I vehemently object to that kind of negative advertising!!!!!!!!!!

[Monkeybone]

yah that is why the dem Biden (spelling?) was saying that he was lieing like a day before he even gave his report?

but i do agree with the guy that was the chairman, he was saying that Petraeus was the right guy 3 years too late. imagine if he had been there sooner

here ya are janedoe http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

[retiredman]

and, IMHO, the simple point that everyone on the right ignores like the elephant in the living room is that the ad used the words "betray us" primarily because they RHYMED with Petraeus. If his last name had been Smith or Johnson or Abezaid or Casey, for that matter, the ad would not have used that word, IMHO.



better?

[Monkeybone]

and the simple point that everyone on the right ignores like the elephant in the living room is that the ad used the words "betray us" primarily because they RHYMED with Petraeus. If his last name had been Smith or Johnson or Abezaid or Casey, for that matter, the ad would not have used that word.

oh so you are part of that orgizination and know that for sure?

[retiredman]

oh so you are part of that orgizination and know that for sure?

oooh. for the grammar police, I will make the necessary edit

[Monkeybone]

hahaha yes thank you, but that wasn't why i said that.

i really meant the question. yah they might have used a different word/phrase, but then again they might have used that one and then giggled like little school girls when they realized that it ryhmed

[glockmail]

and, IMHO, the simple point that everyone on the right ignores like the elephant in the living room is that the ad used the words "betray us" primarily because they RHYMED with Petraeus. ....
:lame2: post of the day.

[JohnDoe]

yah that is why the dem Biden (spelling?) was saying that he was lieing like a day before he even gave his report?

but i do agree with the guy that was the chairman, he was saying that Petraeus was the right guy 3 years too late. imagine if he had been there sooner

here ya are janedoe http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

but the petraeus analysis WAS leaked to the press by the White house over 10 days ago...

EVERYONE knew what his testimony would be.....ALREADY, because it was filtered in to the media by the WH..... thus Biden's opinion, and others....

and guess what? patraeus said exactly what was ''leaked'' already....

SOOOOOO monkey, if those on the right in the WH, did not WANT the fighting from the opposite side to take place BEFORE the hearing/patreas rpt, THEN they should NOT have LEAKED IT to the media before the meeting!!!!!


ahhhhhh, but THEY DID WANT the divisiveness..... thus the Biden statements and the moveon.org ad....they calculated it, they counted on it! why? so they could keep us arguing and divided, so they could ''say'', the Dems are calling patreas a liar before they heard him speak, KNOWING that his ''speak'' WAS going to be what they leaked imho.

politics is scummy and dirty, but all....preplanned.

jane :)

[retiredman]

hahaha yes thank you, but that wasn't why i said that.

i really meant the question. yah they might have used a different word/phrase, but then again they might have used that one and then giggled like little school girls when they realized that it ryhmed

I think Soros has enough cash to hire competent marketing/ad guys.

I really don't think it was a coincidence that betray us rhymed with petraeus. Jeff Danziger, the political cartoonist, used that exact same rhyme in a cartoon over a week ago. In that cartoon, he had troops in a foxhole speaking to the General as he left Iraq heading for DC, saying ..."General.... don't betray us"

[Monkeybone]

ok, now that you mention that cartoon, then yah, i can see your point. sorry about that.


i still think that they all giggled like school girls...

[Monkeybone]

but the petraeus analysis WAS leaked to the press by the White house over 10 days ago...

EVERYONE knew what his testimony would be.....ALREADY, because it was filtered in to the media by the WH..... thus Biden's opinion, and others....

and guess what? patraeus said exactly what was ''leaked'' already....

SOOOOOO monkey, if those on the right in the WH, did not WANT the fighting from the opposite side to take place BEFORE the hearing/patreas rpt, THEN they should NOT have LEAKED IT to the media before the meeting!!!!!


ahhhhhh, but THEY DID WANT the divisiveness..... thus the Biden statements and the moveon.org ad....they calculated it, they counted on it! why? so they could keep us arguing and divided, so they could ''say'', the Dems are calling patreas a liar before they heard him speak, KNOWING that his ''speak'' WAS going to be what they leaked imho.

politics is scummy and dirty, but all....preplanned.

jane :)


agreed that it is scummy and most of it is preplanned/orchestrated/for show...that is why it shouldn't be a career.

so if they knew that it was a leak, then why call him a liar? and was it word for word leaked or just that it was working?

[Dilloduck]

because it was filtered in to the media by the WH.....

jane :)

The general stated that the report released by the WH was a nearly word for word copy of what he had presented to them. Busy spinning again or is that just an clear attempt at misrepresenting the truth ?

