Sitting here listening to Bush speak during the press conference, in which he stumbles over words, mangles sentences, seizes upon certain words and repeats them mindlessly (proliferating, etc.), and watching him deliver that stupid god damned smirk, all the while dodging questions, and I realized I dislike Bush more than I disliked Clinton at comparable points in their terms.
I guess I finally have a full-fledged case of BDS.
*** Update ***
What a shameless turd:
“Democrats are more afraid of MoveOn than they are of offending the military.”
Because, as you know, when you hide behind the skirt of General Petraeus, it is high treason to then question General Petraeus. And, of course, questioning Petraeus is the same as insulting the military. To call these scum shameless is to do damage to the word shameless.
My God, I can not WAIT to vote against the GOP again.
Dave
John, why are you still a member of the Pajamas Media network? Just curious, not trying to be snarky.
Halffasthero
Welcone to the dark side, Professor Cole. You are not alone.
teak111
Yes, he is all but impossible to watch. I could stand Clinton but thought slick was an apt term for him when on TV. But Bush, he really is just awful (policies aside), if not painful to watch. So when the 28% crowd fawn all over the guy, it makes you wonder what they are smokin. At bare minimum, any sentient human being would tell you Bush is terrible on TV and press conference, but not a 28%er. Their desperate hero worship has eroded all their cred. If that is BDS, I’ll take a second helping, please.
Zifnab
It’s a free ride, baby. Don’t ask questions. I’m sure someone in Corporatopia will figure out what type of site they’re bankrolling and eventually John will be forced to stop taking money from Scaife and start taking money from Soros, like all the other good liberal bloggers do.
That said, John, if you don’t like Bush Press Conferences you’ve got one of three options:
1) Stop watching them. I gave up on listening to what the President actually said some time ago. Even right wing bloggers are loath to quote the President at this point. Turn on something more intellectually appealing or psychologically soothing. Comedy Central is probably showing Joe Dirt as we speak.
2) Watch in the safety of numbers. Any time you can turn to a good friend and say, “Is that statement as dumb as I think it is?” you can be comforted by the fact that you’re not the only person who recognizes a tragedy in progress when you see one.
3) Drinking Game! Take a drink every time the President mentions tax cuts. Take a shot every time the President mentions terr’rists. Take a chug every time the President decries Democrats for playing politics with our military / economy / seniors / deficit / tax policy / judiciary / politics. By the time the conference is over, you’ll be far too wasted to give half a limp-dicked fuck about what stupidity the Decidonator has decided on today.
Dreggas
I am Sheehan of BDS, resistance is futile…
RSA
So when people said President Bush was the kind of guy they’d like to have a beer with, they were actually thinking of the drunken bar fly falling off his stool in the neighborhood tavern. Now that I can understand.
salvage
I remember when John once threatened to ban anyone using the term “Dear Leader*”.
Don’t feel bad, the Bush political machine is damn near perfect, it’s a shame they didn’t apply that kind of skill and efficiency to running the country.
That and Kerry’s campaign truly sucked which meant that’d he probably be Dwight JFK Eisenhower.
*I’m so banned ain’t I?
John Cole
A.) Because I am under contract, and I keep my word.
B.) Because it is easy. I don’t have to screw with blogads, it is all done for me. The only thing I do is cash a chec kevery few months.
C.) Because they have been a very good company to me. When I have problems with the site, they answer quickly and help fix things. When I had some whacko threaten to sue me for comments other people made in the comments section (things you guys were intentionally never told about- even with this little website there is a lot of bullshit you guys never know about), they stood by me and offered me unconditional support. They have never once attempted to force me to talk about a subject or link to something, they place no requirements on my content.
D.) Because I think I have been able to maintain my independence and integrity.
comrad mattski
Ah young Colewalker, I see your transformation is comlete.
Dreggas
Actually,
Even though Pajamas is noted for being “Rightwing” they obviously aren’t THAT partisan, after all Like John said. They don’t tell him what to write or link to. They let him do his thing. That’s better than a lot of “media” corps.
Jake
Again, not to pick on you, I really am just curious about your perceptions. The man has always been well known for his inability to get through a sentence without screwing up, his way of delivering non-answers and of course the drunken smirk. Granted, I think he’s gotten worse but I never could look at the man without thinking “Drunk!”
When you watched him stumble, smirk and dodge before, did it bother you or did his underlying message outwiegh his delivery?
VidaLoca
Hey, at this point, why ask why?
“We R in ur pajamas feedin ur m00nbatz”. Or some such thing… it’s all good. And entertaining.
All the better!
bpower
John,
D) is good enough reason alone.
canuckistani
Hell, D) is a victory.. take The Man’s dirty money, and use it to spread BDS!
ThymeZone
I would say I’ve seen Kevin Drum and maybe Eric Alterman do as good a job of that as you have done here. Congrats, really. You’re in good company.
As for Bush, I gave up being shocked by this guy a long time ago and started focussing on the really important dynamics, namely, his destruction of the Republican party. His destruction of the corrupt and off-the-track “conservative” movement. His destruction of the war-first movement in this country (currently represented by the neocons). His complete destruction of the sacred quest to get rid of Social Security. As long as he doesn’t completely ruin the country, he is actually doing us a big favor by helping to get rid of a large group of venal clowns and religious lunatics who have infested our political system. At least for a while, until the Democrats piss everybody off again.
For quite a while into the future now, when people ask what we got for the “conservative” movement, the answer will be, “George Bush.” And that is fine with me, I’m a progressive and until the “conservative” movement learns to act responsibly and govern effectively, the longer they stay irrelevant the better.
Billy K
What has my mind boggled is that they think this is a winning strategery. The GOP is and always has been concerned with one thing: winning. They don’t do something unless they think it’s going to help them win. That they think all this…crap (Can’t even being to wrangle examples. You know the crap I’m talking about) is going to help them win. How delusional have they become?
Dave
Interesting. Thanks John.
AkaDad
I have to admit, John was a hard nut to crack, but our brainwashing has been successful…
Jim Henley
There was a real backlash against people who made fun of the Miss Teen South Carolina video last month, because, you know, she was just a teenage girl. David Petraeus is not a teenage girl. So nobody actually gives a shit if his feelings get hurt. Some people find it worth PRETENDING to give a shit, but that’s strategic. Petraeus is an adult and a politician. (All generals are politicians.) The country is used to people saying bad things about adults and politicians.
scarshapedstar
Now, now; that story hasn’t broken yet.
(Although it does sound like the title of a story at some fucked-up warblogger fanfic site. “Petticoat Petraeus”? Nah, too easy…)
Punchy
Ghetto fab….
Thomas
If you want to be amused, go over to this Redstate thread and observe the cognitive obliviousness as a DailyKos poster is denounced for questioning Petraues’ Bronze Star.
A few posters bring up the ancient history of the Swift Boaters, but they are quickly dealt with.
Wilfred
Bush as Barbara Fraitchie:
Mock if you must, this brain-dead head,
But spoof not Petraeus’s work, he said.
A hint of gladness, a rush of flame,
Over the face of the listener came;
The nobler nature within him stirred
To life at that President’s deed and word;
“Who dares a smile at that empty head
Flies like an eagle! Fuck him!” he said.
Punchy
This might be unrelated, but there’s reports that Hindraker’s head just exploded and RedState’s website just crashed due to the sheer number of f-bombs dropped in the I Hate Cole thread.
sglover
I recently ran across an item that said that one reason (of many) for Putin’s appeal among Russians is simply that he is well-spoken, that he uses the grammatically correct language of an educated Russian — the first leader to do so since Lenin. All his predecessors either spoke like thugs, or with heavy regional dialects.
Makes a lot of sense to me. Even aside from my visceral loathing for the guy, it’s really distressing to watch Bush wrestle with words that ought to be part of any college freshman’s working vocabulary, and reflect that the worthless shitstain has TWO Ivy League degrees!
Jake
True, and it is so clearly Bush Admin. strategy. They’re the ones who suggested that the soldiers are all such sissies that and debate or disagreement on how the war was conducted hurt their feelings. That worked really well.
I just have to wonder how Pet Raeus feels about being treated like he’s made of spun glass.
ET
Democrats may or may not be more afraid of Move On I don’t know, I suppose that is a matter of opinion or wishiful thinking. I do know that Republicans to a man are more petrified of offending the religious right than Democrats could ever be of Move On.
Tom Gellhaus
I myself fear that many people who might otherwise be willing to vote for Ron Paul in their state’s primary will not be able to get past the fact that he is running as a Republican.
demimondian
(C) is what I want to hear. That’s what an ad network should do.
I just hope I wasn’t the cause of the lawsuit threat…
Andrew
And she had a pretty solid point, actually. More U.S. Americans really could use maps.
Grumpy Code Monkey
Some of us have been grating our teeth since his first days as Governor of Texas.
I cannot listen to the man speak without experiencing real, physical pain. Seriously. I think my blood pressure spikes an extra 20 points on both numbers when he starts talking. Add on the general dipshittery and I’m grumpy for days afterwards.
Andrew
Drink!
sparky
Fun fallacy (or maybe not…)
Bush speaks => Canadian dollar passes US dollar.
Bye bye US of A. Was it fun while it lasted?
whippoorwill
It’s all they got left. Bush has dug himself a hole so deep the only people who’ll crawl down with him are the most kindred of spirits and like minds. Meanwhile, the US Senate has spent the morning voting on the all important MoveOn ad. So much for free speech. It’s gonna get worse before it gets better.
John Cole
Ever dated someone who had some annoying habits, but otherwise was ok? Maybe they left the toilet seat up, or left dirty dishes in the living room, or squeezed the toothpaster from the middle, or never took the trash out. They were annoying things, but overall, you liked the person and were able to look past them.
Then, your relationship started to falter, you determined the person was a fake and a fraud, a liar, and hopelessly corrupt loser, and all those little annoying little habits that you used to be able to overlook now drove you criminally insane?
That is what has happened to me and Bush.
mark
yes, because at the same points in their terms Clinton had bankrupted the government, destroyed the army, curtailed our civil liberties and ummm, oh yea, he got a blowjob.
I’m really not trying to be snarky, but why did you dislike Clinton almost as much as Bush. Was it simply the “i did not have sexual relations with that women”?
Andrew
Bush left the toilet seat up on life. Er, wait, what?
Thomas
Maybe they left the toilet seat up, or left dirty dishes in the living room, or squeezed the toothpaster from the middle, or never took the trash out.
The middle? Oh noes.
