Monday, September 10, 2007

General Betray us?!

The true colors of the far Left shined brightly today with a full-page ad in the New York times, published by MoveOn.Org, asking “General Petraeus or General Betray us?

Its one thing to disagree with foreign policy, but to launch a full-page personal attack on a man who has spent his distinguished career serving this country—and for MoveOn to do so before they had even heard what Dr. Petraeus had to say--is not only despicable, it is anti-American.

Democratic Senators Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had also smeared Petraeus before hand saying essentially that the White House was pulling his strings. It is worth noting, therefore, that General Petraeus said today that his report was entirely his own and that it was not reviewed by anyone in the Administration, the Pentagon or the Congress.

If Pelosi and Reid have evidence to the contrary, now is the time to produce it and call Petraeus a liar to his face, otherwise, in my opinion, they are really not a whole lot better than MoveOn.

10 comments:

John said...

Several leading Democrats have denounced the ad. I can't help but wonder, though, why didn't the right protest so loudly when the Bush campaign smeared the service of distinguished veterans in 2000 and 2004 (McCain and Kerry)?

Dennis said...

John, I don't recall the smears against McCain but it seems to me that evidence was presented to the effect that Kerry's military career was not exactly what he presented it to be.

If Petraeus was doctoring the facts, the hearings were a great place for Democrats to bring that to light. But for people on the Left to smear Petraeus' reputation in an effort to discredit his facts, and to do so even before he had even given his report is pretty low.

Robert said...

FYI - it wasn't the "Bush Campaign" John. It was a 527 which the Democrats are just as fond of using.

John said...

Dennis, I was a big McCain supporter in 2000, so I remember it well. The primary smear against McCain relating to his military service was that he was a little crazy from the 5 years he spent as a POW (or maybe even a manchurian candidate). Other claims about McCain included: he fathered an "illigitimate black child" (the child in question was, in fact, adopted by McCain and his wife from Mother Theresa's orphanage); his wife abused drugs; he either cheated on his wife and/or was gay.

As for Kerry, there are many web sites you can find debunking the claims made about him, if you care to actually know the truth (this link will get you started). If I remember correctly, you're a veteran yourself - it's a shame you would buy into these smears made about others who served so honorably. What happened to the days when we could at least treat each other with respect when we disagreed?

Robert, you're correct that many of these claims were made by 527s (either that or push polling), and that both parties use such groups. But the claims made by some 527s on the right in 2000 and 2004 were especially malicious and personal. As for them not being part of the Bush campaign...well, you seem to be a smart guy, Robert, so I'm sure you're not so naive that you can't figure out how that works.

Robert said...

How was it any more malicious and personal than Bush's October surprise of a drunk driving arrest from some years prior (the tacet implication he was a drunkard)? Or perhaps the faked AWOL document that Dan Rather insisted was real until it was conclusively proven to be a fraud?

George Soros' attack ads on the radio basically questioned everything about Bush's integrity. You've had Democrats directly call Bush a liar, compared him to Hitler, and suggested he was making Nazi style secret police.

I can't flip on the TV without seeing some lunatic fringe leftist group making some outrageous claim about Cheney or Bush. It's been non-stop since Bush's nomination in 1999. Complaining that Kerry got smeared in a race for the presidency seems to be par for the course.

When you lay down with the dogs, don't be surprised when you get fleas. That's pretty much a given for Politics at the national level. Suggesting that Republicans are some how more vicious is not only demonstrably incorrect, it takes a willing suspension of disbelief.

John said...

Robert, many of the things you mentioned have been said by individuals, not 527s, campaigns, politicians, or other large groups. But OK, maybe it's more accurate to say that many on the right have been more efficient at being sleaze-balls.

Just curious: have you ever thought something done by someone on the right was wrong, or something someone on the left did was right? I'm starting to see why you're a conservative.

Dennis said...

John asked, "Just curious: have you ever thought something done by someone on the right was wrong, or something someone on the left did was right?"

I'm not sure if you addressed that specifically to Robert or to me as well. You've read Recliner Commentaries long enough to know that I have, on numerous occasions, criticized the actions of people on the Right and have occasionally even commended the actions of people on the Left.

Thank you for your link to the LATimes article. I needed a good laugh tonight.

The article said, "Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences."