[JohnDoe]

The general stated that the report released by the WH was a nearly word for word copy of what he had presented to them. Busy spinning again or is that just an clear attempt at misrepresenting the truth ?
Dillo,

Maybe I was not clear? Or maybe I was but you are still objecting to it?

But please let me try again! :D

What I was trying to get across, is that I have seen on this site and with Fox commentators etc, those on the right in general, complaining that Biden and moveon etc..... WERE PREMATURE in their complaints, because they had not heard what Petraeus had to say yet, because he had not testified yet before Congress.....

But as you have said, what he was going to say had already been briefed to the white house AND THE W HOUSE, leaked this info to the public before petraeus's testimony, so those that differed...like Biden, were NOT imo, premature in their own personal assessments of what Petraeus was going to say and their objections to such.

I am not saying that Biden or Moveon or anyone else was right or wrong with their opinions.....

just that they were not PREMATURE in making them, as what has been implied, by several, on the right.

jd

[Dilloduck]

Dillo,

Maybe I was not clear? Or maybe I was but you are still objecting to it?

But please let me try again! :D

What I was trying to get across, is that I have seen on this site and with Fox commentators etc, those on the right in general, complaining that Biden and moveon etc..... WERE PREMATURE in their complaints, because they had not heard what Petraeus had to say yet, because he had not testified yet before Congress.....

But as you have said, what he was going to say had already been briefed to the white house AND THE W HOUSE, leaked this info to the public before petraeus's testimony, so those that differed...like Biden, were NOT imo, premature in their own personal assessments of what Petraeus was going to say and their objections to such.

I am not saying that Biden or Moveon or anyone else was right or wrong with their opinions.....

just that they were not PREMATURE in making them, as what has been implied, by several, on the right.

jd

So the purpose of holding a hearing was----?

[JohnDoe]

agreed that it is scummy and most of it is preplanned/orchestrated/for show...that is why it shouldn't be a career.

so if they knew that it was a leak, then why call him a liar? and was it word for word leaked or just that it was working?
I don't know Monkey...all I do know is I just hate this crap from either side and must be some kind of sadist to come to this political board and others on a daily basis....knowing that I hate everything about politics and political scumminess......

I guess I just hate, letting the politicians win by forcing Apathy upon me, even more!!!


jd

[BoogyMan]

and, IMHO, the simple point that everyone on the right ignores like the elephant in the living room is that the ad used the words "betray us" primarily because they RHYMED with Petraeus. If his last name had been Smith or Johnson or Abezaid or Casey, for that matter, the ad would not have used that word, IMHO.



better?



Never mind what the word actually means, eh manfrommaine?


be·tray
–verb (used with object) 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8. to seduce and desert.

[darin]

Here's the bottom line: We elect folk to fix our roads, collect our taxes, and enforce laws. We do NOT elect folk to fight wars. Senators need to swallow a healthy-dose of shut-the-hell-up, and let our soldiers do what they do.

[JohnDoe]

Here's the bottom line: We elect folk to fix our roads, collect our taxes, and enforce laws. We do NOT elect folk to fight wars. Senators need to swallow a healthy-dose of shut-the-hell-up, and let our soldiers do what they do.
I think I disagree.... the Military has no authority to "do what they do" without civilian command, from both the executive branch and the Congress with their legislation, to grant a war, to call up the Nation's Army to fight the war, and to fund or defund the different aspects of the war and of ending the war.... The president has the power to direct the war, not the Military....they do NOT have the authority to do such. The Congress has the authority to oversee the Executive branch's decisions of the war through funding and hearings for such.

[darin]

I think I disagree.... the Military has no authority to "do what they do" without civilian command, from both the executive branch and the Congress with their legislation, to grant a war, to call up the Nation's Army to fight the war, and to fund or defund the different aspects of the war and of ending the war.... The president has the power to direct the war, not the Military....they do NOT have the authority to do such. The Congress has the authority to oversee the Executive branch's decisions of the war through funding and hearings for such.

Of course you disagree. You do not understand what it takes to fight and win a war. You WANT desperately to feel like you have a clue, so you and your ilk create this illusion that you have good ideas on how to kill our enemies.

Can you show me ONE senator elected to fight a war or make wartime decisions regarding strategy or policy? You've absolutely changed the subject. Do you want to have a discussion on presidential military powers?
Presidents have authorized Military actions without "approval" or 'Consent' or even 'foreknowledge' of Congress for what? two-hundred years? Congress controls ONE ASPECT of our fighting forces. Funding. (note the period.) Congress must 'declare war' - sure...but 'declaration of War' (with a big W) has little to do with fighting "wars".

The president DOES control/command the Military. Your lame-ass comments about his authority over the 'war' but 'not the military' betrays part of your problem - an underlying, deep-rooted impenetrable ignorance of how our nation works.