Dreggas
This kinda sounds like what happened with me and the wife, accept I just fell out of love with and lost all attraction to her but we get along well enough she is not driving me criminally insane.
John Cole
Dreggas- I hope to GOD your wife does not read this website.
Dreggas
uh we’re getting a divorce…
Rick Taylor
I wish you could see the first Bush Gore debate again John, I’d be curious as to what your reaction would be now. At the time, I couldn’t believe this was guy was running for the Presidency.
This may be getting into moonbat territory, but ten years ago he was a much better speaker than he is now. I don’t know what happened, but I finid it a little frightening to watch.
Dreggas
Alcohol.
Rick Taylor
And the Senate passes a resolution 72-25 condemning the MoveOn add. Hooray! They can’t slow down the war, they can’t ensure troops have sufficient rest between assignments, they can’t restore Habeas Corpus, they can’t pass any sort of amendment to even try to dissuade the administration from starting a new war with Iran (we’ll just have to depend on the administration’s good sense). But at least they can do what’s important! This should be good for taking potshots at the Democratic canditates for the Presidency all the way up to the election.
BFR
There are a couple of things going on that really puzzle me. The 1st – Warner is retiring & appears to genuinely disapprove of what’s going on. What leverage could the GOP leadership & administration possibly have to make him change his mind on this?
The 2nd – is why this moveon nonsense helps them. The way I see it:
1) President & war are deeply unpopular
2) President appts General Petreaus to be the front man for this unpopular war
3) Petreaus shows up for a Washington dog and pony show, where he argues in favor of essentially status quo maintenance of said deeply unpopular policy
4) War policy remains deeply unpopular with solid majority of Americans
5) MoveOn attacks him for being the prime advocate for a loathed policy – MoveOn is in effect articulating the views of ~>60% of the population
6) GOP vocally condemns MoveOn – who is at this point articulating the opinions of a sizeable majority of the American people, while taking actions intended to prolong said deeply unpopular war
How can this possibly make any sense? Are they trying to get slaughtered next year?
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
“Question?” Really? “Question?”
Do you really think that’s what the President is referring to? Because it was clear to those of us who understand English that he was referring to the MoveOn ad. The MoveOn ad only had one “question” in it, and that was in the headline (Petraeus or Betray Us?), a question which they then conveniently answered themselves (“General Betray Us”).
They called Petraeus a liar for disagreeing with their assessment of Iraq, indicated he was somehow betraying America by disagreeing with them, and called for a return of the troops.
I never thought I’d have to explain this to an adult human, but calling someone a traitor (I’m sure you appreciate the irony therein) and a liar is not “questioning,” John, and your dishonest attempts at spin make one thing absolutely certain: Yes, you have BDS — the kind that prevents you from seeing actual events without filtering it through your “I Hate Bush” kaleidoscope first.
Also, I know you like to emulate St. Andrew of the Perpetual Hysteria these days, but Bush never accused anyone of “high treason.” Or even “low treason.” He said that he thought the ad was “disgusting.” So, you couldn’t have summarized that presser any worse. Congrats. I’m sure your knuckledraggers here thought you did just great.
UPDATE: The Senate on Thursday also voted 72-25 to support an amendment condemning the MoveOn ad and lending support for Petraeus. (Among the 3
cowardsabstainers were — shocker — Obama and Biden)Why do 72 Senators support BusHitler’s Amerikkkkkka????!!!!!
Punchy
It’s painfully clear Andrew works for Rand McNally.
Rick Taylor
This is a pretty good explanation.
Warner’s a principled conservative, a very rare breed in Washington. It is a radical step for the congress to take away the oversight of the war from the Presidency, and there are legitimate reasons for being reluctant to do it. These reasons just don’t take into account what an radical unaccountable executive branch we now have in place. It’s like Krugman said, when a revolutionary power arises with no respect for the conventions that have made governance possible, it’s hard for those who in power to appreciate how radical that power is. It’s taken us years to get the Democrats to wake up and realize business as usual is just not going to work; so it’s not surprising it would take longer for a conservative like him.
Punchy
Oh my. If these are considered “bad habits”….holeeeey shit.
/Looks around apartment, counts atrocities, gulps hard….
Andrew
I’m a shill for big map making. They cut me a break on AAA Triptiks.
whippoorwill
I was going to provide rebuttal to your rantings Miss Lambchop, until I realized that every point you try to make is made from an unserious and dishonest premise. Your not worth the effort.
Punchy
Wingnuts have upped the “I need to say something so outrageous just to get attention” ante soooooo much, this is what we’re left endure….
The Other Steve
What’s funny is Moveon.org won the battle. I wasn’t expecting anything productive out of them, but that one simple add and the republicans whined about it for two weeks and then wasted time on a worthless resolution that doesn’t change anything.
Rick Taylor
I’m lousy at figuring out politics, but I’ll take a shot. First, I think at least some of them, Bush included, is honestly angry about the ad. If you’re sympathetic, you can say it’s because they respect his service; if you’re cynical, it’s because MoveOn was spoiling their game plan of using the general to sell the war, saying the emperor has no clothes, and they were livid. Remember, if there’s one thing this administration has been consistent about, it’s been attacking back when they feel they’ve been attacked (as with ambassador Wilson). Really, I think this explains it by itself.
As for MoveOn articulating what 60% of the American people want, well it’s not necessarily the case that that 60% know that. The Republicans have been very effective at keeping the media’s focus only on the headline “Betray Us” with virtually no discussion of the content of the ad. I doubt their condemnation of MoveOn over this will hurt them much except with people who are already disgusted enough with the war that they’re already unlikely to vote Republican.
And I think the Republicans are going for the support of the base. Certainly the leading candidates for the Presidency are doing so (just as the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are undoubtedly trying to appeal to us). I expect we’ll be hearing about how Hilary and anyone else who voted against the bill is unfit to be President on that basis alone from now until election day.
kchiker
When I saw Bill Clinton speak on TV in the 90’s I typically thought to myself “He’s pretty good”. Now when I see Bill speak I fall down on my knees weeping….
orogeny
Lambchop…here’s the MoveOn ad in it’s entirety. It seems like a pretty straightforward critique. Can you explain exactly what it is about it that is “disgusting”? Is it the word play on his last name, something that had been done by his own troops for years?
Rick Taylor
Anyone have a link to a video of the press conference, or a transcript?
Rick Taylor
Never mind; found it. Still a uniter-not-a-divider I see. I’d still like to see the whole press conference though; he must have talked about other things as well?
Fledermaus
Don’t worry, John. The Senate has condenmed (with substanial Democratic support) all those pesky citizens in MoveOn.org for having the audacity to express an opinion about government policy.
And good for the Senate, I say. We can’t have these people wandering around
criticizing government policystabbing our troops in the back. I, for one, welcome our new military overlords.Wilfred
Orogeney, you’re wasting your time. Lambchop is just riffing on wingnut Beauchamp tactics, which Cole summarized as:
Their methods always remind me of the Shammat agents in Doris Lessing’s Canopus quintology, especially the final book The Sentimental Agents in the Volyen Empire – mandatory reading these days.
Jake
I read you loud and clear.
I guess that makes Terri Schiavo the equivalent of hitting on your best friend at a party.
Soliton
A few points:
The Betrayus ad may be a small net negative for the Dems right now, but in a Friedman or two when things have not improved or even gotten worse in Iraq it will look more prophetic than anything else. The Reps have shot themselves in the foot big time by squawking about it non stop. There are two words that are now planted in everyone’s mind “General Betrayus”. The meme has infected the host of the body politic and now it just requires proper conditions to multiply and it will become a raging infection.
Dems and Reps are really just two arms of the same organization, the corporatarchy. Nowadays they take turns playing like they are in control but the puppetmasters are behind the scenes pulling the strings.
Hillary’s quote the other day: I can envision a time when you will have to have proof of insurance to get a job.
That one quote might just lose her the presidency. On the liberal sites I frequent the Hillary supporters went dead silent instantly and we haven’t heard a peep since.
I’ve been posting over at Humanevents.com, a righty site, and almost no one comes back at me even when I really try to push their buttons (and I’m damn good at pushing buttons). Unlike most righty sites as long as you avoid obscenity and personal attacks your posts won’t be deleted. I’ve even stopped a couple of threads dead cold from full throttle ahead just with one post..
The righties know they are in deep doo doo and are running extremely scared.
The libs are *highly* pissed about the Moveon vote today, 72 to something so a bunch of Dems may well sit out the election, particularly if Hillary is the nominee which looks like a stone cold lock just at the moment. Although that could change over the next couple of weeks, especially if the Reps start blasting Hillary’s insurance quote over the Mighty Wurlitzer.
Last point: I would like to see a Kucinich/Paul combination for pres/veep. From my point of view they are the only candidates that really seem to give a crap about the Constitution and civil liberties, with Gravel possibly another. People are craving principled leadership even if they don’t agree with all the principles and those three seem to be the only principled candidates out there.
Paul is rapidly becoming far more popular with the non neocon rank and file of the Reps and is drawing a good bit of support from right leaning independents too.
OK, y’all can go back to your snark session now.
Peace,
Soliton
Incertus (Brian)
They remind me more of those Holocaust deniers who say that because Anne Frank wrote fiction as well as her diary, that the Holocaust didn’t actually happen.
Andrew
Hillary’s vote against this stupid resolution will be a big plus for her with respect to the liberal blogosphere.
This primary thing is pretty much in the bag for her now.
Billy K
Dammit…last time I saw him speak I nearly wept myself. For real welling up at how far we’ve fallen and how much we’ve lost in such a short time.
Bubblegum Tate
Million Dollar Idea alert! You could take all the filthy hippie acid casualty Bush haters’ money with this one for sure!
PK
EEEL
“Why do a 72 senators defend BushHitler Amerikkkaaa ?”
Because they are a bunch of gutless halfwits! If they knew what this country represents, and what the constitution is they would be defending move-on! How dare they pass a resolution comdemning an advertisment!. This is intimidation by the Govt of citizens who disagree with its policies. Just because 72 idiot politicians agree with something does not make it right! By the way if I remember correctly over 70% of the country supported the war as well. And we know how right they were!
rilkefan
Sorry to hear that – better luck next time.
Rick Taylor
Here we go. My God, his opening remarks are arrogant. How dare the Democrats pass a bill he said he’s going to veto. Is this good politics? I’d think most people would like the idea of health insurance for children. And, you know, there are a lot of us Democrats out in the country; he might want to appeal to us as well, being the President and all. A year of less than 40% approval just seems to have made him even more unbearably patronizing. It’s ironic that back in 2000 Gore was the one who got tagged with being patronizing, but at his worst, I don’t remember him ever being like this: patronizing, arrogant, and pissed.
