General Betray-Us?

Remove all ads!

I couldn't help pondering about Petreaus and the fuss being made about his report when I went to work on the tram this morning. A few points on that that came to my mind:

• I agree with Chuck Hagel that Bush committed a dirty trick by sending out Petraeus to do a politician's job - defending administration policies.
• That is dastardly because the Bushies will inevitably denounce all criticism on Bush's moronic surge as criticism on the glorious military. Cheap shot. And inevitably the opposition falls for it, if 'General Betray-Us' is indication. Yay.
• One thing to remember: Petraeus is a soldier who follows orders from the commander in chief (read: Bush), a high ranking soldier, but nevertheless a soldier.
• That apparently escaped Keith Olberman when he fulminated about the good generals report, which is a pity. Olberman could do better.
• Anyone who thinks that the US general officers will disobey Bush only because he's an idiot should put away his bong.
• The so-called surge ought to be called by it's correct name, which is 'Kagan Plan'. Petraeus was ordered to put it into action. The 'Petraeus report' ought to be called 'Report on the progress of the Kagan Plan'.

yours ever grumpy,
Ragusa

 

Feeling better now, Rags?

 

As it happens, I have been in an outright brilliant mood for the duration of the entire day. Sunshine does that, it appears.

 

Move to California, then.

You'll be a much happier lad.

 

As a followup to the "General Betray-Us" tagline (copyright www.moveon.org)

Of course the left isn't happy that some of the Demorcrats voted for it.

 

Does this resolution have some legal significance or is it just to express disapproval? If the latter, then I consider it more a political gesture by the cenators who voted for it.

 

Purely political. The significance is that 25 Democrats ignored the radical left in the vote.

 

OTOH, I can't help but think those who did vote just wanted to beat their chests on some issue. Mind you, I don't know how radical left moveon is. Perhaps it's because I'm accustomed to another political system, but I consider most US democrats to be around the center, with a lot of empty space to their left.

 

Yes, it appears that the "left" is the guardian of free speech in America these dark days.

 

That's pretty funny, Chandos. They'll be guardians of free speech until someone attacks one of their sacred cows.

 

I also find this post odd. If anything the left is the exact opposite and tries to suppress any and all speech that they dont' agree with.

 

Honestly, what makes you believe that?

 

Most people think that the Republicans have a lock on repressing free speech and expression -- and they cite bills like the wiretapping one to support their assertion. And they're right -- that wiretapping business is a little scary and smacks of attempts to silence lese majeste against King George. That said . . .

There are plenty of cases where the Left quite cheerfully seeks to silence any dissenting opinions. Go onto some college campuses and write an essay stating that perhaps feminism isn't the best line of thought for women to follow. You'll get called in front of the Dean and reamed over the coals for "promoting hate". Try expressing is certain forums that it is your peaceful yet heartfelt belief that homosexual acts are immoral and see how fast you get arrested for "promoting violence against a discernible group", despite the fact you NEVER mentioned violence at all.

I understand some groups are rightfully touchy on certain subjects, but that doesn't mean everyone must be muzzled who does not agree with the current popular position on a particular subject. In this matter as in so many others, both extremes of the political spectrum are guilty of some gross abuses of authority against those who dare to speak out against the status quo.

 

As for free speech: IMO the left claims too much credit in this; there also is the libertarian right. You see guys like Bob Barr cooperate with the ACLU on privacy issues (read: against domestic spying) these days, no matter what other differences they have.

One word for such behaviour: Sensible. It again sets precedence for talking about the issues, on the issue.

As for Petraeus, no matter wether he's a capable officer (everything suggests that), what I dislike about him is him being a political animal. He might well be president one day. And he cartainly knows that. Smart guy. A GOP sleeper candidate?

Functionally, he is roaming DC, telling everybody how great success in areas like Anbar is, distracting from all the inconvenient questions like price tag, accountability for failure, whether this war is based on a sound sustainable strategy and so forth. He allows Bush to dodge the issues of the Iraq war.

Admiral Fallon's colported remark that Petraeus is 'a chicken****' suggests that he is not only in CENTCOMs chain of command but in the White Houses, and for Fallon's taste far too accomodating. Interesting.

 

I've noticed that the "left" tends to shut down serious debate by denouncing those who disagree with them as "racist" or "filled with hate" or whatever. So, for example, since I am against illegal immigration I am branded a racist, hence my arguments are irrelevant. The clever use of such emotional epithets as "racist" effectively end the debate and are an impediment to free speech and exchange of ideas. What's more, the epithets are usually inaccurate. But hey, a little disingenuousness never hurt anyone, especially if it gets some of those fence sitters to come to your side.

Before you start quoting Ann Coulter, I'm not saying that those on the "right" are blameless, for they have their own tactics. I'm saying that perceiving the "left" as stalwart defenders of free speech is not exactly accurate.

EDIT - It appears that LKD beat me to the punch on this.