And the congress can 'oversee' the executive branch...wha??? Are you trying to talk about 'checks and balances'??? Is that what you mean? Again...READ a book...or even the internet.

This site may help you: http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_checksandbalances.htm

(shrug).

[retiredman]

Never mind what the word actually means, eh manfrommaine?


interesting that you highlighted only two of the definitions for the word. I am certain it was unintentional, eh?

[retiredman]

dmp: of course congress's role in basically limited to funding. Do you honestly expect the congress of the united states to just write a blank check spending our tax dollars without finding out what they will be spent for and whether or not they are having the desired effect?

As long as the army needs money, presidents will be sending generals to the hill with their hats in hand trying to convince congress to sign the checks.

[darin]

dmp: of course congress's role in basically limited to funding. Do you honestly expect the congress of the united states to just write a blank check spending our tax dollars without finding out what they will be spent for and whether or not they are having the desired effect?


Do you want to have a discussion on the funding-powers of congress? Your question is intellectually dishonest. The way you frame your question answers your question. It's ridicule. It's creating a false dilemma. It's suggesting Congress ever WOULD write a 'blank check' - it shows you have a VERY little understanding of how a budget works, AND the budget-approval process.




As long as the army needs money, presidents will be sending generals to the hill with their hats in hand trying to convince congress to sign the checks.

The Army NEEDS money all the time. Generals are ALWAYS asking for more.

The Navy NEEDS money all the time. Admirals are ALWAYS asking for more.

(I didn't bring up Air Force because there's no constitutional provision FOR an Air Force...but they ask for money too. :) )

[JohnDoe]

Of course you disagree. You do not understand what it takes to fight and win a war. You WANT desperately to feel like you have a clue, so you and your ilk create this illusion that you have good ideas on how to kill our enemies.

Can you show me ONE senator elected to fight a war or make wartime decisions regarding strategy or policy? You've absolutely changed the subject. Do you want to have a discussion on presidential military powers?
Presidents have authorized Military actions without "approval" or 'Consent' or even 'foreknowledge' of Congress for what? two-hundred years? Congress controls ONE ASPECT of our fighting forces. Funding. (note the period.) Congress must 'declare war' - sure...but 'declaration of War' (with a big W) has little to do with fighting "wars".

The president DOES control/command the Military. Your lame-ass comments about his authority over the 'war' but 'not the military' betrays part of your problem - an underlying, deep-rooted impenetrable ignorance of how our nation works.

And the congress can 'oversee' the executive branch...wha??? Are you trying to talk about 'checks and balances'??? Is that what you mean? Again...READ a book...or even the internet.

This site may help you: http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_checksandbalances.htm

(shrug).

FIRST: Let us be clear on what you said and what I differed with dmp.

You said that the Senator needs to shut up and "let the soldiers do what they do".....and I disagreed with this sentiment.

SECOND: YOU are the one that is simply ignorant, regarding the Constitution and the powers of Congress and how Congress works, according to the Constitution, not me!

See Below please!


Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


And here is the President's responsibility involved with the Military:


Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

That's it....the president in my opinion, does not have much power at all...

In fact, he shouldn't even be determining the fate of captives, the constitution says, EVEN THAT belongs to the power of the Congress....?

:slap:

jd

[darin]

FIRST: Let us be clear on what you said and what I differed with dmp.

You said that the Senator needs to shut up and "let the soldiers do what they do".....and I disagreed with this sentiment.

Right? But you're wrong. And I showed you why you are wrong.




SECOND: YOU are the one that is simply ignorant, regarding the Constitution and the powers of Congress and how Congress works, according to the Constitution!

See Below please!


NONE Of that means what you said "Congress oversees the Military, the president only oversees the war".

:slap:



And here is the President's responsibility involved with the Military:


That's it....the president in my opinion, does not have much power at all...

In fact, he shouldn't even be determining the fate of captives, the constitution says, EVEN THAT belongs to the power of the Congress....?

:slap:

jd

Funny the part you didn't highlight - he's the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

Do you know what that means? It means he COMMANDS them. That means he holds supreme command of the Military. His command is not subject to congressional oversight - only the funding of his forces.

READ with your eyes open, JD.

[retiredman]

Do you want to have a discussion on the funding-powers of congress? Your question is intellectually dishonest. The way you frame your question answers your question. It's ridicule. It's creating a false dilemma. It's suggesting Congress ever WOULD write a 'blank check' - it shows you have a VERY little understanding of how a budget works, AND the budget-approval process.

It was rhetorical, pal. I realize that they will not actually get their pens out and "write" a check with the amount left blank. the sentence was designed to suggest that congress usually exercises an appropriate level of oversight for the planned programs of the defense department. And really.... give me a break. I served in the Navy for a quarter of a century...I made it as high as commander... do you honestly think that I don't know how the pentagon budget is put together? Come on.