No diplomacy with the Iranian’s; the diplomacy is going to be with our allies to put more pressure on Iran. Par for the course. That’s bad, as diplomacy would be a really good idea, what with them being a large neighbor of a country in which we’re currently fighting a war. On the other hand, I still don’t see any sign we’re going to war with Iran, despite all chatter I’ve heard on some liberal blogs.
Won’t say anything on Israel’s bombing in Syria. “When I say I’m not going to comment, I’m not going to comment.” Again, the tone of voice was really patronizing.
Alright, someone please explain to me how so many on the right wing go on and on how painful it is to listen to Hilary, Kerry, and Gore, and they’ve been able to listen to this guy for 6 years? Yeah, Gore could be a little pedantic and patronizing, I admit, but he’s got absolutely nothing on Bush.
Oh, was invading Iraq a good idea? Of course it was. He’s convinced removing Saddam was the right thing, and that it’s going to turn out well.
Oh, question about people like Greenspan who have left and criticized him. The deficit is low, and they’ve submitted a plan to balance the budget. Oh, this is painful; he can’t talk about issues with any depth. He’s so obviously out of his depth, and patronizing at the same time. I think that’s what makes it so painful; at least when Gore talked down to you, he really was a policy wonk who generally knew what he was talking about.
Oh, more social security reform! Well, I have to respect him a tiny bit; he can’t be pushing that for political reasons. That’s the only time the Democrats stood up to him and won. Please, keep pushing social security reform.
Now he’s advocating free trade agreements, and saying free trade helps poorer nations. I agree with him on that; a rare event.
Now he’s waxing philosophical, going from protectionism to isolationism. He’s denouncing isolationism; odd, seeing as the only isolationist I know of is Ron Paul. “Liberty can help hostile parts of the word become peaceful parts of the world.” Deep. I’m still amazed he was ever even a candidate for the Presidency.
Hee. He tells a joke. Condi has the Ph.D, and I’m the C student. And look who’s the President. Well he has me there.
So we’re in Iraq to keep from Al Qaeda from gaining safe haven. A Democracy in the heart of the Middle East would be a blow to tyrany. He really believes this is still possible. He’s getting passionate now. I think his framing of the issues is simplistic and dangerously out of touch with reality, but I believe he believes.
Question about Blackwater. “Evidently some innocent lives were lost.” Not going to comment until he finds out the facts. Reasonable, except I know from experience, later never comes.
Ohhhhh, a fairly sophisticated question about the oil deal with Kirkuk. He’s aware of it, if it affects the possibility of oil sharing agreements, he’s concerned. But otherwise he doesn’t have to much to say. Not surprising from the President who still has no idea who pushed for the Iraqi army to be disbanded.
And the MoveOn dot org. I wouldn’t mind as much if he just attacked MoveOn, but he’s using it as a club on the Democrats.
And that’s it.
Soliton
Oh, one thing I forgot.
The utter spinelessness of the Dems?
The anthrax killer is still on the loose.
“Such beautiful grandchildren you have, it would be a terrible thing if anything were to happen to them”.
whippoorwill
The Betrayus ad may be a small net negative for the Dems right now
jenniebee
In 2001, I was talking to my aunt about the W and said that he actually made me nostalgic for Nixon. I stand by that statement – W makes Nixon look good.
BTW – via Digby: Bush’s “worthless” interviews (aka Draper’s Dead Certain).
More than 30,000 dead or wounded – real people, really dead, really hurt – for the sake of humoring the new King Lear.
Howl.
Rick Taylor
Soliton wrote:
I’m kind of amazed anyone can say that with a straight face by now. The Democrats just voted unanimously to restore Habeas Corpus, the Republicans almost unanimously against. I’m often frustrated with my party, no doubt, but if there’s one thing the last six years have proven, there’s a huge divide between the two parties, and it’s only gotten deeper over time.
Thanks; I’ll have to check it out. I’d like to broaden my blog reading to include more reasonable conservatives.
Not to be flip, but they should be more worried about the country. I don’t know how we’re going to dig ourselves out of the mess we’ve made.
I don’t know know about other liberals, but believe me, I’m not sitting out the next election. My party has me over a barrel, they could elect anyone but Lieberman and I’d dutifully turn out to vote. Maybe it would be different if there was a sane candidate for the Presidency on the Republican side, but every single one of them scare the crap out of me. Besides, symbolic votes like this are largely stupid; I can’t imagine it influencing my vote much one way or another, though I will admit I was impressed with Hilary for voting no. Yeah there may have been political calculation, she hast to appeal to her base just like the Republicans, but it was still the right thing to do.
Punchy
BFD. MoveOn KNEW they were going to get trashed for this. And that’s WHY they did it; they’re not in this for reputation or respect. They’re the surrogate demon child of the Dems, able to do and say what many Dems think without harming any actual Congressmen.
Look, they placed the ad. Everyone and their mother is talking about it. The Rs have been exposed as fucking losers for spending time penning some tripe about “condeming” it. So what if MoveOn is “censured”??? They don’t give a fuck, the world is now more aware of Pet Rockeus’s shenanigans, and the Rs are proven to be Bush synchophants.
Job well done for MoveOn.
Wilfred
Wow, that sounds a lot like the guy for whom Petraeus would have been Field Marshall Rommel. Ouch.
jenniebee
On RedState:
Oh, dear God. Oh, dear God. THIS is support of the troops? One expects a certain amount of Kabuki theater from either party in DC, one suffers a certain amount of posturing, one endures delays in the face of political realities. But one does not expect that rank and file citizens are basing their position on a war on some potential for political maneuvering, and all three of the players here (the dKos poster, Moe Lane, and the commenter he is crowing over) are simply citizens. One does not expect it because, first, it would be a phenomenally stupid thing to do (what deals does Moe think a private citizen could broker in exchange for opposition to the war?) and second, because the lack of empathy one has to have to see a war as a mere bargaining chip in domestic politics is outright sociopathic.
If this is within the scope of moral depravity these people project on their opponents, how dark their own souls must be. If the likes of Red State believe that it’s all just politics, the other side won’t admit it, then one has to ask if their own position is based on anything more substantial than the same drive to use demagoguery to gain political power.
I did them the credit of thinking them merely deluded. I see now that they are as vile a breed of rascals as I have ever known.
Rick Taylor
Interesting. There was a bill before the one that was passed pushed by Boxer that condemned the attacks on Max Cleland and John Kerry as well as Patreaus. It was defeated (as it got only 51 votes; not enough to overcome the automatic filibuster). Evidently it’s only wrong to to insult the service of Republican military men (or those doing the Republican’s business). At least that’s how it seems to me. I wish this would have gotten more play. I wonder why we couldn’t pull off enough Republican votes to pass this? It’s a reasonable compromise. Of course they didn’t have to what with half the Democrats capitulating without a fight.
Republican politics has become so divisive. I suppose it started with the Clinton impeachment hearings, and the determination not to settle for a mere reprimand. Winning is everything. Of course I’m pushing Democrats to play hardball, but it’s because we have to in this environment.
Timb
EEEL is just a troll from the land of Protein Wisdom. As such, he should be ignored. There is nothing more annoying to a crusader than the shrugs of indifference he meets when he swings his fancy mace. Dan, errr, whoever he is will get hsi comeuppance next November.
I think I’ll go do a victory jig that evening on the Protein Wisdom page. Bunch of freakin’ halfwit warmongers.
whippoorwill
Of course not, There for truth and oversized bank accounts. Besides “Freedom’s On The March” and somebody’s got to keep the sheep in formation.
Rick Taylor
They really do think that don’t they? It’s hard to get my head around, but they really do. We’re just scared to death Iraq is going to turn around and be a success, and we’re doing everything we can to sabotage it to avoid political defeat. I have to keep reminding myself, some of them at least, maybe even most of them, really do think that.
Soliton
Rick Taylor,
’m kind of amazed anyone can say that with a straight face by now. The Democrats just voted unanimously to restore Habeas Corpus, the Republicans almost unanimously against. I’m often frustrated with my party, no doubt, but if there’s one thing the last six years have proven, there’s a huge divide between the two parties, and it’s only gotten deeper over time.
A safe vote, the bill failed as everyone knew it would.
Why not just let the Reps go ahead and filibuster?
Eventually even the public would figure out what’s going on despite the Overton framing to the right by the MSM.
Rick Taylor
John, you know these people (at sites like RedState). I’m not exaggerating here am I?
Tsulagi
I see Lambchop still has the tampon up his ass. That’s likely the cause for his Tears for Petraeus.
Note to residents of Greater Wingnuttia and sufferers of Clinton Penis Envy like Lambchop: Sack up. If your new Anointed One chosen to correct five years of brain-dead led nation building by Pub majority can’t stand the heat from an ad, pro-tip: You need a new general.
Even though my estimation of Petraeus has dropped quite a bit, I’m sure he’s managed to survive The Ad without too many ill effects. Leave it to the widestancers to get all emotional.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
I think it’s pretty clear the President thought the “Betray Us” part and the “cooking the books” parts were the disgusting bits. The rest was just the same old boilerplate.
And what’s the difference if one of his troops called him Betray Us (in private conversations, not in fullpage ads) first?
Rick Taylor
I disagree. I respect him for coming and arguing in an environment which isn’t going to be friendly ground. I’ve done it myself, and it’s not easy. He’s generally civil, and while he does tend to go off on tangents (Hillary?), he does make some points, and I try to take them seriously even if I disagree.
Frankly, I think this country has become way too divided. We need to find some way to come together, as impossible as it seems now.
Fledermaus
You just answered your own question.
Dreggas
Thanks.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Ummmm, are you calling John a queer? How progressive of you!
Progressive. Let’s go to the Balloon Juice scoreboard … you guys got “gay” and “troll” in there. You forgot to call me a “spoof,” though! You must be new to the BJ hivemind.
kchiker
Yeah but he sighed during that first debate!!!!!
Dreggas
I know…wait didn’t somebody do that during the last presidential election in a debate…or was it just a scowl?
