Today's pansy ass politicians

[livendive 8]

This article had me laughing, and sadly agreeing. It's a bit too tightly focused on the GOP, but the overall point is spot-on accurate (for politicians from both sides of the aisle).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kschilk 0]

If it were like in medieval times, when the kings and nobles led the charge into battle, things in Washington would probably be a lot different.

[Zenister 0]

thus the difference between a politician and a leader...

very few politicians actually lead anything..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[warpedskydiver 0]

The fact moron.org would even run that ad is nauseating.

The idiots responsible for the ad should know better than to run their mouths about things they are unqualified to speak of.

Of course it is very trendy to belittle our troops.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Too bad Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and GHWB, never served in combat huh?

[n23x 0]

Why?

General Petraeus was asked to generate an objective report on Iraq. The report he produced basically gave Bush BJ's, HJs, and ZJs with little legitimacy to the actual task at hand.

Further, the ad has NOTHING to do with belittling our troops, it belittles a man who himself gave up on the troops by pushing more of them into this pointless war.

heart,
.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[warpedskydiver 0]

Damn, maybe you should track him down, give him the lecture of his lifetime, and straighten him right out.

Then get back to us and tell everyone how it went.

[n23x 0]

No need. Honorable men know when they've been dishonest.

Maybe you can just be his shoulder to cry on.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[kschilk 0]

One of 'em supposedly led a charge, one (if I remember correctly) was a squadron commander but as to whether he actually "led" the attack, I dunno'. At any rate, I'm pretty sure neither was in office at the time.

[billvon 3,120]

> . . .is nauseating.

Are you about to puke? Swoon? Have you been overwhelmed with the moveon.org vapors? Have you become purple with rage? White with shock? This is a very colorful business.

I think this quote from the article is applicable here:

"The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue."

So at least you have that going for you. Which is nice.

[n23x 0]

Bill,

How dare you oppose his appeal to emotion. Don't you know that's the most legitimate of the logical fallacies?

I bet you think people named Muhammad are ok to. What a SOB.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Why?

General Petraeus was asked to generate an objective report on Iraq. The report he produced basically gave Bush BJ's, HJs, and ZJs with little legitimacy to the actual task at hand.

Further, the ad has NOTHING to do with belittling our troops, it belittles a man who himself gave up on the troops by pushing more of them into this pointless war.

heart,
.jim

Well how about that. Another demeaning diatribe that has nothing to do with the actually situation.

Next time, how about a little (just a little) accuracy.

[n23x 0]

It was a reasonable response to a poster who couldn't think of anything better than to say, "how dare you question the troops!"

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[billvon 3,120]

>Of course it is very trendy to belittle our troops.

Indeed. When Limbaugh does it, the right wing applauds. When FOX does it, they nod their heads sagely. When other generals do it, they remain silent, not knowing whether or not the general in question is a liberal or conservative.

But moveon.org puts an opinion in a newspaper? They are outraged! Incensed! Nauseated! Disgusted! that anyone would DARE criticize our troops in time of war!

[1969912 0]

Quote

Why?

General Petraeus was asked to generate an objective report on Iraq. The report he produced basically gave Bush BJ's, HJs, and ZJs with little legitimacy to the actual task at hand.

Further, the ad has NOTHING to do with belittling our troops, it belittles a man who himself gave up on the troops by pushing more of them into this pointless war.

heart,
.jim

Food for thought while analyzing his report/testimony:


BRIEF BIO OF GENERAL PETRAEUS


1974 U.S. Military Academy top 5% of the Class.

1974 509th Airborne Infantry Battalion at Vicenza, Italy.

Assignments to mechanized units, command staffs, and educational institutions.

Assistant operations officer on the staff of the 2nd Brigade, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized) at Fort Stewart, Georgia.

1978-1979 Operations officer to the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized)'s 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment (Mechanized).

1979 Charged Company A, 2nd Battalion, 19th Infantry Regiment (Mechanized).

1983 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College,earned General George C. Marshall Award as the top graduate

1985/1987 Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. MPA and a Ph.D. in international relations.

Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy.

1991 Accidentally shot in the chest during a live-fire exercise. Released from hospital a few days after being shot because he did 50 push-up in front of the doctor.

1991-1993 commanded the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)'s 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment.

1994-1995 Military fellowship at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service. (Complete the fellowship even though he was called away early to duty in Haiti)

1995 Georgetown Fellowship cut short when he was assigned to the United Nations Mission in Haiti Military Staff as its Chief Military Operations Officer during Operation Uphold Democracy.

1995-1997 Commanded the 1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, centered on the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

1997-1999 Executive Assistant to the Director of the Joint Staff and then to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton.

1999 Deployed with the 82nd Airborne Division to Kuwait as part of Operation Desert Spring, the continuous rotation of combat forces through Kuwait during the decade after the Gulf War.

2000 Broke his pelvis doing a hookturn on a civilian jump.

2000-2001 Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg.

2001-2002 Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of Operation Joint Forge. In Bosnia, he was the NATO Stabilization Force Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations.

2003 Commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad.

2004 In charge of training the new Iraqi Army and security forces as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq.

2005-2007 Commanding general of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC) located there. As commander of CAC, Petraeus was responsible for oversight of the Command and General Staff College and seventeen other schools, centers, and training programs.

2007 Denigrated, abused, smeared, ridiculed, mocked, etc. purely for political gain.


Punch Line: What would he do if he were ordered into combat tomorrow? What would he would do if while in combat tomorrow, he were faced with a choice: let and 18 year old soldier die, or lay on a genade to save the kid?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Of course it is very trendy to belittle our troops.

Indeed. When Limbaugh does it, the right wing applauds. When FOX does it, they nod their heads sagely. When other generals do it, they remain silent, not knowing whether or not the general in question is a liberal or conservative.

You know what's funny is that Limbaugh did not belittle the troops. I know that's what got reported but I heard that whole segment.

The gang on the "left" got all butt-hurt because one of their poster children (CPL Jesse so-and-so), who supposedly earned purple heart, was part of one of the Army's Ranger Regiments, etc., and supposedly saw all these atrocities in Iraq, was just sentenced to jail for falsifying a VA benefit record. He was in the Army for 44 days. Never went to RIP, was never in Iraq.

That was the phony soldier Limbaugh was referring to. I'd have to say that he was accurate.

There is nothing phony about General Patraeus.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Of course it is very trendy to belittle our troops.

Indeed. When Limbaugh does it, the right wing applauds. When FOX does it, they nod their heads sagely. When other generals do it, they remain silent, not knowing whether or not the general in question is a liberal or conservative.

It seems like you have a tendancy to use these dishonest, inflammatory stereotypes, potrying conservatives as unthinking, obedient drones.

Such tactics (typically) say more about the speaker than the target.

Quote

But moveon.org puts an opinion in a newspaper? They are outraged! Incensed! Nauseated! Disgusted! that anyone would DARE criticize our troops in time of war!

You seem to exhibit the "toe the party line" (and completely miss the other guy's POV) mentality.

Irony?

Hypocrisy?

Both?

Who knows????

[billvon 3,120]

> Limbaugh did not belittle the troops. I know that's what got reported but I
> heard that whole segment.

He did indeed. Specifically he called the soldiers who had their letter published in the New York Times "phony soldiers." Transcript:

-----------------
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
-------------------

Pretty clear.

Of course, the MoveOn.org ad use the term "betray" - surely Rush would never apply such a derogatory term that to a US soldier or vet!

From the Limbaugh show Jan 24th:

"By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

Looks like Rush thought of it first.

[billvon 3,120]

Now that you have your morning attack out of the way, do you have anything to say about the subject at hand?

It's quite funny to watch either side do this. They will become outraged over, well, nearly anything - a sexual abuse case, a fraud charge, a slur against the troops, a sexual indiscretion - and play it for all it's worth. Outrage! Nausea! Horrors! Crocodile tears for the sad state of modern politics!

Then, of course, it's revealed that "their side" did the same thing. At which time the crocodile tears stop and they hope it quietly goes away. This is about the 471st time it's happened, although with the additional resources available via the net, such gaffes are discovered a lot more quickly nowadays.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

> Limbaugh did not belittle the troops. I know that's what got reported but I
> heard that whole segment.

He did indeed. Specifically he called the soldiers who had their letter published in the New York Times "phony soldiers." Transcript:

-----------------
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
-------------------

Pretty clear.

Bill, I heard the segment while it unfolded live on the air. You omitted about another 3 minutes following your little clip there. On top of that, you still took that piece and turned it around in context.

It wasn't just moveon.org that was wrapped up about this, but plenty of legislators tried to cash in on this too.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>On top of that, you still took that piece and turned it around in context.

I think it's a little late for the "he really didn't mean that" angle. He's said similar things in the past, so it's not out of character for him. Even the administration has commented that what Limbaugh said was inappropriate.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>On top of that, you still took that piece and turned it around in context.

I think it's a little late for the "he really didn't mean that" angle. He's said similar things in the past, so it's not out of character for him. Even the administration has commented that what Limbaugh said was inappropriate.

*grumble* that's because he has been completely misquoted in the press... *sigh*

It's not a matter of being "late" trying to explain anything. Limbaugh has been outright misquoted in the mainstream media.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,120]

>that's because he has been completely misquoted in the press...

As they have posted exactly what he said, that's difficult to believe. And as the transcript is readily available, it's not like it's hard to see what he meant.

One of the problems that people like Limbaugh have nowadays is that it's sort of hard to claim "I didn't say that" or "I really meant something completely different." Their words are online in black and white, and they can't just erase the tapes any more.

Let's look at another attack he made against US troops:

============
LIMBAUGH: . . combine that with another liberal hiding behind a miltary uniform.

CALLER: It appears he goes to Iraq to pad the resume, come back and run as a big supporter of the war . .whatever. OK, call him a staff puke if that's what you want, but civilian affairs . . .

LIMBAUGH: Staff puke.

CALLER: Bottom line he's running a fraudulent, deceptive campaign.

LIMBAUGH: Paul Hackett is trying to hide his liberalism behind a military uniform. Max Cleland was running out there campaigning . . Cleland's uniform didn't help him in his re-election, either - trying to hide his liberalism behind a military uniform.
===============

So he has a pattern of doing this as well.

Now, there's nothing wrong with Limbaugh attacking the troops. They're people. They can be good and bad. Perhaps Hackett really WAS trying to pad his resume instead of serving his country. Perhaps the soldiers who wrote that letter ARE "phony" or whatever. That's fine. He has a talk show; he can say whatever he wants.

But the right will never, ever admit that he has made any of these attacks. because it would take away their favorite source of phony outrage - the disgust, nausea and horror they claim to feel when someone "attacks the troops." They can't admit they do it too, because they look like hypocrites if they do. And neither side can have that!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

But the right will never, ever admit that he has made any of these attacks. because it would take away their favorite source of phony outrage - the disgust, nausea and horror they claim to feel when someone "attacks the troops." They can't admit they do it too, because they look like hypocrites if they do. And neither side can have that!

You know Bill you give me flack about my "morning attack", but the reality of the situation is your posts about "the right" frequently contain myopic, dishonest bigotry.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

>On top of that, you still took that piece and turned it around in context.

I think it's a little late for the "he really didn't mean that" angle. He's said similar things in the past, so it's not out of character for him. Even the administration has commented that what Limbaugh said was inappropriate.

*grumble* that's because he has been completely misquoted in the press... *sigh*

It's not a matter of being "late" trying to explain anything. Limbaugh has been outright misquoted in the mainstream media.

Maybe Bill just needs to visit Rush's Web site or listen to his program or maybe even give him a call for the facts. Most reporters seem to do none of the above but take two words from a ongoing radio show conversation and try do distroy Limbaugh's reputation.

The Dems as of yet have not entered any resolution condeming Rush and the Drive by Media is back in their convertables speeding away from this story that was getting no traction.

Rush by a majority is very well appreciated by the Military and their families for his unwavering support.