The Army NEEDS money all the time. Generals are ALWAYS asking for more.

The Navy NEEDS money all the time. Admirals are ALWAYS asking for more.

(I didn't bring up Air Force because there's no constitutional provision FOR an Air Force...but they ask for money too. :) )

Generals are always asking for more money...sometimes they are asking it for particular weapons systems... sometimes they get it...sometimes they don't...sometimes they want one weapons system and the congress wants to buy them another one altogether.... nearly always they have to justify their requests to congress who nearly always casts a critical eye on their requests. that is how it works...year in...year out... DoD wants congress to continue funding something, they go ask for it.... same with off-budget contingency operations like the war in Iraq. And when the weapons system - or the contingency operation becomes an albatross, sometimes, congress says no when the generals come calling.

[darin]

It was rhetorical, pal. I realize that they will not actually get their pens out and "write" a check with the amount left blank. the sentence was designed to suggest that congress usually exercises an appropriate level of oversight for the planned programs of the defense department. And really.... give me a break. I served in the Navy for a quarter of a century...I made it as high as commander... do you honestly think that I don't know how the pentagon budget is put together? Come on.


*cough*copout*cough*. Handy little bag of terms you have there, for pulling out when you want people to think you really knew something all-along.

Your sentence was designed to provide NO honest answer. If I said 'yes' I'd have been saying Congress SHOULD write a blank-check for the President. If I said 'no' it means I thought congress COULD or WOULD in the first place.

I really think you don't know how budgets are put-together.



Generals are always asking for more money...sometimes they are asking it for particular weapons systems... sometimes they get it...sometimes they don't...sometimes they want one weapons system and the congress wants to buy them another one altogether.... nearly always they have to justify their requests to congress who nearly always casts a critical eye on their requests. that is how it works...year in...year out... DoD wants congress to continue funding something, they go ask for it.... same with off-budget contingency operations like the war in Iraq. And when the weapons system - or the contingency operation becomes an albatross, sometimes, congress says no when the generals come calling.


Small argument there - it's not year-in and year-out...it's 'every two years' ;)

[JohnDoe]

Right? But you're wrong. And I showed you why you are wrong.



NONE Of that means what you said "Congress oversees the Military, the president only oversees the war".

:slap:



Funny the part you didn't highlight - he's the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

Do you know what that means? It means he COMMANDS them. That means he holds supreme command of the Military. His command is not subject to congressional oversight - only the funding of his forces.

READ with your eyes open, JD.

i highlighted the part where you seemed to not know dmp, which is: he is ONLY commander in chief of the military when called upon by Congress...

that part, was even new to me! Now i don't completely know what that means, but be certain, i am going to research this further, to find out!

It appears, that only if Congress asks him to be CIC (during a declared war, i am presuming), does he even have that responsibility!!!

Don't you find this part of our constitution interesting.......while all of the hooplah has been out there about the president's powers (unilateral)....when they don't even exist, if the Congress doesn't grant them to him? I do!

[retiredman]

*cough*copout*cough*. Handy little bag of terms you have there, for pulling out when you want people to think you really knew something all-along.

Your sentence was designed to provide NO honest answer. If I said 'yes' I'd have been saying Congress SHOULD write a blank-check for the President. If I said 'no' it means I thought congress COULD or WOULD in the first place.

I really think you don't know how budgets are put-together.




Small argument there - it's not year-in and year-out...it's 'every two years' ;)

let's not get into a pissing contest. my question was rhetorical in nature and it was designed to convey my belief that there is nothing wrong, or obstructionist, or unpatriotic about congress having a healthy dose of skepticism when a general comes to tell them how great the war is going in Iraq and would they please just roll over and keep sending money. In the past six months, since the start of the "surge" we have experienced a 10% INCREASE in American casualties over the previous six months, and over those twelve months, we have experienced a 44% INCREASE in American casualties over the previous twelve... Iraqi casualties are down in Baghdad but up everywhere else. The surge was designed to provide some less violent breathing room for Iraq to solve their political problems....we may have succeeded in cutting down the carnage on the streets of Baghdad, but if the enmity between political factions remains as deep seated and intractable now as it was before the surge started, did the surge do what it was designed to do? Congress knows all of that. They know how many of their constituents have come home in boxes.... can you not understand how they might be a little leery of yet another in an unending line of military and civilian DoD leaders coming before them telling them everything is just fine?

[darin]

i highlighted the part where you seemed to not know dmp, which is: he is ONLY commander in chief of the military when called upon by Congress...

That's bullshit right there...

www.rif.org

Here's the whole statement, IN CONTEXT:


The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

He's the CinC of the Militia of the several states when they are called into actual service. He's always the CinC of the Military, toots.