Rick Taylor
I’d agree with the “Betray Us” part being inappropriate, being a personal attack, though I’ll repeat, you overstated the case when you said the ad called him a traitor; it didn’t. As for cooking the books, that was completely legitimate. They may be right or wrong, but Petraeus’s statistics were unsupported and contradicted by other sources; it’s a fair argument to make (one I think was sound, and which others might disagree with). That’s the same position Hilary Clinton was taking when she said some of the testimony for her was hard to believe. Now we may disagree about whether his figures were accurate or not, but at least some Republicans have taken the position that even going as far as Hilary did was somehow out of line. But I disagree, strongly; skepticism and questioning are never out of bounds.
I wouldn’t have objected to the President’s remarks if he’d kept it to his opinion on MoveOn, but he didn’t. He used it as a cudgel to beat up the Democrats. And he didn’t just condemn them for not speaking about the ad, he engaged in character assassination; that is impugning base motives to them without evidence. He said they were doing it because they feared MoveOn more than they honored the military. That last statement is the one that has everyone here so riled up. That really was out of bounds.
Maybe senators who didn’t speak out had legitimate reasons for not doing so. Reasons he disagreed with, but arguable none-the-less. Perhaps they felt it wasn’t the business of the senate to go around condemning every objectionable ad they found, for example. So I would have been fine if he’d kept his remarks on MoveOn, and less fine but still sort of ok if he’d simply left it at saying he was disappointed the Democrats hadn’t condemned it.
But no, the President had to turn it into a full on partisan attack, ironically indulging in the sort of character assassination he was accusing MoveOn of doing. He had to make completely unsubstantiated attacks on their motives.
And this is important, because the President isn’t some blogger, or pundit. He’s the President. He’s your President, and he’s my President. And hew as speaking at a public press conference. Of course he has his agenda, and of course not everyone is going to agree with it, and of course he’s going to fight for it, but he’s still our President. He’s supposed to be doing his best to bring us together and raise support; should not be throwing out comments that would be more appropriate to attacks posted on a political blog. It’s unconscionable.
Rick Taylor
Yup! Though I still thought naively maybe there’d be a few moderates who would find some appeal. Guess not. If they keep loosing, they’re eventually going to have to go beyond hardball. It works great when you’re in the majority, and surprisingly well when you have enough to filibuster, but after even more losses and with a Democrat as President? Boy, when that happens, I am sure not going to feel much motivation to be bipartisan.
Zifnab
Completely, totally, 100% off topic.
This is still the funniest military story I’ve heard.
Link
mclaren
John Cole remarked:
This seems to tbe the difference between the conservatives and the liberals. When I watched the 2000 debate between Gore and the drunk-driving C student, within about 90 seconds it became clear that the drunk-driving C student was a loathsome sneering ignorant pathological liar who couldn’t even keep his lies straight, let alone his facts. What amazed me was the sheer vileness of the guy. He radiated hatefulness and creepiness like gamma rays, I mean, watching the guy with his snivelling sneer dismiss every serious question he was asked in the 2000 debate was like a scene from those old sci fi movies where the needle on the geiger counter keeps ticking higher and higher and you can sense the monster’s approach. It was exactly like that scene in The Thing From Another World where you’re just waiting for the guy to tear off his humanlike mask and break down the door and start ripping people’s throats out and sucking their blood.
Never in my life since Nixon have I seen a politician so intensely hateful as the drunk-driving C student.
Imagine my stupefied disbelief when all the pundits scored the drunk-driving C student as the winner of the 2000 debate. And why? You guessed it — because of his likeability!
Brian
“We’ve waited quite some time for our domestic opposition to stop pretending that they’re against this [war] for something besides partisan political maneuvering”
Actually, I find this amusing. Soliton is right on.
War Crimes in East Timor and Central America? Good ol’ Saint Jimmy started that program. As he did for the creation of the jihaddi movement in Afghanistan.
Dear Speaker Nan, for example, was always fully in favor of Clinton’s little war (which involved bringing in jihadists to “Bosnia” and supporting a little gang of white slavers and drug runners in Kosovo. Not to forget the Iron Duchess’ sad dismissal of the 500,000 dead Iraqi children as being “worth it.”
I’m sorry: the Republicans are much more egregious, much worse, and much more corrupt. But the Democratic Party is indeed just a more polished wing of the War and Empire Party. They may be the lesser of two evils, but do not forget for one moment that they are indeed “evil.”
Eural
What mclaren said times 1000!
After watching the 2004 debate with Kerry – I think it was the first one – the entire crowd I watched it with (admitedly liberal in slant) were stupified at how wretched Bush appeared. One of the worst appearances ever by a politician in a such a setting. Kerry, on the other hand, was his usual stiff-monotone self, but he wasn’t slouched over the podium, cackling and mumbling and not making sense.
And then FOX news declared Bush the winner and the media trumpeted his “good ole boy charm” and our jaws dropped in amazement. And then he won. God help us all.
Redhand
The thing is, I can’t imagine anyone with less reason to feel superior. It’s like we have Alfred E. Newman (with his idiot smile) as President.
r4d20
Every current and former officer I know, roughly half of whom are NOT supporters of this administration, was personally offended by the ad – 6 for 6.
Feel free to question the validity of my sample but stop wasting time trying to explain why it wasn’t offensive when you really mean that it shouldn’t have been offensive.
Offense is in the eye of the beholder and you just cant logically explain to an offended person why their feelings are “wrong”.
Tsulagi
Oh no, called a progressive. I should feel threatened, slandered and hurt like Petraeus’s followers just know he is. Let’s take a look in the Manly Man Wingnut playbook how to handle that, we’ve seen it this week.
Chapter 1, How to get your way…Waaaa WAaaaaa WAAaaa!, I demand an apology and retraction! NOW! I’m hyperventilating, and IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT! And I want my congressional resolution saying how bad your ilks are on record, and if you don’t vote for it, YOU’RE EVEN WORSE! So there! And no, I’m not tapping my feet, I’m Stamping them loud and clear! We do that a lot. We’re tough like that! Waaaa, Waaaaa, Waaaaaaa….
There you have it, steel from the Purple Heart bandaid set.
ThymeZone
Really? Well, then, fuck them.
ThymeZone
No, but you can certainly present facts which make them look like horse’s asses, which they are in this case, and then question how in the hell such horse’s asses got to be officers in the military. If I were an officer, I would be offended by leadership — both military and civilian — that put me in harm’s way for a stupid thing like this useless and futile war. And I’d question the sanity of an officer who thinks that severe criticism and questioning of Betrayus under the current conditions is anything but absolutely appropriate.
The Other Steve
I’m confused. Not a fan of Jimmy Carter(I assume this is who you are talking about), but the US support of the Mujahideen came out of Congress. specifically Charlie Wilson on the appropriations committee.
I don’t understand why you’d bring this up. It was a very appropriate use of US defense money, and military hardware.
Is it just because the idea came from a Democrat, therefore it’s bad?
Zifnab
Seriously, I’ll second that motion.
How did your officer friends feel when Adm Fallon called General Petreaus an “ass kissing little chicken-shit”? How did they feel when the 101st Keyboardists slapped purple bandaids on their foreheads during the ’04 election?
Seriously, when did the military turn over its balls to the Bush Administration?
The Other Steve
I also don’t understand why Republicans keep wanting to talk about General Betrayus. If you don’t want to talk about it, stop bringing it up.
scarshapedstar
Hey, lambchop, did you know that Admiral Fallon, Petraeus’s superior, called him ‘an ass-kissing little chickenshit’ and said his support for Teh Surge was a bunch of crap?
Somebody call the BDS-bulance because there’s some serious BDS up at CENTCOM! BDS! Idiotarians! Objectively Pro-Saddam! Stuck On Stupid! Fifth Column! September 10th! BDS! Screeching moonbats, seething and whining! BDS! BDS! BDS!
*pop*
*fizzle*
Oh, hey, guys. Was my Wingnutotron 2000 malfunctioning again? I gotta keep that thing unplugged…
Rick Taylor
BFR wrote:
It’s interesting, reading conservative and liberal blogs, both feel that statistics support their side. Naturally as a liberal, I think we have the better case. :) But I think the statistics are more ambiguous than either side gives credit.
I think one place we’re loosing the debate is that the other side has successfully driven home the idea that Democrats want to evacuate Iraq overnight. That simply isn’t the case. Kevin linked to a meeting of liberal bloggers, and they were talking in terms of leaving over two years. The thing is, we should be starting now, which not only means starting to remove troops, but actually figuring out the logistics how (ensuring supply lines, etc.). What we don’t want is to leave in troops as long as possible, and to suddenly have a precipitous withdrawal later.
magisterludi
Forgive me, Lord, but I have sinned. I have questioned the word of Petraeus. Please deliver me from the archaic wisdom that Americans always question authority. Forgive me for speaking my mind, having an opinion.Excuse me for holding hope that we can save America from the dishonor and stain that this administration has wrought.
i hoped to be snarky- i can’t anymore-I started to cry.
Rick Taylor
The Other Steve wrote:
The answer to this one is straightforward, I’m afraid. Iraq is a honking big mess, everyone knows it, and no one knows what the hell to do, except for a few true believers.
When thinks get bad, it’s human nature to pull together and find an “other” to turn against. Emotionally it’s a relief, because suddenly, for a while, you feel righteous again and everything is simple. At least you feel together and sure again, and you’re expending energy, which distracts you from the uncertainty and doubt.
This is not limited to Republicans; it’s human nature. Almost any group will do it under the right circumstances, under the right pressure. And they’re under a hell of a lot of pressure. To one degree or another they all know Iraq isn’t going the way it was supposed to, they all know the public is turning against the war, and some of them at least know Bush is taking the party off a cliff. At least on some level.
So it’s not surprising they’d act this way. It’s not a matter of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, it’s just a particularly ugly aspect of human nature. This is what people do when their collective self image is badly threatened; I’ve seen it before.
Brian
I’m confused. Not a fan of Jimmy Carter(I assume this is who you are talking about), but the US support of the Mujahideen came out of Congress. specifically Charlie Wilson on the appropriations committee.
I don’t understand why you’d bring this up. It was a very appropriate use of US defense money, and military hardware.
Is it just because the idea came from a Democrat, therefore it’s bad?”
One could certainly argue now that the idea was bad, given the blowback that our befriending of radical Islamism and the facilitation of some monstrous forces.
No…my argument is that we need to stop mucking around. We need to follow Washington’s (and Lincoln’s) examples and stop mucking around. My point is that the Democratic Party is fully engaged in the American Empire project. The whole shebang-700 military bases, more money than the rest of the world spent on “defense” American military advisors assisting evil scumbag dictators brutalize the population, etc. etc.