Isn't that almost a defination of conservative and liberal? Conservatives tend to want things to stay the same while liberals want to experiment with every new fad that comes down the pike. The Times statement is a bit like saying, "Previous studies have shown that Muslims tend to honor Muhammad while Christians tend to honor Jesus!"

And about this study. What was the size of the population tested? How were they chosen? Was the selection truly random? Were these people politically conservative and politically liberal or religously conservative and religiously liberal?(It is entirely possible to be religously conservative and politically liberal and vice versa). Did the study consider other possible factors in the outcomes? For example could local cultural factors be involved. Did the study include people from various ethnic and geographical backgrounds? And finally....so the anterior cingulate cortex shows more activity in liberals when a W shows up. Sounds to me like that could be interpreted in a number of differnt ways--not just the spin the LATIMES put on it. Since this is the conflict area of the brain maybe it shows that conservatives have no problem dealing with structure and rules whereas rules tend to cause liberals angst.

OK, I'm being a little silly---but so was the article.

Robert said...

John,

I guess I'll have to just disagree with you. I think the liberal slime bags on the left have really outdone themselves these last eight years with MoveOn.Org and DailyKos taking point on sleazy efficiency. But, you're free to agree with me... or not.

I do find it amusing though how leftists will go through back flips to prove how open minded they are when they're some of the most judgmental and least accepting people that I know of. If you don’t agree with their opinions on immigration or affirmative action, you’re a racist. Don’t agree with same sex marriage, you’re homophobe. If you don’t agree with sexual promiscuity you’re a puritanical religious nut. If you believe in personal protection and the second amendment, you’re a hillbilly gun nut. If you’re a conservative, you can’t possibly be as smart as a liberal (or as open to new ideas or concepts). If one doesn’t agree with government aid for everything under the sun, you’re insensitive and want people living in the streets. If you don’t agree with abortion, you want control of a woman’s uterus.

With all due respect John, your post linking to that article (directed at me no less) was essentially a method of flinging an insult without coming right out and saying it. I guess my inability to comprehend such diverse thought processes of the leftist mind really clouded my ability to get your point. That being said, it seems that you’re busy getting angry with me for failing to agree with you that current batch of Republicans are bigger slime bags than the current batch of Democrats.

Fact is, there is little redeeming value in either party right now. The sole reason I support any Republicans at the national level is because at this point, they’re not yet quite as bad as the Democrats and there are still some pro-life Republicans left. Other than that they’re big government, right’s removers. They’re just a different shade of totalitarian than the Democrats (Democrat-light if you will).

Doc -

I disagree with your assessment of "conservatism." 200 years ago, thoughts of personal liberty, personal responsibility, and non-governmental interference was liberalism. Classic liberalism if you will. It was a hugely important idea that was different from everything else on the planet. Today's leftist activities smack more of communist or totalitarianism than anything else. I would say that today’s Republicans fail to exemplify those ideals in almost every way possible. Bush has been yet another bitter failure for core conservatives (much like his father). While it may cause the leftists fits, Bush has really been a moderate. Moderates are neither hot nor cold and cause most people to spit them out. The immigration debate is truly revealing about the current batch of people in Congress.

Dennis said...

Wow, Robert, that's an excellent assessment of Left wing "tolerance." Really! With you're permission I'd like to consider posting that paragarah on the front page.

I doubt that we really disagree on "conservativism" as much as you seem to think. The problem is that--as you yourself pointed out--words and labels tend to change meanings over time. What passes for "liberal" today is nothing like the liberalism of Democrats in the past.

Websters dictionary says conservative is, "philosophy that advocates preservation of the established order and views proposals for change critically and usually with distrust"

Liberalism....old and new...tends to be much more open to change. Change can be good but sometimes it is devastating (as in the liberal drug and sexual revolution of the 60's).

I absolutely agree with you that "Today's leftist activities smack more of communist or totalitarianism than anything else."

John said...

Robert, I'm not mad at you, and I didn't post that link to insult you. The article points out that there are advantages to both tendencies, and I agree - I just thought it was interesting. I'm truly sorry if you took it that way. Even though we don't agree on much, I respect your thoughtful opinions and try to show that respect. I'm sorry if I acted otherwise. As a gesture of goodwill, I'll let you have the last word on this topic as well. (Except to say that one could make a similar list about the right. :)

Hope you both have a good weekend.