lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Move Over, Move On: The Nation adds Bush to Traitor List

2007-09-10
By

John Nichols, who accused General David Petraeus of betraying the truth and the troops on Friday, today expanded his feral accusations and even added the Bush administration to his fantasy Benedict Arnold list.

Blogging for The Nation on today’s House Iraq hearings, Nichols refers to them as “efforts by the White House to cloak administration spin in a military uniform” and Petraeus himself as “statistically-pliable.” He then makes the bizarrely bogus assessment that last week’s Government Accountability Office report,

“detailed how the general and his aides are using doctored data to create the false impression that sectarian violence is declining as a result of the surge.”

I guess such fancy is to be expected from a man who found today’s outrageously obstructive opening remarks by House Armed Services Committee chair Ike Skelton and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos “refreshing.” The former had called Petraeus the right person for the war in Iraq, but three years too late. The latter attempted to bully the General by declaring his mission a failure before he ever got to open his four star mouth.

But it was Duncan Hunter’s reaction to the Dem’s verbal ambush — pointing out that the hearings were not intended to “discredit General Petraeus before he takes the stand” – that incited the loony liberal to wildly accuse our Commander-In-Chief of sedition:

“As it happened, Petraeus discredited himself before he took the stand. The general’s repetition of spun statistics and fantastical assessments merely confirmed the fact of his misplaced loyalty to an administration that has betrayed the troops commanded by Petraeus.”

If the Nation’s intent was to out-outrage Moveon.org ‘s slanderous depictions of a great general today, I’d say the two should share the booby prize. But they’ll also share the all but certain opprobrium their reprehensible words must one day bring.

Betrayal — For a group that has worked so relentlessly toward this country’s surrender to its enemies, liberals sure bandy the word about with great abandon.

Don’t they?

4 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • ebjjs

    Snoot:

    I believe you are avoiding giving the answers needed. How do we get out? What are the solutions to the problems of the middle east, particularly Iran? Do we bend to the demands of the Mullah’s and their theocratic idiocy? Do we accommodate our Saudi “friends”? Do we abandon the brave Iraqi’s who swam with us? Do we set Sunni against Shia? Arab against Persian? Christian against Palestinian? Your answer seems to be American against American. Where does it end? Tell me again Snoot, what is the answer?

  • snootfish

    Well, no one has accused me of being neo stalinist before.

    There is no connection between Iraq and any recent terrorism. The closest thing is some terrorists visited there. Well, terrorists visit here also.

    You cannot just use magic words like “terror” and justify things. I have heard nothing justifying the death, injuries and money expended.

    If there is some real justification, like some strategic plan for the middle east, we certainly aren’t admitting it. The reasons set forth don’t hold water.

    I have been in the military (just a few years). I have voted for every significant party (republican, democrat, and libertarian). Characterizing and labeling me and insulting me doesn’t prove anything.

    Most recently, I have read a 430 page analysis of the war by a very respected Pulitzer Prize winning author (Thome E. Ricks) who discussed the war in great detail mainly from interviews with those who fought it thus although I am no expert I probably have more knowledge than most.

    This “if you oppose the war” you are neo stalinist is really childish argument.

    It is also fallacious to argue that the war is good just because I don’t have all the answers. The war is bad whether I have all the answers are not.

    Money is wasted. People are dead and injured. Property is destroyed. What good has resulted? I see none. I think our prestige as a country has been greatly harmed and we are at greater risk. Before this started, we were invincible in many minds. Now, we are far from that. Power must be carefully used or it is lost. I don’t think this was a careful use of power. I think it was a waste of power.

    As for 911, it was a massive crime. There have always been crimes including massive ones. There have always been extremely bad things that have happened including pirate attacks, indian attacks or whatever.

    You don’t eviscerate civil liberties over a crime even if it is a major crime.

    This whole experience has been very bad for this country.

  • S Baker

    No war a republican is involved in is ever justified in the eyes of the Rat party and the terrorist sympathizers in this case. Only when the Rat party is in power are wars justified. Recall their support for killing Christians in the Balkans to make the place safe for Muslim terrorists. Naturally, this was a convenient diversion at this time from Bubba’s sexual predation of a child-like intern in the oval office.

    Do we still have troops in the Balkans, Korea, and Germany? Seems the Rat party wars never end.

  • ebjjs

    Snoot, you and your Neo-Stalinist cohorts at MoveOn and other such blogs have about as much grasp on the middle east and it’s importance as Bill Clinton did.

    How many more or what kind of terrorist act will it take to convince you that this is not a “negotiable” situation? Perhaps your are one of those Amerika is the root of all the ills of the world mindset or perhaps you would be happy with our total capitulation to any and all demands from every tin-horn despot or Arab sheik?

    Then again I think your primary objective is the total subjugation of every American to the idiocy and the idiots whose only platform is that we are the root of all evil and your ilk have the only solution.

    Please take a few moments of your time to tell us the solutions to the terrorism and other problems in the middle east. Please give concrete suggestions not more hot air about the problems “we” have caused. I’ve yet to hear from anyone of your mindset, with the exception of Harry Reid’s white flag idea on how to settle the problem.

  • snootfish

    The emporer has no clothes.

    Iraq was no threat to this country. It had lost its power and dignity. It had no control over its air space. It literally was submitting to searches of its presidential palaces (imagine if Iraq was inspecting the White House and Camp David?). The war was started based on false rationales (e.g. WMD, security threat, etc.).

    It war has been prosecuted in a way almost guaranteed to generate mass uprisings (humiliation of the populations and mass destruction of homes, lives, etc.).

    Congressed failed in its duties for years. It provided no oversight at all. It is a good thing for Congress to wake up a little.

    This may be a great general but he is fighting a bad war and Congress should examine what is going on. I did not see the hearings but I hope what it is doing is real The problems in Iraq are not this General’s fault but he is part of what is going on and therefore he should be subject to intense examination.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search