Call me naive. Call me a pacifist. I don’t want to live in Pax Americana a la Guantanamo under a Caesar with absolute power.
I never claim the Democrats are “as bad.” They are a little more circumspect, a little more rational. Maybe that’s the best we can get right now, but I don’t have to like it. I don’t like the Great Black Hope piously mumbling that all options are on the table wrt Iran, including nuclear bombs. I don’t like Hillary’s voting for the illegal war and only mumblingly recanting.
The Democratic Party is not the solution. At this point, with the military industrial complex entwined in every single aspect of our government and our economy, I doubt there is a “solution” short of a particularly nasty bankruptcy. Color me frustrated, not a concern troll.
Leader Desslok
It was offensive. It was meant to be… at least I think it was. It is just as possible, however, that the peeps at MoveOn were just acting on some primal instinct to strike back at Bush Followers for their long history of practising what Josh Marshall refers to as “Bitch Slap Politics”.
Either way, the ad worked wonders.
So much of our politics today is based on emotional (though innacurate) propaganda designed to appeal to the most primative human instincts. However much we may want to think that an effective political campaign should be based on reason and decency, that simply isn’t the case.
Also, as has been well documented, the right wing base has by now been pretty much overrun by authortarians. Authoritarians tend to believe things like “children should obey their parents”. When you ask them if abusive parents should be obeyed, they tend to get upset and defensive. They don’t like their simple black and white frames being disputed and don’t want to deal with complexity of life in the real world. Daddy is strong and will protect us from the “others”. This is their weakness.
Needlenose has a running series that what the Dems need to do is attack the notion that the GOP is the Strong Daddy Party by pointing out that they are in fact the Bad Daddy Party. Too many Dems are convinced that the voters percieve that Dems don’t stand for anything because they lack a catchy slogan such as the GOP’s “Low Taxes, Strong Defense, Family Values” theme. But that’s all bullshit anyway. Seriously, how the fuck are you supposed to support massive spending in the Military-Industrial Complex and lower taxes without running up huge deficits? And since when has the United States become some land of temperance and purity? It’s rank hypocrisy.
No. What really drives the GOP political machine, and the reason for the simplistic slogans, is the idea that they are the Strong Daddy who is going to keep us safe. That’s it. That’s what they’ve got. And what MoveOn did was point out that Daddy is in fact a drunken asshole who is making us all alot LESS safe, that we should all question our leaders rather than submit to them. That is why the Bush Followers are freaking out right now.
The media refuse to point out the hypocrisy of the GOP’s “support the troops” crap while work to deny proper equipment to our Soldiers and Marines and decent benefit’s to Vets while handing out no-bid contracts to trigger happy mercenaries. And the Dem’s won’t do it either, so MoveOn did. Good for them.
Offensive or not, it’s got people thinking about whether or not we’d all be better of without Daddy around. And the GOP instinctively know that it is political death for them if people start asking that question.
whippoorwill
I think Dems should portray the GOP as the cross dressing transsexual widestance party.
Rick Taylor
From Redstate
We may not know what the hell we’re doing in Iraq, but at least we condemned MoneOn, the New York Times, and their Democratic enablers, and now this.
I’m trying but I don’t understand these people.
John Cole
They are idiots.
Thomas
Liberty Street and Broadway isn’t at Ground Zero, and I’m guessing that Ahmadinejad’s convoy will take the FDR, which will bring them up Rector.
So basically what you’re going to have is a bunch of Redstate idiots locking arms while Ahmadinejad’s car comes in safely a block away.
John Cole
The better question is why they fucking care. I really do not get it. They freaked the fuck out about him going to Columbia to be grilled. We should encourage that- let him go to Columbia and exposed as a moron.
And why do they care if he goes to Ground Zero? it is a win/win, either way. If he goes there and does something outrageous, it will push world opinion in the US’s favor, somethign that hasn’t happened in a while. If he goes there and respectfully lays a wreath, isn’t that the kind of behavior we should approve of at Ground Zero?
I just don’t fucking get it. They spend all their time and energy getting worked up over little shit that DOES NOT MATTER, and the only reason they do so is to provide cover for the truly colossal fuckups this administrations is perpetrating on a daily basis.
Four more soldiers killed Tuesday. Guesss that got “lost” in the MoveOn brouhaha. As planned.
Thomas
It’s Columbia, New York, etc., that they want to go after. Ahmadinejad is just a bystander to the latest liberal outrage.
The Columbia thing is particularly ridiculous–they really do believe that liberals are into Iran because we don’t want to bomb them.
The Other Steve
You answered your own question a while ago.
They are idiots.
And they are afraid.
PK
I think MoveOn’s next ad should be “Fuck General Petreaus”!
whippoorwill
Well you can’t very well maintain a permanent war if you let your enemies come to your country and make peaceful gestures, can you. Especially when your getting ready to bomb the shit out of said enemy’s country. It’s PR 101 John, a photo of the guy laying a wreath at Ground Zero just wouldn’t look good, right before you killed him. On the other hand, you’ll probably start the Apocalypse and nobody will notice.
John Cole
At this point, given the absurd reaction to the ad, I am about willing to be the driving force behind that ad. Maybe I can get in touch with Larry Flynt and get it in Hustler.
incontrolados
I’m fairly certain, with a little digging, that could be sourced to a few in the military as well.
Rick Taylor
We get worked up over stuff that doesn’t matter too. What could matter less that what they’re writing on the Redstate blog? We need to figure out where to go from here.
We need a Democratic President, and 60 senators or something close. I’m not happy about this. I’ve spent 6 years feeling completely powerless as a crazy administration took over my country; they’re going to feel the same way but what to do. There’s hardly anyone to work with, and it’s going to get even worse; so many of the moderates are retiring.
We’ve got to frame the debate. If you want the United States army bogged down in Iraq for the forseeable future, the Republicans are your party.
We’ve got to keep pushing to begin planning how we’re getting out of Iraq. This administration didn’t plan what to do when we went in; left to their own devices, they won’t plan how to get out. Keeping the maximum number of troops possible in Iraq until 2008, and then figuring out what to do is not a good idea. It looks to be where we’re heading, but we should be pushing for something else. What I’m more concerned is that at some point, a substantial portion of the Shiite population turns against us, and suddenly we have to leave on their terms and not ours.
We need to do what we can to prevent the administration from starting another war in Iran. I still don’t think they will, but I’d like to have more depend upon than their good sense.
Let’s encourage the Democrats to force the Republicans to do some real filibustering against popular measures. They should have been doing it already.
We need to appeal to as many people as possible. Some will be unreachable, but I think plenty of people in the heartlands are angry about this war; we need to show them Democrats aren’t bogeymen.
Who should we pick to run for President? I like Obama. He opposed this war when it could have made a difference, unlike virtually all the other candidates other than Kucinich and Ron Paul. Have you seen the video of him talking about Iraq before the invasion? It’s not just that he oppsed the invasion. Unlike almost everyone else at the time, he was askng the right questions. What’s are long term commitment there if we invade? How do we make sure it doesn’t splinter into factions? He strikes me as the most thoughtful of the candidates, albeit not the most experienced. Also, so far the attempts to attack his character have been disgustingly racist. He went to a madrassa; ohhhhhh, scary. Let the Republicans make more attacks on him of this type, and help them further self distruct with moderates and minority voters.
That’s all I’ve got. No more focussing on how the other side seems like they’re from another planet to me; I seem the same way to them.
scarshapedstar
Let’s do the same thing Wal-Mart does after it rolls in and demolishes a local economy.
Get the fuck out and never look back.
Jess
Hillary voted against that idiotic resolution? Good for her! As far as I’m concerned, that cancels out her lame triangulation on the flag-burning amendment. She still has a long way to go before I trust her, though…
Jess
That resolution and Bush’s attack annoyed me so much that I just made my first contribution to MoveOn in over 2 years. And that’s after already being annoyed by the ad itself, AND being short on the rent.
Right. That’ll show ’em.
Rick Taylor
Even for people who don’t want to make a donation, there’s also a petition opposing the senate’s resolution.
Daniel DiRito
See a pithy tongue-in-cheek visual on the resolution titled, “Jackass: The Sequel – Twenty Two Donkeys For Brother Bush”…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/09/jackass_the_sequel_twenty_two_donkeys_for_w.php
jones
moveon didn’t “question” Gen. Petraeus, they called him a traitor, accused him of lying and basically said he committed treason for partisan gain.
You’re portrayal of anyone listening to what the most knowledgeable person, about facts on the ground in Iraq, on the planet as ‘hiding behind (his) skirts’ just emphasizes what a despicable human being you are and how you hate Republicans and the President to such an extent you root for American failure and gladly slander a hero to further your political goals. Congratulations on being the biggest douche in the universe, narrowly beating out John Edward (and John Edwards) this year.
Snark Based Reality
MoveOn is running a fund raiser based on the Senate resolution. Hell, it prompted my cheap ass to send them some pocket change, it might be one of their best fundraiser ideas yet.
Oh and when did they adopt the new slogan “, A Betrayal Of Trust”? Some brilliant hard ball shit, keep it up MoveOn.
John Rohan
What a pathetic straw man argument. No one said they had a problem with anyone questioning Petraeus. Care to produce a reference on that? Didn’t think so. Your regular lack of references for your tirades is one of the signature features of this blog.
Congressmen from both sides of the aisle questioned him and his report. No one has a problem with that.
The problem is with insulting and demoninzing him even before he read his report to Congress. And the “betray us” ad was not the only one either. If you wish, you can look here for example.
Have a nice day.
Leader Desslok
Wrong. His boss says he’s a hack. And plenty of other Generals disagree with his statements. Funny that Bush didn’t choose to listen to them.
Hero? Yeah… I think it’s totally heroic that a guy who has never been in enemy contact wears medals saying that, not only was he in contact, but he did really brave shit during said contact.
Bush is an abusive drunk, and Petraus is feeding him more booze. Have another shot, Boss!!!
Xenos
Nobody accused Petraeus of treason. They accused him of betrayal – of principle, of his men, of the armed forces, of his duty to stay out of politics. Since he had already given wildly incorrect yet politically useful testimony to Congress in 2004, he was fair game. “Clinton Generals’ were similarly accused of dishonor back in the 90s.
Sorry, politics is a contact sport. And Petraeus can defend himself. Don’t bother yourself getting defensive for the honor of the likes of him.
chopper
but ‘betray’ means ‘treason’, at least this week. it kinda changes depending on who says it, if they’re a republican or not, etc etc.