It appears, that only if Congress asks him to be CIC (during a declared war, i am presuming), does he even have that responsibility!!!

Don't you find this part of our constitution interesting.......while all of the hooplah has been out there about the president's powers (unilateral)....when they don't even exist, if the Congress doesn't grant them to him? I do!

Don't you find your lack of comprehension interesting? While all the hooplah you spew is not based in fact, you act as if you have been granted special knowledge and insight.



let's not get into a pissing contest. my question was rhetorical in nature and it was designed to convey my belief that there is nothing wrong, or obstructionist, or unpatriotic about congress having a healthy dose of skepticism when a general comes to tell them how great the war is going in Iraq and would they please just roll over and keep sending money.

But that's nothing special. NOBODY in their right minds would want congress to ignorantly hand out billions. Your question was framed in such a way that it did not and does not foster honest debate. We're spending more time arguing about your bs-question than the point you asked that question about. See?

Silly.


In the past six months, since the start of the "surge" we have experienced a 10% INCREASE in American casualties over the previous six months,

Has the casualty rate gone up or down? How do you define a casualty? What is your source of that info?


.. Iraqi casualties are down in Baghdad but up everywhere else.

Can you help us all believe you by providing good honest data to support that claim?


The surge was designed to provide some less violent breathing room for Iraq to solve their political problems....we may have succeeded in cutting down the carnage on the streets of Baghdad, but if the enmity between political factions remains as deep seated and intractable now as it was before the surge started, did the surge do what it was designed to do? Congress knows all of that. They know how many of their constituents have come home in boxes.... can you not understand how they might be a little leery of yet another in an unending line of military and civilian DoD leaders coming before them telling them everything is just fine?

You have a very interesting opinion of the war - You give Congressmen and women MORE credit for being 'honest' than you give General officers. That's peculiar.

[retiredman]

Has the casualty rate gone up or down? How do you define a casualty? What is your source of that info?
1. the casualty rate has gone up. It has gone up by 10% when you compare the last six months to th eprevious six months...and when you look at all twelve of THOSE months (the last year), the casualty rate is up by 44%
2. a body in a box
3. http://icasualties.org/oif/

Can you help us all believe you by providing good honest data to support that claim?

there are plenty of news articles all over the place.... here is one that I found but have no desire to google the afternoon away to prove a point to you.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/higher-iraqi-death-toll-linked-to-us-surge/2007/09/02/1188671797186.html


You have a very interesting opinion of the war - You give Congressmen and women MORE credit for being 'honest' than you give General officers. That's peculiar.

oh stop it! and you complain about MY rhetoric???? WHERE have I ever given congress MORE credit for honesty that general officers? Don't put words in my mouth.. please. If a general is told to go before congress and gild the lily, they will either resign in protest or they will gild the lily. I am not suggesting that there is a lack of "honesty" I am sure that Petraeus spent a great deal of time enumerating the successes of the surge militarily.... and I am sure he pointed out that civilian carnage in Baghdad has dropped. The facts of american deaths are inescapable. 10% increase in last six months...and 44% increase over last twelve months. I bet that Petraeus never put out those figures. But I bet he didn't put out any lies either.... just a snapshot that was rosier than might be the actual case.

[darin]

oh stop it! and you complain about MY rhetoric???? WHERE have I ever given congress MORE credit for honesty that general officers? Don't put words in my mouth.. please.



They know how many of their constituents have come home in boxes.... can you not understand how they might be a little leery of yet another in an unending line of military and civilian DoD leaders coming before them telling them everything is just fine?

Right there - you give the congress NOBLE reasons for being "concerned".


If a general is told to go before congress and gild the lily, they will either resign in protest or they will gild the lily.

and right THERE you are questioning the General's motives/testimony/reports - your follow-on comments don't remove the fact of what you're saying...Congress is noble...Generals are not to be trusted, or at least, their motivation is to be questioned.

[PostmodernProphet]

That's it....the president in my opinion, does not have much power at all...

sorry, JD....you read that clause wrong......it is referring to his control of state militia, not his control over the federal forces.....

[JohnDoe]

sorry, JD....you read that clause wrong......it is referring to his control of state militia, not his control over the federal forces.....

That COULD be, but there certainly is not a semicolon between the two...and it certainly is debatable.... I have been researching it for the last hour, trying to find out more....

here's a bit of what I have found....the link goes in to it a great deal more, and shows the progression of CIC.... through the courts. It is quite interesting!!!


Section 2. Powers and Duties of the President

Clause 1. Commander-in-Chiefship; Presidential Advisers; Pardons

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Development of the Concept

Surprisingly little discussion of the Commander-in-Chief clause is found in the Convention or in the ratifying debates. From the evidence available, it appears that the Framers vested the duty in the President because experience in the Continental Congress had disclosed the inexpediency of vesting command in a group and because the lesson of English history was that danger lurked in vesting command in a person separate from the responsible political leaders. 105 But the principal concern here is the nature of the power granted by the clause.