 

@ LKD,

Of course I agree that both sides do it. My problem comes when people one side accuse the other of the monopoly on shouting down and silencing those who disagree with them. It's total echo-chamber mentality. The tide varies depending on the current political temperature, but both sides do it more than the other at varying times, and the ones who've been doing the most shouting and attempted silencing recently, particularly since 9/11, are overwhelmingly on the right.

So when you say...

...I'd agree that sucks (though it depends on the campus). Then I'd say: try to suggest to someone with a W'04 sticker on their car that you believe that maybe we should re-evaluate our foreign policy practices a bit and try to combat the reasons why people become terrorists in the first place, rather than attacking Middle-Eastern countries who aren't a threat to us and didn't attack us. See what kind of response you get. Better yet - say it on stage at a rodeo in Texas and try to escape without getting your ass kicked and your car keyed.

Think back to the months after 9/11. Lisa Ling, host of the popular talk show "the View," suggested on air that it was her belief that though we of course didn't deserve the 9/11 attacks, that maybe the US might want to take a good look at our foreign policy to try to figure out why other countries might hate us so much; perhaps we can avoid such strife in the future. The right - and by the right I don't mean all conservatives, but I do mean the pundits, Fox News, talk radio, websites like Free Republic and RedState.org and thousands of angry letter writers - just about had a conniption. They demanded Ling be fired. Then Bill Maher, on his show 'Politcally Incorrect,' agreeing with conservative Dinesh D'Sousa, "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly. Stupid maybe, but not cowardly." The conservative fury was so hot, they kept the pressure on show's advertisers until ABC canceled the show. Defenders of free speech and polite disagreement, conservatives ain't either.

Those are just two high-profile examples I can think of straight away. I don't need to mention the thousands upon thousands of times anyone who dared question the President, the war rationale, or the actual war policy were called traitors or worse, or had their patriotism questioned, or were (and still are, regularly) accused of "providing aid and comfort to the enemy" by top conservative pundits like Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, and even politicians like Rudy Giuliani, to which they were all lauded and praised by so-called "real conservatives." Some of the very people, I might add, who are throwing the biggest tizzies right now because MoveOn did the same thing to General Petreas.

I'd find the hypocrisy funny in less turbulent times, but now it just gives me a headache. The left has to own MoveOn, and believe it or not, most people on the left are pissed at them for this. Not so much for what they said (because let's be honest, it was as lame as it was tame) but because the whole kerfluffle has just created another distraction and excuse for conservatives to avoid dealing with their failed policy. I can't stand MoveOn personally and would never send them a cent. But the right should quit whining and reign in their morons, too, because they've said a lot worse and received a tenth of the sh*t for it. Both sides' loudmouths do us all an immense disservice.

edit - @ Dins,

I agree. Your point about the immigration debate is a great one. The right does exactly the same thing right now vis a vis war policy. We get called traitors and moonbats and, my personal favorite, the ever-moronic "defeatocrats" for trying to bring our troops home from what we see as a futile quagmire that is actually accomplishing the exact opposite of its stated goal. Infuriating, isn't it?

[ September 21, 2007, 21:34: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

That comment was as predictable as it was anticipated. I knew that it would be a little difficult to grasp that the point is that it is the govenment that is attempting to stifle free speech. As a body of government they passed a resoluton condemning a citizen's right to comment on an important issue. You may find my comment odd, and not this:

Recognize this, maybe? While it is not a law it is a blatant attempt by the govenment to abridge the right of free speech. As a citizen, you are empowered to make whatever comments you wish: You can even call whomever you wish a "moonbat" or whatever is popular and fashionable with the conservative AM radio demagogues these days. No one, I repeat, no one should be exempt. Not even a general (gasp). And especially a political figure who is an obvious minion of GWB. Even our govenment should be able to figure that out.

But let's moveon to brighter things (sorry, could not resist). This appeared today as a result of our boneheaded Congress:

I guess there are some Americans who still respect and value the Constitution - even if they are moonbats. We owe Congress a big "thank you" for helping promote Moveon.

 

Hogwash. The resolution had nothing to do with free speech. If anything it had to do with slander. Nowhere in the resolution did it attempt to restrict the free speech of anyone. You are reading far too much into this one, I'm afraid.

As to Moveon.org getting a couple of bucks in donations and even a letter from Iraq. I'm happy for them. The more power and control the far left exerts on the Democrats the happier I get. It is almost like gift wrapping the election to the Republicans in 2008.

 

Slander? What was the word I'm searching for? "Hogwash!" As for your comments regarding the Democrats, I'm glad to hear what you really think of them after you made this "startling" comment:

 

Anyone who thinks 'political correctness' is a trait of the left hasn't been paying attention.

Anyone remember the conservative commentator who suggested last year that maybe stuff like mandatory child safety locks on guns wouldn't be so bad?

Went from millions of dollars in contracts to nothing, overnight.

PC is an American trait, full stop.