Slide
I used to be a regular commenter here but I got tired, real tired, of having my opinions, views and judgments attacked by John because of his belief that I was just a “Bush Hater”. There was no argument that I could make, be it about Iraq, Tax policy or Katrina, that John didn’t dismiss with the simplistic characterization of my opinion as being the result of my irrational disgust with the vile moron that currently occupies the White House. Not that John was wrong about my hating Bush but what John couldn’t understand is that one could hate bush AND have valid opinions on current events.
So, it is quite ironic to read Cole’s post today. Rather strong language coming from a guy that voted for Bush TWICE. I can see the first time – easy to be fooled. But TWICE? Well, I guess some are more easily manipulated by slick Rovian theater. Welcome to the real world John. Maybe I’ll even come back and comment regularly again. Nahhhhh…..
laneman
I am curious as to when ‘hero’ became a term for a person doing her job vs. when he actually did something above and beyond the call?
was it (and I really that teh) 9/11?
lane
scarshapedstar
Wtf? The White House admitted it wrote the report. You’re literally criticizing us for not pretending to be surprised that the left hand sock puppet agrees with the right hand sock puppet.
Wilfred
Rohan, I was hoping you’d pop up again, recalling your harrumphing on Abu Ghraib, you being an interrogation specialist and all. Here’s a reference for your tirades, blowhard.
The rest of his sworn statement contradicts the bullshit you’ve posted here on the same subject, water-boy. Don’t smear before reading, please.
at: http://www.alternet.org/story/61241
chopper
kinsley nails it, imho.
jake
When did President of the United States became a term for a driveling drunk with an ego the size of Texas and a brain the size of a dust bunny? The word has been watered down for years. I’ve heard over excited newscasters use the term to refer to people who dial 911 in an emergency. Um. No. However, I think anyone who does something that goes against basic survival instinct is a “hero,” even if they get a paycheck. I may be biased because there are fire fighters in my family, but if it sits behind a desk all day … Not a hero (with a big question mark in the case of teachers). If it gets dressed up in a flight suit … Puke.
Strange, I don’t recall Rice’s bid for the White House. But at this point what harm can one more lame ass, irrelevant, self-adoring and slighting comment do? I bet she’s the next out of the door.
Which would be doubly amusing because the piano-leg covering brigade on the right would have to admit to reading the mag. in order to crank up the Outrage! machine.
whippoorwill
Slid says;
Your being kind of judgemental yourself, Slide. How many republicans who supported Bush and changed their mind come out every day in the public forum and admit their mistake. Sure, there are those who make a statement of their discontent with Bush one day and the next are right back in the fold. As I’m sure you know, republicans don’t suffer kindly those who stand up and say their party is heading down the shitter, especially when it certainly is. The only other one I know of is Andrew Sullivan and you’ve read the nasty crap wingnuts are saying about him. The comments on this site today should give you a clue of what I’m talking about. So give it a rest already. Character counts.
John Cole
Too funny. The last thing in your link is Rohan regurgitating the “NY Time gave them a special rate on the ad” bullshit.
You bushbots are all the fucking same.
Andrew
De la Hoya is a Republican?
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
As was mandated by the Democrats’ law, you retarded bunch of retards. Jebus, such stupidity!
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Please, please please do this. The biggest mistakes you guys make are when you are convinced that Americans have as much hate inside them as you do.
chopper
whereas you righties are so sweet and kind. glad you’re out there fighting the ‘real haters’, eeel.
over_educated
Well, its good to know the right is so outaged about this. I mean they would NEVER question the patriotism of decorated servicemen like John Kerry, John Murtha and Max Cleland.
Oh… Wait….
whippoorwill
Jeepers, that’s way off the chart on the weirdo scale. Maybe at the next repub convention we’ll get to see De La Hoya do the tango with Larry Craig, or even David Vitter for that matter.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
But every politician of every party will do this every time. (A couple of links got dropped off there, but it’s ridiculously easy to find examples.)
And I fail to see what is unfair about asking a party leader to condemn what the party (or its supporting groups) are advertising. I don’t think it’s unfair for the President to be asked to condemn the Swift Boaters, and I don’t think it’s unfair for the Dem candidates to be asked to condemn MoveOn. What’s so unfair about asking a politician to take a stand on a political matter?
Well, it might be out-of-bounds (if such a quaint notion even exists anymore in the Dean/Rove era of politics) if that’s what he had said. There was no issue of honoring the military or not. He said they feared irritating MoveOn more than they feared irritating the military — that the leaders of the Democrats (who I guess would be Dean, Hillary, Obama, Reid, Murtha, and Pelosi) would be more likely to speak out against the military than they would be to speak out against MoveOn. Since the instances of the leadership speaking out against MoveOn equals ZERO, and the instances of said leadership speaking out against and voting against the military and its leaders is GREATER THAN ZERO, I don’t think that’s much of a stretch at all. Do you?
whippoorwill
Dear Miss Lambchop,
You cirle-jerks keep right on deflecting your responsibility for a botched war and a thousand more fuckups, and come 2008 America will have it’s first National Dogcatcher party. The American public is tired of your shit, not to mention the rest of the world. So go ahead and smear away. And while your being clueless assholes we’ll be building your political headstone.
Halffasthero
Making friends fast in the blogosphere, I see. Somehow stating that Bush is a shamless turd has been devolved into you hate the troops and wanting failure in America. I will not ask you how that feels, I already know.
From what I have seen of GWB’s actions, the only people who want failure (and guaranteeing it) are the ones cheering and enabling this man as he bravely leads us from one ill-considered disaster to the next.
Rick Taylor
Neither of the two cases you sited were comparable to Bush’s remarks. The first is a ridiculous comparison. Asking the President to respond to a comment by a secretary in his administration is perfectly reasonable. Presumably as a part of the administration, the secretary speaks for it.
The second is a better comparison. I’ll say right off I don’t like Dean’s posturing. It’s a kind of political maneuver I find distasteful, especially given that one of the very few things I like about Bush is he doesn’t pander to the racists in his party. That said, what Dean did not do which Bush did is to take it to the next step and say because Bush didn’t publicly condemn the extremists in his party as Dean asked, he could only conclude that Bush cared more about them and getting there votes than he did about the victims of racist violence. If he had said that, you would be right; it would have been as despicable as what Bush did. But he didn’t. I agree with you that moralistic posturing to score points is common and distasteful in both parties, but taking it to the level as Bush did was very rare, especially for a President using the power of the bully pulpit to address the nation.
I’m grateful to you here for bringing up the Swift Boaters. One of the things I found so aggravating was that so many conservatives who are so strident now were silent about the Swift Boaters or even supported them at the time, so it’s actually a relief for me you bringing it up. I’d like to point out that Boxer proposed a bill all such smearing, and specifically indicated the Swift Boaters, the attacks on Max Cleland, and General Petraeus. I’d have considerably more sympathy for the Republicans if they hadn’t unanimously or near unanimously killed it by filibuster. If it’s an outrage to run an ad making a pun on General Petraeus’s name, why wasn’t it an outrage to, for weeks on end, slime a veteran’s war record for political purposes?
And to answer your question (I’m repeating myself here), what I objected to wasn’t that Bush asked the Democrats to condemn the ad.True, I wouldn’t have liked it even if that’s all he’d done; I don’t like that kind of posturing as I said before, and I especially don’t like it when the President uses his bully pulpit to do it, but as you said it’s common enough in politics. So I wouldn’t have liked it if that’s all he’d done, but I could have lived with that. What he did went beyond that; he used the full power of bully pulit he has as President to say the Democrats feared Moveon more than they honored the troops. And that is not politics as usual, especially for a sitting President.
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about here. The congress can’t vote for or against the military (the President gets to hire and fire it’s leaders with their approval) and I know of no one in congress who’s speaking out against the military. Do you mean voting against what certain leaders in the military want? Well they’re supposed to do that when they think it’s right; we have a civilian control policy, not the military, at least that’s how it’s supposed to be in America. Some generals since retired felt strongly we should get out of Iraq and Bush replaced them. Does that mean he’s speaking out against and opposing the military? No, he’s doing his job as commander and chief. I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. I will say one of the things I’ve found disurbing is that some prominent Republicans (McCain, Guiiani), seem to be suggesting that it’s out of bounds for congress to question a general. It’s almost like they’re saying Petraeus is in the field, he’s the one who knows what’s going, people in the congress are ignorant, and they should just rubberstamp whatever he wants. That’s frightening, given that civilian control of the military is supposed to be a given in our form of government.
Rick Taylor
Ack, I wish there was a way to correct gramatical errors in pervious posts.
we have a civilian control policy -> we have civilians control policy
John Rohan
Ahh… the name calling. How quaint.
Actually, in the article he only describes hearing screams, and saw nothing himself. In any case, I fail to see how this contradicts anything I said – particularly that it’s ludicrious to blame the scandal on Bush, Rumsfeld, or some secret high-level memos that the soldiers at the prison never saw in their lives.
Oh, and Sam Provance thinks he’s being clever when he deceives us by saying “Rumsfeld was there”. Fortunately, some of us are not so easily duped. Truth is, Rumsfeld did visit the prison (for less than a day), and this was May 2004; i.e. AFTER the scandal had broke.
Sorry, try again.
Rick Taylor
Rohan wrote:
This is a tangential point, but that is actually not true. Hillary Clinton was pounced on by Giuliani and McCain for her questioning of General Petraeus, simply because she expressed skepticism about his conclusions. Giuliani called it character attack, and McCain chided her for thinking she knew more than a general in the field.
Of course I suppose it depends upon what you mean by questioning, but unless that includes being able to express skepticism, it’s kind of silly.
Rick Taylor
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop wrote:
Just to add to my previous post. Here’s a challenge. Can you come up with an example of a sitting President in a press conference or an address to the nation attacking the patriotism of the opposition party? Not doubting their judgement or their conclusions, but their patriotism? That would be comparable to what the President did. I can’t think of a one. The most similar examples are connected to red baiting, but I don’t recall even someone like Nixon stooping to that when he was President.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
See, here’s a problem. You’re not hearing the words that are actually spoken. You’re hearing words you wish had been spoken to make “your side” seem more genteel and the “other side” seem more harsh. But let’s look at the reality of the words that were said.
Bush never (as I pointed out above) said anything about the Democrats “honoring” the military. The word never occurs — please stop misstating it.