The Limited View .--The purely military aspects of the Commander- in-Chiefship were those that were originally stressed. Hamilton said the office ''would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy.'' 106 Story wrote in his Commentaries: ''The propriety of admitting the president to be commander in chief, so far as to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. But it was urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. The consent of both houses of Congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual command. The answer then given was, that though the president might, there was no necessity that he should, take the com mand in person; and there was no probability that he would do so, except in extraordinary emergencies, and when he was possessed of superior military talents.'' 107 In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, for the Court, said: ''His duty and his power are purely military. As commander-in- chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits before assigned to them by the legislative power.


''. . . But in the distribution of political power between the great departments of government, there is such a wide difference between the power conferred on the President of the United States, and the authority and sovereignty which belong to the English crown, that it would be altogether unsafe to reason from any supposed resemblance between them, either as regards conquest in war, or any other subject where the rights and powers of the executive arm of the government are brought into question.'' 108 Even after the Civil War, a powerful minority of the Court described the role of President as Commander-in- Chief simply as ''the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns.'' 109


Here is the link that shows the progression of the meaning of cic and the nature of presidential powers and the progression and limitations of powers debatable, related to it....

It's long and I am not done reading it yet, but informative none the less!

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/01.html#3

jd

[darin]

That COULD be, but there certainly is not a
jd

There is no 'could be' about it, toots.

[retiredman]

Right there - you give the congress NOBLE reasons for being "concerned".



and right THERE you are questioning the General's motives/testimony/reports - your follow-on comments don't remove the fact of what you're saying...Congress is noble...Generals are not to be trusted, or at least, their motivation is to be questioned.

dmp...you can spin my words to mean anything you want them to be.... but it's just spin. Hell...spin a little harder and those words turn into a recipe for chocolate cake! :lol:

[Dilloduck]

dmp...you can spin my words to mean anything you want them to be.... but it's just spin. Hell...spin a little harder and those words turn into a recipe for chocolate cake! :lol:

from Feb 2007
The Democrats maneuvering is actually a little sad and pathetic. There are some true believers in the party who believe the war is already lost and that we should thus withdraw post-haste. But if any of these true-believers are in the Senate, they obviously lack the courage of their convictions. The Senate, Democrats included, unanimously approved the appointment of David Petraeus. Retreat and defeat weren’t what Petraeus was proposing.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/2007/02/page4

[darin]

dmp...you can spin my words to mean anything you want them to be.... but it's just spin. Hell...spin a little harder and those words turn into a recipe for chocolate cake! :lol:

Care to explain how quoting you is 'spinning'? YOU wrote it. Now you're trying to spin your own BS into "spin".

[Gunny]

but the petraeus analysis WAS leaked to the press by the White house over 10 days ago...

EVERYONE knew what his testimony would be.....ALREADY, because it was filtered in to the media by the WH..... thus Biden's opinion, and others....

and guess what? patraeus said exactly what was ''leaked'' already....

SOOOOOO monkey, if those on the right in the WH, did not WANT the fighting from the opposite side to take place BEFORE the hearing/patreas rpt, THEN they should NOT have LEAKED IT to the media before the meeting!!!!!


ahhhhhh, but THEY DID WANT the divisiveness..... thus the Biden statements and the moveon.org ad....they calculated it, they counted on it! why? so they could keep us arguing and divided, so they could ''say'', the Dems are calling patreas a liar before they heard him speak, KNOWING that his ''speak'' WAS going to be what they leaked imho.

politics is scummy and dirty, but all....preplanned.

jane :)


:tinfoil:

[waterrescuedude2000]

I think I disagree.... the Military has no authority to "do what they do" without civilian command, from both the executive branch and the Congress with their legislation, to grant a war, to call up the Nation's Army to fight the war, and to fund or defund the different aspects of the war and of ending the war.... The president has the power to direct the war, not the Military....they do NOT have the authority to do such. The Congress has the authority to oversee the Executive branch's decisions of the war through funding and hearings for such.

You know when I was still in the military when I was over in Yemen this was before the USS COLE happened. But we had these cake eating heel rocking civilians that told us what we could or couldn't do. When on watch we were issued weapons. But we were NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM LOADED!!!! NOT EVEN A MAGAZINE IN THE GUN!! This coming from some civilian who knows more about defending our property than the military that does it for a job?????? SO had we been attacked I would have to say wait mr. terrorist while I load my weapon. THAT MAKES ABSOFUCKINGLUTLY PERFECT SENSE TO ME TWO THUMBS UP TO THE MORON BUSHITCRATS.

[JohnDoe]

:tinfoil:
what?

you think the white house leaks information to the press haphazzardly? :slap:


i don't! and i don't think much on either side of the aisle is not contemplated and planned and timed for political posturing!

[JohnDoe]

You know when I was still in the military when I was over in Yemen this was before the USS COLE happened. But we had these cake eating heel rocking civilians that told us what we could or couldn't do. When on watch we were issued weapons. But we were NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM LOADED!!!! NOT EVEN A MAGAZINE IN THE GUN!! This coming from some civilian who knows more about defending our property than the military that does it for a job?????? SO had we been attacked I would have to say wait mr. terrorist while I load my weapon. THAT MAKES ABSOFUCKINGLUTLY PERFECT SENSE TO ME TWO THUMBS UP TO THE MORON BUSHITCRATS.

well, there are 412,000 civilian contractors in iraq is what i heard on c-span! i wonder if they are interacting with the military over there and giving stupid ass orders to our military now, too?

[Dilloduck]

what?

you think the white house leaks information to the press haphazzardly? :slap:


i don't! and i don't think much on either side of the aisle is not contemplated and planned and timed for political posturing!

ok--I'll try to follow. The WH leaks to give the democrats a reason to get all pissed off and the media has time to pre empt his testimony by trashing him?
:confused:

[waterrescuedude2000]

well, there are 412,000 civilian contractors in iraq is what i heard on c-span! i wonder if they are interacting with the military over there and giving stupid ass orders to our military now, too?


I was talking about politicians genius. not civilian contractors. :slap:

[retiredman]

Care to explain how quoting you is 'spinning'? YOU wrote it. Now you're trying to spin your own BS into "spin".

I would be happy to.

It was not my quotes that I had an issue with, but the commentary that you added....which was SPIN.

Right there - you give the congress NOBLE reasons for being "concerned". your highly spun assessment of my statement.

"and right THERE you are questioning the General's motives/testimony/reports - your follow-on comments don't remove the fact of what you're saying...Congress is noble...Generals are not to be trusted, or at least, their motivation is to be questioned."
again... your highly spun assessment of my statement...is the issue... not the statement itself.

I hope that answered your question :laugh2:

p.s. I also noted how you never really had anything more to say about the first part of post #70. hmmmm. why might that be?

[Psychoblues]

It's good to see that the lies of the General Betrayus have not gone unnoticed.

[Guernicaa]

It's good to see that the lies of the General Betrayus have not gone unnoticed.
The American people are fed up. General Betrayus was the most OBVIOUS mouthpiece of propaganda in the history of this war.

I would expect to see another 1,000 soldiers dead by next summer.

[JohnDoe]

ok--I'll try to follow. The WH leaks to give the democrats a reason to get all pissed off and the media has time to pre empt his testimony by trashing him?
:confused:

ding ding ding!

by questioning him the ''right'' can claim democrats hate the troops, democrats hate the military and all the yahdeedah that goes with it.

Shoot, guilliani ran a full page ad trashing hillary for not trashing moveon.org....every talk show on the 24/7's have had a republican operative hounding on democrats calling petraeus a traitor..., like it was the politicians that ran the moveon.org ad...

yes, i believe it was part of their marketing strategy.

everyone is arguing over ''Betrayus'', and who called whom what, instead of discussing WHAT he actually said, and the true merits of the surge itself....and when can we bring our troops out of iraq.

yes, i believe and know in my gut, the early leaks were planned.

[Psychoblues]

I sincerely hope that you are wrong on that assessment, O'08.




The American people are fed up. General Betrayus was the most OBVIOUS mouthpiece of propaganda in the history of this war.

I would expect to see another 1,000 soldiers dead by next summer.

But if history and statistics mean anything I suspect that you are correct.

It's a sad day for Americans and especially the best and brightest as represented by our military. We can do better for them, don't you agree?

[82Marine89]

I read this in an Australian newspaper and it made me want to post it for all to read.


Americans trust US military commanders over President George W. Bush or the Democratic-controlled US Congress to successfully end the Iraq war, according to the New York Times/CBS News poll last week.

When asked to choose who could best end the war, 68 per cent said they most trusted the military commanders, 21 per cent said Congress, and just 5 per cent said the Bush administration.

LINK (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22426930-38198,00.html)

[glockmail]

how the hell do YOU know exactly what I know? And, absent that knowledge, lay off the attacks on my manhood. Lookie here. I leave for a while and douchebag here gets in the ultra negatives. :lol:

[Sir Evil]

Lookie here. I leave for a while and douchebag here gets in the ultra negatives. :lol:

:laugh2: :laugh2:

another fan eh?

[glockmail]

:laugh2: :laugh2:

another fan eh?

I became a fan of manfrommaine when he insulted my young son.