Hillary, on the other hand, did not merely “express skepticism” — she said that to believe Petraeus’ words as to what he sees on the ground in Iraq would require a “willful suspension of disbelief.” So we have to conclude that either she’s saying that Petraeus is a) delusional, and thus unfit for command, b) a liar, and thus unfit for command, or c) extremely stupid, and thus unfit for command.
You just can’t spin that as being anything but a horrible insult to a serving General during combat operations. Rudy and McCain weren’t out of line to throw a spotlight on her insult.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Again, you’re hearing the words you wish were spoken. Bush never questioned anyone’s patriotism.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
In order not to offend the Democrats, I guess Bush should’ve just said they had “betrayed us.” Because that language is just great.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Murtha calling the
Duke LacrosseHaditha Marines murderers before they’d been tried seems a timely example. Hillary’s insult of Petraeus is another. The Democratic attempts to withdraw the troops and the funding for the troops qualify as “irritating” to the military, I would say, as they run counter to what the military leaders, in the main, believe ought to be done.But you see, since the other side of the equation Bush spelled out — the Dem leaders who have spoken out against MoveOn — is still ZERO, we needn’t go nuts looking for exaples of the Democrats “irritating” the military. Bush’s statement can’t be dismissed as untrue. Anything is greater than zero.
Andrew
Shorter EEEL: I have missed most of the last 7 years.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
And yes, I’m aware it’s not really an equation, but rather an inequality, but to correct myself would require my fifth post in a row, and I refuse to…
DAMN!!
whippoorwill
Andrew,
I hope your learning you can’t argue with this lying sack of shit and hope and hope to gain anything. Give yourself a break.
Rick Taylor
You’re right. How about this: I’ll stop saying Bush said anything about Democrats not “honoring” the military, and you stop saying MoveOn called Petraeus a traiter. Deal?
We may have to agree to disagree on this one. He said,
It seems like an attack on their patriotism in terms of respect for the military to me. But it hardly matters, I’m over it.
I think we’re never going to see eye to eye if you feel Hillary insulted Petraeus. This is one of the things that bothers me most, as I wrote at length earlier multiple times concerning GIuliani and McCain: the suggestion that expressing skepticism about Petraeus’s report is itself somehow offensive. An unfortunate aspect of MoveOn’s name calling is that it’s hopelessly muddled this point.
I don’t support the language of the MoveOn ad; it was inappropriate. Also, I do hold the President of the United states especially when he’s speaking publicly before the country to a different standard than a private politcal advocacy group.
That’s one of the things that bugs me about this administration, by the way, from his comments at the press conference, to his frequent exclusive meetings with conservative only journalists, I feel he politicizes the office. Of course any President is also the head of their party as well as the leader of the country and there’s going to be some conflict between those two roles, but I feel Bush blurs the boundaries more than any other President I’ve seen in my lifetime, Democratic or Republican.
Rick Taylor
Whoops. Sorry, my mistake; I confused someone else’s posts with yours. You did say MoveOn called him a traitor, but only once, and stopped after it was pointed out that specific language wasn’t used. I’ll keep up my end of the bargain then.
Rick Taylor
Whoops. Sorry, my mistake; I confused someone else’s posts with yours. You did say MoveOn called him a traitor, but only once, and stopped after it was pointed out that specific language wasn’t used. I’ll keep up my end of the bargain then.
Andrew
I ain’t arguing. I’m just translating from EEEL’s stupid into English.
liberal
EEEL wrote,
It’s not a horrible insult; it’s a deserved insult.
Besides, which principle says that military leaders can’t be condemned in times of war? Truman fired one, fer Chrissake.
In fact, in the good old days, during WWII, many upper level officers were cashiered because they were found wanting.
Rick Taylor
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop wrote:
It’s interesting, we’re at a symmetric impasse. I feel Bush’s words were offensive, and you don’t buy it. You feel Hillary Clinton’s words were offensive, and I don’t buy it. It’s probably not worth hashing it out much further but I’ll take one more stab. Petraeus gave a report, some of whose figures were inconsistent, to say the least, with the GAO and other publicly avaialbe figures. As the sources and methods of Petraeus’s figures were not made available, she found them difficult to believe. *shrug* If that’s out of bounds, there’s hardly any point in oversight.
Now if she’d continued and said, “And that leads me to this conclusion, General: that you are more afraid of irritating this administration than you are of misleading the congress and the American people,” then I’d have to say you were correct; that would have been about as offensive as what Bush said.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
You’re just repeating and repeating, ignoring the counter-arguments. I gave you a breakdown of what Bush said and what Hillary said. You ignored both just to repeat your earlier misstatements.
Look — you can either be interested in the truth, or you can be interested in protecting your established sensibilities. I’m quoting the speakers. You’re repeatedly mis-paraphrasing them and ignoring the quotes I post. Be honest with yourself, if you can’t be with me.
Bush didn’t question the Dem’s patriotism. I posted exactly what he said above, and there’s no way a thinking human can stretch it into “He questioned our patriotism!” All of which is the highest irony in the face of the Democrats’ “Betray Us” ad (and if you don’t think MoveOn was accusing Petraeus of treason, who do you think the “us” was that he was “betraying?” The board of MoveOn?).
Likewise, I quoted what Hillary said. I gave you choices a, b, and c as to what Hillary had to have meant by her “willful suspension of disbelief” line. There’s absolutely no way you can read that where it’s not a base insult at a sitting General during combat. You didn’t even try to explain. It’s bordering on intellectual dishonesty, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt because you are the most thoughtful left poster I’ve read here in a long time, and I have appreciated your input, even when I disagree.
And thankfully, so does he.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
You can be as offended as you want to be, there’s just no way you can say it was questioning anyone’s patriotism.
So you are choosing b) she’s saying he’s a liar. But that’s not insulting to Petraeus?
DougJ
For me, this presser marked a new era for me in Bush-watching. It was exactly — exactly — like watching Will Ferrell do a Bush imitation. I laughed the entire time. I’m looking forward to the next one.
DougJ
It’s not a horrible insult; it’s a deserved insult.
Agreed. As I’ve said before, I talk to ex-military people regularly and a friend talks to a retired general regularly. None of them had any problem with it. None. Zero.
Wilfred
You’re a bad actor, Rohan, read the pdf of his sworn testimony. Does he sound like a liar? IIRC, you went to great lengths to say that only a few enlisted men were involved, not anyone else.
Rick Taylor
There have been times I felt you distorted what other people said, or ignored points I’d made. That’s not surprising, two people who have such different views are unlikely to see eye to eye, and we’re both, I assume, doing this in our spare time. I’m not surprised you feel the same way about me. However, I do not believe I have ever at any point in this discussion questioned your interest in the truth, or your motivations for holding your position. I’d appreciate if you’d do the same with me.
No I’m not. She didn’t say a, b or c. She simply said, that as he General’s figures were inconsistent with other publicly available sources, and as the methods and sources for the General’s sources had not been disclosed, (that has changed, they’ve started to disclose more of the methodology behind them since then) she found them difficult to believe. She did not speculate why. She did not insinuate why. There’s no reason she should have given the circumstances. Indeed, there’s no way she could have known, as she didn’t have access to the General’s sources and methods. Now you’ve said that it was legitimate to express skepticism. But unless that includes the ability to express doubts about the truth of someone else’s conclusions, I don’t know what skepticism could mean or how one would do it. How exactly could she have said she doubted the conclusions of General Petraeus’s report in a way you’d consider acceptable?
Rather than trying read Hillary Clinton’s mind, I can give you my own opinion. It is difficult for human beings to be objective. We tend to distort and filter what we see and hear to support our own beliefs. It takes work to do be objective, and we’re not always successful. That’s why in the sciences we have a complex system of submitting articles to journals and of peer review, becauss even brilliant hard working dedicated people will almost always have a tendency to unconsciously fudge the data to support their own conclusions if there are no checks. It’s human nature.
Now General Petraeus is a hard working dedicated idealistic public servant, with a huge task ahead of him. He has a powerful desire to succeed; that’s a prerequisite for having a chance to succeed. And he wants congress to support the mission, and the data he gives them may affect whether he does. Of course it’s going to be difficult for him to be perfectly objective, of course when he sees various ways of reading the same data, he may lean towards those that support the conclusions that if given to congress will help the mission rather than hinder it. It doesn’t mean he’s a liar, it doesn’t mean he’s an idiot, it just means he’s a human being.
This is especially crucial, because the sources and methods he was using were not made subject to public scrutiny. In the sciences, we insist sources and methods always be made public, exactly because without the process of peer review, it’s almost impossible to be objective.
Remember Colin Powell and the presentation he gave to the U.N. before we launched this war? The situation was similar; he was a dedicated respected public servant doing his best to make the case before the U.N., and I’m sure he was doing his best to be objective. Then as now, he was using sources and methods that had been secret, and not open to wider scrutiny. The case he made has been so thoroughly discredited, he now calls it a blot on his record. Does that mean he was delusional, a liar, or stupid? Of course not. Many world opinion makers (most of them not in the US) said they did not believe what he was trying to persuade the U.N. of was true. Does that mean they were calling him stupid, or delusional, or a liar? Of course not.
It’s interesting, you’ve accused me, on occasion justly, of rephrasing what other people have said and so distorting it. But in taking Hillary’s statement, ‘I think the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,’, and to get from that to she’s calling him stupid, delusional or a liar, is putting words in her mouth she never said, nor, I believe, intended.
There, I’ve tried hard to answer your question. Now perhaps you’ll do me the courtesy of answering one or two of mine. Because just as you feel I’ve ignored questions or points you thought were important, I’ve felt the same way. It happens when two people with very different views try to communicate, as what seems crucially important to one probably won’t to the other, and as we’re both probably doing this quickly in our spare time.
So first question. How could Hillary Clinton have said she found it found it difficult to believe the General’s report without, in your view, insulting him? Or if that was not possible, in what sense would she be able to express skepticism about it?
And for the second, I wrote:
Now since you found what Hillary actually said to be a horrible insult, I’d assume you’d consider this to be disrespectful and awful beyond words, completely over the top. Yet I’ve done my best to use the President’s own wording and to fit it to the situation, to have her go beyond expressing doubt about the truth of his conclusions, to maligning his motivation and intentions. So why is the above statement that Hillary never made offensive, while what the President said is not?
Andrew
Imagine what will happen once the enemy discovers that our might military can be defeated by New York Times op-ads (and by showering with known homosexuals).
Xenos
He deserves the insult. So what are going to do, EEEL, cry?
If civilians are unfit to judge military officers, do we still, substantively, live in a republic?
The Disenfranchised Voter
That wasn’t what I thought. I wondered why are there 72 senators who are so fucking childish, immature and down right fucking stupid to waste their god-damn time on condemning an ad that None of them had anything to do with.
That’s what I wondered.
sparky
Now, normally I couldn’t summon up the energy to refute trolling. But really, this thread is just silly. And yes, I know this is a waste of time, but sometimes it’s necessary.
EEEL:
See, here’s a problem. You’re not hearing the words that are actually spoken. You’re hearing words you wish had been spoken to make “your side” seem more genteel and the “other side” seem more harsh. But let’s look at the reality of the words that were said.
Bush never (as I pointed out above) said anything about the Democrats “honoring” the military. The word never occurs—please stop misstating it.
Hillary, on the other hand, did not merely “express skepticism”—she said that to believe Petraeus’ words as to what he sees on the ground in Iraq would require a “willful suspension of disbelief.” So we have to conclude that either she’s saying that Petraeus is a) delusional, and thus unfit for command, b) a liar, and thus unfit for command, or c) extremely stupid, and thus unfit for command.
You just can’t spin that as being anything but a horrible insult to a serving General during combat operations. Rudy and McCain weren’t out of line to throw a spotlight on her insult.
Here’s what Bush said:
“And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org — or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal. It’s one thing to attack me; it’s another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus.”
Let’s look at this language, and EEEL’s statements.
1. Bush is claiming that the Democrats care more about MoveOn than the US Military. Saying that you are more afraid of a political group (and a small one at that) than the US military requires a belief that you value one over the other, i.e., that you accord one more honor than the other.
EEEL’s response: You used the word “honor,” and Bush never used the word “honor,” consequently your point is invalid. Note that EEEL did not attempt to say that this inference was incorrect, or offer an alternative explanatory inference, but only that since the words were not identical the inference was impossible. This is an effective rebuttal stance only if the position is that unless the speaker uttered the literal words, the speaker could not have meant any of the implications suggested by his words. Though it should not need to be said, this idea is, to put it kindly, not in congruence with, well, pretty much any manner of speaking or theory of language. (So let’s call this EEEL rule #1.) Incidentally, if that is the claim, EEEL is then stuck with another problem: what, exactly, is the point of uttering those words?
2. Bush also said “it’s another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus.”
Now, what can this mean? First off, I should note that without inferring something, the statement is, literally, meaningless. Can’t have a comparison without things to compare, after all, and while Bush distinguishes himself from Petraeus, he doesn’t say why, so we have to infer something. So you see that, sadly, we already have to violate EEEL rule #1 above, and infer meaning from the words uttered.
So, what could these words mean? It’s ok to attack a politician but not a military speaker? Regardless of what the speaker says? If Petraeus had said “I think George Bush is a failed president,” would it be ok to criticize him? What about if he said he thought Iran was our friend? He wouldn’t say either of these things, of course. Why? Because he was delivering a report that the White House had produced, as EEEL itself pointed out. So we can narrow it down a bit: It must be improper to criticize him for presenting the White House’s report. But now we have a contradiction, because by Bush’s own statement, it’s ok to criticize him (Bush), and this is his report. So it should be ok to criticize Petraeus, then, as he’s delivering a political report. Unless the claim is that it’s not ok to criticize a soldier. But that can’t be correct either, since soldiers who don’t agree with the White House line are criticized. So we are left with: it’s ok to criticize soldiers who don’t agree with the government, but it’s not ok to criticize soldiers for presenting political statements, so long as they do it in uniform.
It’s difficult to think of a position that turns the notion of civilian control of the military on its head more than this one because it identifies criticism of a political policy as criticism of the armed forces. On the other hand, to the extent it flouts norms of discourse, it is rather congruent with the principle above. Too bad that we had to violate EEEL rule of discourse #1 to get there.
3. Now, on to Ms. Clinton. Here, we come to the fulcrum of EEELville. For, now, because the speaker is not a Republican, it is permissible to infer from her language, and, indeed, EEEL does just that. Apparently feeling somewhat generous, EEEL gives three interpretive options. Now, each interpretive option is itself a conclusion drawn from (inferred(!)) from Clinton’s words. Interestingly, each interpretive option also contains a conclusion. So, no matter what interpretation you choose, the conclusion is the same. First, we must translate Clinton’s remarks into EEEL’s alternatives. Here I would simply observe that this is a much greater leap than the one above regarding “honor,” for the simple reason that Bush explicitly gave MoveOn greater weight “more”; in contrast, out of any number of interpretations, EEEL picks three. (Now, I could observe that three is a useful rhetorical number, but let’s pass over that.) Here is a simple example of why EEEL’s three are not the only three. Lawyers routinely make arguments that require a “willful suspension of disbelief”–it’s called coming up with an alternative explanation. Pretext is another. No one who engaged in either of these practices would be considered unfit for their position for engaging in them. So we see that the selection of these three interpretations–and the second order conclusion–requires a certain willfulness. Now, even after we have jumped through these interpretive hoops and no others, we are left in the dark as to why, exactly, presenting testimony that appears disingenuous on its face to Congress makes one unfit for command. And then, even beyond that, we are also left in the dark as to why, exactly, making a political claim about a political statement should be an insult to a military figure. Perhaps there are reasons why this is so. Perhaps not. Regardless, we are not told what they are, and so they must be inferred (drat!) from the other, earlier inferences. Or perhaps they are just floating around; perhaps there’s an ether of offense. So, as you see, there are many interpretive hoops (nay, an entire infrastructure of inferences) that must be jumped through for EEEL to reach the conclusion it does, for which we can only say, bravo!, for having decided to rejoin the ranks of us ordinary mortals who attempt to glean meaning from a speaker’s words. Here, EEEL has, in fact, outdone itself, as interpreting political criticism as a military insult is a much further leap than the short step between Bush’s remarks and the concept of honor.
So is the lesson clear? If you support the GOP you can imply whatever you like, since you didn’t literally say it. Conversely, any Democrat will be held to a hypothetical conclusion regardless of its plausibility. Don’t forget, your next assignment will be ad hominem sketches.
Jess
Thanks, Sparky! That was an elegant and entertaining performance! I was thinking along the same lines but was too lazy to try to put together an argument on the subject.
The Sanity Inspector
As for hiding behind generals, the opposite of Bush is not Clinton. It’s LBJ.
John Rohan
You might like to know that the NYT’s own public editor now admits the paper improperly charged Moveon.org for the ad. Moveon now says they are going to reimburse the paper (in other words, give back the “in kind” illegal donation to Moveon)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/23/nyt.moveon/index.html
Damn it’s funny when people like you jump the gun way before you have any clue what’s going on.
Have a nice day, Mr. Cole.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Easily. She could’ve said that she’s seen accounts from other sources that contradict Petraeus’ reports, and she’d very much like to reconcile the differing metrics. See, it’s non-judgmental, it doesn’t say “I know the truth from Washington, DC, but you don’t from Iraq,” it doesn’t require insulting the general as a shill or a dupe, it doesn’t require the presumption of disbelief in Petraeus’ report. But that isn’t the style that Democratic primary voters appreciate, is it?
Full marks for trying to squeeze out an analogy between the two statements, but it’s not working. At least you are correctly reading Clinton’s intent here. By changing “irritating” to “misleading,” your quote makes it clear that Hillary is assuming that Petraeus a liar.
Bush is a politician, as are Hillary and the Democratic leadership. Politicians get insulted worse than this on a daily basis (witness the Bush-as-Saddam cover that was largely pooh-poohed as politics-as-usual), and this is the game they play.
Petraeus is a not a Washington pol. He’s a General leading our troops during active combat. If you can’t see the difference between personal attacks on the two, I don’t know what I can tell you.
UPDATE: As I write this, I read that it appears Hillary flip-flopped on Meet the Press yesterday by denouncing MoveOn and noting that Petraeus is “a man of great honor and distinction who has served admirably. I don’t condone anything like [the MoveOn ad], and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don’t believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that.”
I’ve already said that you can get as offended over it as you want, but what you can’t do is claim, as you did, that this is somehow questioning the Democrats’ patriotism (“irritate” =/= treason). I find that claim ridiculous on its face, and about as packed with irony as it gets.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
You spend all that time writing and base your whole screed on drivel like this? As far as inferences go, here’s where you go wrong from the start, and waste a lot of typing energy hereafter. You see, it’s not that one is allowed or not allowed to make inferences. It’s just that the inferences that one makes must be sensible. Walk this way:
What Bush meant was what he said. The Democratic leaders wouldn’t speak out about MoveOn’s ad because they were more afraid to irritate MoveOn than to irritate the military. (Bush assumes that “the military” is at least a little irritated by the Democrats’ tacit support of the Betray Us ad, and I don’t think we can convincingly assume otherwise.)
You replace “afraid to irritate” with “care about.” That’s incredibly naive. It’s not a question of “caring,” it’s a matter of political expediency, and the Dems knowing who they need more during the next election, and who’s going to pull the lever for them to get them the power they want.
If Al Qaeda turned K Street into Fallujah 2004, you bet your ass the Democrats would care about the military more than MoveOn. If they faced a vote where for some reason they had to disband one group or the other, I have full faith they’d vote to 86 MoveOn rather than the military.
But this is primary season, and this is Washington. So the leadership says the General is a liar, he’s cooked the books, there’s no progress, the war is lost, we should defund the war, we need to surrender immediately (all of which are irritating to the military, to put it very mildly)…but not a word against MoveOn’s ad, which even the Times now says should not have been run because of the offensive and insulting nature of the copy.
So, most importantly, what Bush actually said (you know, the sounds that actually came out of his wordhole, without inference or implication) was dead true at the time (Hillary’s cave-in just happened yesterday). There was plenty of irritating the military and no irritating MoveOn. Is it because of fear? Well, I’d say the fear the Democrats have of irritating the military these days is just above nil. The fear they have of MoveOn is that MoveOn claims 3 million members — the hardcore, primary voter kind of members. I’d feel confident making my case that the Dems, at this point, feel demonstrably less fear of irritating the military than they do of irritating 3 million Democratic primary voters.
Why three? Because there are only three. You can’t name another — you would if you could — you obviously like to type — but you can’t. I find that amusing.
Awww, that would’ve been a lot more convincing if you could’ve come up with even one alternate explanation of what Hillary meant. But you couldn’t, because there aren’t any, so your “much further leap” rings hollow, even as far as unsupported assertions go.