He's an asshole and a liar (never served in the military, or did and got his ass booted out).

[Sir Evil]

I became a fan of manfrommaine when he insulted my young son.

He's an asshole and a liar (never served in the military, or did and got his ass booted out).

:laugh2::laugh2:

Well certainly sounds his speed but don't sweat it, he has proven over & over again what a low life he is.

[glockmail]

:laugh2::laugh2:

Well certainly sounds his speed but don't sweat it, he has proving over & over again what a low life he is.

I've been around the block to have very thick skin, but insult my familiy and you just as well ought to to sign your own death warrant. People like that don't deserve to live, IMO.

[Gaffer]

Welcome back Glock. You'll have some catching up to do now. Be sure to check out the Where's hfm thread.

[glockmail]

and, IMHO, the simple point that everyone on the right ignores like the elephant in the living room is that the ad used the words "betray us" primarily because they RHYMED with Petraeus. If his last name had been Smith or Johnson or Abezaid or Casey, for that matter, the ad would not have used that word, IMHO.



better?

That's bullshit.

[SpidermanTUba]

"MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor"

That's not even true.

[glockmail]

Can't even man up to it? Pitiful. :pee:

[SpidermanTUba]

#1 I'm not moveon.org
#2 you can not produce a single direct quote of moveon.org referring to petraeus as a 'traitor' - that's because they didn't.

[Immanuel]

and, IMHO, the simple point that everyone on the right ignores like the elephant in the living room is that the ad used the words "betray us" primarily because they RHYMED with Petraeus. If his last name had been Smith or Johnson or Abezaid or Casey, for that matter, the ad would not have used that word, IMHO.

better?

First off, let me admit, I have not seen the ad. I have not really even paid any attention to the spat that it caused because I really don't care. Politics is politics and both sides are, as jd puts it, scummy.

But, I will be doggoned if I believe that they did not use the words "Betray Us" for the significane that those words meant. It was no rhyming game. Only a fool (and you are no fool MFM) would believe that this was an accident in rhyming like when a child uses the F Word while rhyming Truck.

Of course they would not have used those words if his name had been Smith, but they used them because of his name for the effect they caused. They used them to rile up their base and they did so wrongly in my opinion.

Immie

[glockmail]

#1 I'm not moveon.org
#2 you can not produce a single direct quote of moveon.org referring to petraeus as a 'traitor' - that's because they didn't.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/pyramidflag.jpg

[glockmail]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/PetraeusNYTad1.jpg

[SpidermanTUba]

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/PetraeusNYTad1.jpg

Uhhh, the word 'traitor' isn't ANYWHERE in that ad. You must be seeing things. Or you maybe you just decided to tell a blatant lie and hoped no one would notice. Either way, its not that hard to see that your statement is not true.

[glockmail]

betray
One entry found.

betray



Main Entry: be·tray
Pronunciation: \bi-ˈtrā, bē-\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from be- + trayen to betray, from Anglo-French trahir, from Latin tradere — more at traitor
Date: 13th century
transitive verb
1: to lead astray; especially : seduce
2: to deliver to an enemy by treachery
3: to fail or desert especially in time of need <betrayed his family>
4 a: to reveal unintentionally <betray one's true feelings> b: show, indicate c: to disclose in violation of confidence <betray a secret>
intransitive verb
: to prove false

[glockmail]

:pee:

[SpidermanTUba]

Do you know what 'Etymology' means? It doesn't mean 'Definition'. BTW, what dictionary do you use, anyway? The NoSourceNoLink dictionary?


Regardless, Moveon.org did not call Petraeus a traitor in that ad. You know how I know this? Because they didn't call him a traitor in the ad.

[glockmail]

Link to any dictionary, including m-w.com, and it will say basically the same thing. Saying the guy betrayed us is the same as calling him a traitor. The fact that wacko leftists like you won't man up to it is why you will be defeated badly in 08.

[SpidermanTUba]

Link to any dictionary, including m-w.com, and it will say basically the same thing. Saying the guy betrayed us is the same as calling him a traitor. The fact that wacko leftists like you won't man up to it is why you will be defeated badly in 08.

No, saying that he is a traitor is the same as calling him a traitor.

BTW, have you yet figured out the difference between etymology and definition?

[glockmail]

The fact that wacko leftists like you won't man up to it is why you will be defeated badly in 08.

[SpidermanTUba]

The fact that wacko leftists like you won't man up to it is why you will be defeated badly in 08.

Man up to what? They didn't call him a traitor.

[BoogyMan]

Man up to what? They didn't call him a traitor.

Hmm, consider the definition of betray.

be·tray–verb (used with object)
1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8. to seduce and desert.

Care to try that pitiful retort again Spidey?

[glockmail]

Man up to what? They didn't call him a traitor.
Sure. :lame2: