September 09, 2007
A Not So Subtle Statement

On the heels of Robert Jamieson recognizing the vitriol of the left isn't helping their cause (discussed by Jim Miller here), MoveOn.org is making the point in spades.

Let's stipulate that calling General Petraeus a traitor may not be the best tactic, especially when the American public is more apt to listen to military leaders than elected officials at this point. Regardless of that last point, the disgusting tone of the MoveOn attack speaks for itself and the movement in which it plays so prominent a role.

Policy debates are one thing. Pointed rhetorical sparring is another. Both are expected and often welcomed. But gratuitous attacks against uniformed members of the military serving honorably are not a path to winning the hearts and minds of the American people.

UPDATE: seems Goldy is moving in the MoveOn direction:

7PM: Is Gen. Petraeus "dead flat wrong"...? Gen. Petraeus will testify before Congress tomorrow, and dollars to donuts he'll tell America that progress is being made on the ground in Iraq, the "Surge" is working, and that he expects troop levels to start coming down next spring. I've already lost faith in President Bush's newest military scapegoat... have you?

Why does having a policy disagreement with someone mean you have to lose faith in them? I don't personally agree with Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell much but I don't have any lack of faith they're performing their duties as public officials respectably. Amazing.

UPDATE II: spelling of Jamieson's name fixed.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 09, 2007 10:33 PM | Email This
Comments
1. There is no rational debate on the left. And especially not at MoveOn.org, DailyKos, HorsesAss, etc.

There are plenty of respectable opinions on how we got in to a war on Iraq, how we should get out of a war with Iraq, and how best to deal with a growing number of countries embracing the fanatical elements of Islam. But any rational debate is going to happen on the right.

The left wants everything to degrade. And even if it is not degrading, they will spin it that way anyway. The ideas of the left do not favor individuals, and they don't favor success. Everything is based on the negatives. Politics are framed as either guilt or envy. There's catastrophic climate doom. No one has healthcare. Every coal mine caves in with a disaster. It just goes on and on.

The left lives the broken record of "if it bleeds it leads" from their broken record mouthpieces in the Media that have helped create a lens through which all is viewed.

And it has become a badge of honor on the left to repeat the talking points, regardless. Even if Petraeus showed up at KIRO to respond to Goldy with video and factual first hand accounts, he still wouldn't be believed, because the left doesn't want to hear anything that's not according to their meme.

Yes, it's amazing. Amazing cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 9, 2007 11:11 PM
2. I haven't seen the moveon ad, so I can't defend it. But you quote them as saying he betrayed us, not that he's a traitor. That's consistent with his history of making over-optimistic statements to please his bosses. He may be a decent man, just as Colin Powell is, but when the crunch came, they played along and share responsibility for the deaths of 4,000 brave American soldiers, injuries to many times that number, a waste of $1 trillion of our childrens' money, and the loss of the world's goodwill toward our country which makes our other foreign policy challenges harder. I certainly feel betrayed by them.

Posted by: Bruce on September 9, 2007 11:18 PM
3. Well, Bruce, when the terrorist nukes are pointed at Seattle, I guess that means you won't be asking for their help, huh?

Posted by: katomar on September 9, 2007 11:23 PM
4. It is very common for people to make alliances based on principle. If you don't agree with me on immigration, abortion, gun rights, then I dub thee Wrong or worse.

However, most of those issues are purely philosophical, and some of the others (like immigration) largely so. You can argue facts all day long, but at the end of the day I believe that we are obliged to follow the rule of law, to protect the unborn, and to allow the populace to be armed.

But Iraq is not that. There is almost nothing philosophical or static about whether progress is being made or the surge is working, and there's very little objective truth to either question. There are facts that can be interpreted.

Yet MoveOn and Goldy and others treat this like it is a philosophical issue, like you have to hold a certain position, regardless of any facts, in order to be on the Right side. Hence, when Rep. Baird changed his mind due to changes in circumstances, he was dubbed a Tratior to the Cause.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "reality-based" community, my ass.

That's not to say that they are wrong. Maybe the surge isn't working. But what's clearly true is that if it was, they would say it wasn't.

Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2007 12:21 AM
5. Earth to Eric -

MoveOn didn't use the word traitor. The Weekly Standard did. (what a surprise) You're just serving as a parrot.

MoveOn Ad = betrayed
Eric Earling & Weekly Standard translation = traitor

Unfortunately, over the last 6 years, intelligent policy discussion has become a faint memory, in exchange for the far right calling anyone who questions the president a traitor.

As I recall, the military is supposed to be run by a civilian, namely the President. He's not doing his job.

With that said, I agree there is very little rational debate from the hard left..... or the hard right. It's like a big political train wreck.

Posted by: Richard Borkowski on September 10, 2007 07:02 AM
6. I will add a a little to what pudge is saying in that the left is totally invested in the idea that nothing in Iraq is good. They are married to the position that we were deliberately mis-led into Iraq and that America's involvement there is the CAUSE of the radical Muslim hate of our country and that everything we have done there, are doing there and intend to do there is for the purpose of imperialism and the destruction of all Muslimhood.

With that in mind it IS a betrayal of the left's ideals when anyone even suggests that there is a positive result in Iraq or that something good has happened, is happening or will happen due to our efforts in that country. No news can be good in Iraq because the whole underlying premise for Iraq is evil.

Now, if you understand that mindset, you can then understand the subsequent attacks on Patraeus, Baird, Hillary, etc.

For someone like Goldy, who has never been to Iraq to confidently state that the person who had the trust of the entire congress must be lying to help the president is the ultimate in hubris. When a critic of the war actually goes and looks for himself and changes his minds after seeing facts he did not have before, he must be a traitor to the cause.

And it is true. The cause is NOT the welfare of the Iraqi people, or status of the war declared upon us by radical Muslims. The cause is the destruction of the the right.

The left hates this war, hated it from the start and hate it even more now, and the ONLY answer for them is the immediate removal of all American troops. Period. Any other course of action is simply unacceptable.

I can understand the logical premise that the war was a mistake in that we misunderstood the after-effects of our toppling of Saddam, but I do not agree that our only response to that "mistake" would be to to leave immediately. Those who do advocate that are not interested in facts or truth or the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Posted by: Eyago on September 10, 2007 07:19 AM
7. Can't we ALL just stop the spin?

The real issue is clear. Iraq is a mess. Forget blame and forget cedit for who was right. We need to move on .. in the correct sense.

The General is under military discipline. The only way any soldier can be completely honest is by resigning. We ahev all seen this before with this general's wn previous testimony and with the sad testimony of Colin Powell. The same things happened in 'nam.

Move On is wrong because they are attacking an honorable man. I believe that General Petraeus is doing the best he can with a horrible situation. What he can not do is contadict the CIC.

True leadership now has to come from those not in uniform. What I want is a real plan on how we can make the ebst of this awful mess.

Personally, I would like to see us "stay the course," at least to the extent of doing the best we can to create a peace. The current course, however, is form all that I read not going to work unless we increase taxes to pay ofr it and institute a draft. Those things are not going to happen.

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 10, 2007 08:13 AM
8. Richard's just saying it all depends on what the meaning of is is.

Posted by: katomar on September 10, 2007 08:17 AM
9. When you say "awful mess", what is your basis? If someone nuked a city in the US or Israel, I would say that was an "awful mess", so what I see and hear in Iraq doesn't rise to that standard.

Where would the Garden of Eden fit into your basis? A "little mess"?

Posted by: swatter on September 10, 2007 08:53 AM
10. Duty, Honor, Country the motto of The United States Military Academy. All who attend the US Military Academies: West Point, Annapolis, Air Force, Kings Point and Coast Guard Academy are taught from the day of reporting that they are to be men of honor and men of honor do not lie, steal cheat or deceive.

Contrast them with others in this debate. Senator Reid, a third rate corrupt lying senator, Senator Biden an admitted plagiarist. The founders of Move On who ignore perjured testimony from the best liar in the US, and now we are to follow them, instead of honorable men?

Posted by: Not a Yank on September 10, 2007 09:33 AM
11. #7 What is your training in counter-insurgency strategy and tactics? General Petreaus wrote the US Military Manual on the subject. Did you provide any input? Or are you just another man with a computer and an ill-informed opinion?

Posted by: Not a Yank on September 10, 2007 09:38 AM
12. Good point. It was about 10 months ago that Bush put Petraeus in charge. He was confirmed unanimously. Many believed he was a staunch Democrat, an excellent soldier and one of the most trustworthy of all military.

He was lauded by left and right alike.

He proposed the 'surge', but it appears the leftists really believed Iraq to be a lost cause (and it may be- just not now) and thusly paid lip service to the Petraeus accolades.

But the "surge" worked. Funny thing- success. We all react differently. Seems the leftists want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Posted by: swatter on September 10, 2007 09:40 AM
13. SettleJew: are you lying again, or are you ignorant? There is no sense in which we need a draft to keep the current course going. Indeed, by all indications, we are likely to reduce our presence over the coming year.

Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2007 09:44 AM
14. Earth to Bruce and to Richard Borkowski--do you even know the definition of "betray"? Look it up--here is a definition from Answers.Com (Other sites will show something similar).

"To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country."

Stop picking nits here. It is obvious what Moveon.org's idea was here.

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 09:45 AM
15. One other thing, the etymology of "betray" and "traitor" is the same--

betray: "[Middle English bitrayen : bi-, be- + trayen, to betray (from Old French trair, from Latin trādere, to hand over; see tradition).]"

traitor: "[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin trāditor, from trāditus, past participle of trādere, to betray. See tradition.]

I'm sure if General Patraeus' name had been "Tapraitor", the Moveon ad would have referred to him as "A traitor".

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 10:03 AM
16. Bill, you won't get anywhere with that line. Liberals always insist on using the most convenient definition or connotation or every single word that might be in any language other than doublespeak.

Posted by: Al on September 10, 2007 10:31 AM
17. Semantics aside, smearing a General who has devoted his life to the defense of the United States and suggesting that he has betrayed us is so far beyond the pale that civil, polite language fails me- F**K them all and may they rot in Hell! C*cksuckers!

Posted by: John425 on September 10, 2007 11:31 AM
18. The headline read..."General Patraeus Betrayed Us."

Posted by: Clusiana on September 10, 2007 11:38 AM
19. John425, my sentiments exactly!

This type of discourse from Moveon.org illustrates exactly the discussion in the previous thread regarding the hate and vitriol on the left.

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 11:42 AM
20. Clusiana, have you seen an actual copy of the NY Times? I don't get a copy of the NY Times, but the reports I have seen of the ad say that the headline is "General Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us?".

Are you saying you have seen the actual ad and it says "General Patraeus Betrayed Us"?

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 12:08 PM
21. I'm sure that Petraeus has more integrity in his pinky than in all the moveon.orgers combined. Would that these immature democrats at moveon would stop acting so childlishly.

I salute you, General P!

Posted by: Michele on September 10, 2007 12:10 PM
22. "...the vitriol of the left isn't helping their cause..."

You are kind of packing together a pretty large group here. Keep in mind that the actually leaders of the left (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, etc.) are not all that vitriolic. Obama has made a point of saying that he respects the opposition, but he disagrees with them. It is easy to find spades of bitterness on either side of the great debate in our country, it is unfair to generalize those instances to the entire group. I would consider swift-boat veterans for truth a pretty mean and dishonest organization, but I would not say that the entire right is therefore mean and dishonest.

Posted by: The Dude on September 10, 2007 12:26 PM
23. # 22 The Dude. You say "swift-boat veterans for truth" were a mean and dishonest organization. Do you have any documents or evidence to conclude what they said was not true? If the slandered and Libeled Senator Kerry he has had ample opportunity to sue them. In fact the leader of the group has volunteered to file the papers on Kerry's behalf so he will be sued. Further more the group has Waived the statue of limitations so Kerry will be free to sue.

So as best I can tell the Swift-boat veterans for truth were telling the truth and Kerry was lying. When you find evidence that substantiates the Swift-boat veterans were lying let us all know. And make sure the evidence does not pass through CBS and Dan Rather's hands.

Posted by: Not a Yank on September 10, 2007 12:32 PM
24. Not a Yank--re: The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--Kerry has never agreed to release his service records, which, if the Swift Boat Veterans were lying, would have bolstered Kerry's case. That is certainly another indication that it was Kerry that was lying rather than the other way around.

Like you said, if The Dude has information refuting what the Swift Boat Veterans claimed, let's see it.

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 12:37 PM
25. Related thread on the public blog today - "Rush Limbaugh vs. Jim McDermott" - excerpts from the transcript of Rush's Fri 9/7 broadcast, in which he discusses the Democrats effort at a pre-emptive response to the report of General Petraeus.

Also related to this, from today's Wall Street Journal:

September 10, 2007

Listening to Petraeus
By JOHN MCCAIN and JOE LIEBERMAN
Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2007
Today, Gen. David Petraeus -- commander of our forces in Iraq -- returns to Washington to report on the war in Iraq and the new counterinsurgency strategy he has been implementing there. We hope that opponents of the war in Congress will listen carefully to the evidence that the U.S. military is at last making real and significant progress in its offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq.

Consider how the situation has changed. A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory. Today it is being driven out of its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces by the surge in U.S. forces and those of our Iraqi allies. A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%.

As facts on the ground in Iraq have improved, some critics of the war have changed their stance. As Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, who voted against the invasion of Iraq, recently wrote after returning from Baghdad: "[T]he people, strategies, and facts on the ground have changed for the better, and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done."

Unfortunately, many more antiwar advocates continue to press for withdrawal. Confronted by undeniable evidence of gains against al Qaeda in Iraq, they acknowledge progress but have seized on the performance of the Iraqi government to justify stripping Gen. Petraeus of troops and derailing his strategy.

This reasoning is flawed for several reasons.

First, whatever you think of the performance of Iraq's national leaders, the notion that withdrawing U.S. troops will "shock" them into reconciliation is unsupported by evidence or experience. On the contrary, ordering a retreat will only serve to unravel the hard-fought gains we have won.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was unequivocal on this point: "Changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role" -- the Petraeus strategy -- "to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations" -- which most congressional Democrats have been pressing for -- "would erode security gains achieved thus far."

This judgment is echoed by our commanders on the ground. Consider the words of Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, who is leading the fight in central Iraq: "In my battlespace right now, if soldiers were to leave . . . having fought hard for that terrain, having denied the enemy their sanctuaries, what happens is, the enemy would come back."

In addition, while critics are right that improved security has not yet translated into sufficient political progress at the national level, the increased presence of our soldiers is having a seismic effect on Iraq's politics at the local level.

In the neighborhoods and villages where U.S. forces have moved in, extremists have been marginalized, and moderates empowered. Thanks to this changed security calculus, the Sunni Arab community -- which was largely synonymous with the insurgency a year ago -- has been turning against al Qaeda from the bottom-up, and beginning to negotiate an accommodation with the emerging political order. Sustaining this political shift depends on staying the offensive against al Qaeda -- which in turn depends on not stripping Gen. Petraeus of the manpower he and his commanders say they need.

We must also recognize that the choice we face in Iraq is not between the current Iraqi government and a perfect Iraqi government. Rather, it is a choice between a young, imperfect, struggling democracy that we have helped midwife into existence, and the fanatical, al Qaeda suicide bombers and Iranian-sponsored terrorists who are trying to destroy it. If Washington politicians succeed in forcing a premature troop withdrawal in Iraq, the result will be a more dangerous world with our enemies emboldened. As Iran's president recently crowed, "soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region . . . [and] we are prepared to fill the gap."

Whatever the shortcomings of our friends in Iraq, they are no excuse for us to retreat from our enemies like al Qaeda and Iran, who pose a mortal threat to our vital national interests. We must understand that today in Iraq we are fighting and defeating the same terrorist network that attacked on 9/11. As al Qaeda in Iraq continues to be hunted down and rooted out, and the Iraqi Army continues to improve, the U.S. footprint will no doubt adjust. But these adjustments should be left to the discretion of Gen. Petraeus, not forced on our troops by politicians in Washington with a 6,000-mile congressional screwdriver, and, perhaps, an eye on the 2008 election.

The Bush administration clung for too long to a flawed strategy in this war, despite growing evidence of its failure. Now advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake, by refusing to re-examine their own conviction that Gen. Petraeus's strategy cannot succeed and that the war is "lost," despite rising evidence to the contrary.

The Bush administration finally had the courage to change course in Iraq earlier this year. After hearing from Gen. Petraeus today, we hope congressional opponents of the war will do the same.


Posted by: Steve Beren on September 10, 2007 12:50 PM
26. I'm sure that Petraeus has more integrity in his pinky than in all the moveon.orgers combined.

Likely so. The difference is that MoveOn is a political organization and Gen. Petraeus is just doing what he can to save a poorly executed war and the mistakes made by his predecessors.

This type of discourse from Moveon.org illustrates exactly the discussion in the previous thread regarding the hate and vitriol on the left.

You act like the right wing is completely free of hate and vitriol. Just another example of how overly broad stereotypes are pushing this nation apart.

So what if they call him a traitor, even if MoveOn.org called him a a vicious baby killer it's not going to change anything. The war is still going to go on, people will still die, and the US will not be out of Iraq anytime this decade (no matter who's President in 2008). Harping on MoveOn about this seems just as futile as them posting it.

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 12:59 PM
27. Cato says "You act like the right wing is completely free of hate and vitriol."

No, just that it is hardly measureable by comparison with the left.

Cato says "So what if they call him a traitor". Excuse me if I say that that is a stupid question. People need to be held to account for what they say.

The point of "harping on MoveOn about this" is to show the American people as a whole what a petty, small minded organization MoveOn is.

I have noticed that, since the Clinton administration, all you have to know about what the left is doing is to listen to what they are accusing the right of. Accuse the right of engaging in the "Politics of Personal Destruction" as the left engages in that very thing. Lie about the President's statements on the Iraq War by accusing the President of lying about the Iraq War. Accuse the right of calling people "unpatriotic" as the left calls our commanding General a traitor. It would be amusing if it wasn't so deleterious to the political discourse in this country.

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 01:15 PM
28. Bill H and Not a Yank,

So by defending SBVFT are you saying that there is no vitriol or dishonesty anywhere on the right? My point really had absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy of the claims of that group, but with the fallacy committed by those who apply the attributes of a minority faction of a political ideology to the entire wing. Feel free to re-read what I wrote and see if you can respond to that.

Posted by: The Dude on September 10, 2007 01:21 PM
29. People need to be held to account for what they say.

What are you suggesting? That we lock them up or something? You seems to suggest that by calling him a traitor they're are actually harming him or something. Freedom of Speech is still one of the greatest freedoms we have.

Accuse the right of engaging in the "Politics of Personal Destruction" as the left engages in that very thing.

I agree, both sides are equally vile. Whatever happened to Bush being a 'uniter, not a divider'?

accusing the President of lying about the Iraq War.

No one has to accuse, look at the Colin Powell speech before the UN. Exactly how much of his speech has been proven true? Rumsfeld said we'd 'be greeted as liberators'. In truth our troops are being greeted with IED's.

Accuse the right of calling people "unpatriotic" as the left calls our commanding General a traitor.

In the end does it matter? Nope. We still all have to live together in the end regardless of our beliefs. We're still going to be in Iraq, and Gen. Petraeus is still going to be running the show. Call him a traitor or a hero, either way it's not going to make one bit of difference.

Posted by: cato on September 10, 2007 01:39 PM
30. When I looked at this ad, all I could think is "I wonder how much money Iran and Al Queda are funneling into Moveon.org accounts?"

I would be very, very surprised if it wasn't millions - if not 10's of millions.

Posted by: johnny on September 10, 2007 01:48 PM
31. What we really need to do is have Darcy show her true colors by affirming her alliance with MoveOn. Certainly she must be willing to say that MoveOn speaks for her and people in the 8th can rest assured that she will follow their instructions should she be elected. She takes money from them, she attends their functions, why wouldn't she simply admit that she will work for MoveOn and not the citizens of the 8th?

Posted by: Huh? on September 10, 2007 01:53 PM
32. The Dude:

You say "I would consider swift-boat veterans for truth a pretty mean and dishonest organization,..." and all I asked of you is to defend that assertion with facts. You cannot. Therefore you are engaged in the very slander that you accuse other of engaging in.

What ever point you want to make is destroyed if you use lies and innuendo to support your argument.

You can have your own opinions but you cannot have your own facts.

Posted by: Not a Yank on September 10, 2007 01:58 PM
33. Cato says "You seems to suggest that by calling him a traitor they're are actually harming him or something." Well, duh--if saying harmful, untrue things about people did not constitute harm, there would be no laws against slander or libel.

"Freedom of Speech is still one of the greatest freedoms we have." I agree, but there are limits to freedom of speech (see laws against slander and libel). Also, freedom of speech does not mean that you do not have to answer to that freedom in the court of public opinion. You are perfectly free to say stupid things and we are just as free to point out that those things are stupid. In the case of MoveOn, it means we are free to point out that the things they are saying are beyond the pale.

"No one has to accuse, look at the Colin Powell speech before the UN. Exactly how much of his speech has been proven true? Rumsfeld said we'd 'be greeted as liberators'. In truth our troops are being greeted with IED's." Even if I was prepared to accept everything you say (which I'm not) none of that constitutes proof of a lie. Please review the definition of a lie:

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

It's especially silly to say that "Rumsfeld said we'd 'be greeted as liberators'" would constitute a lie. In the first place, we WERE greeted as liberators in much of Iraq (Kurdish areas and Shia areas). In the second place, if we hadn't been greeted that way (we certainly weren't in the Sunni areas), it simply means he was wrong, not that he "lied".

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 02:01 PM
34. I wonder how much money Iran and Al Queda are funneling into Moveon.org accounts?

I wonder how much Bill O'Riley is paying you to think like a moron? It's an equally illogical presumption.

Seriously, whatever happened to tolerance of of others opinions in this country.

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 02:03 PM
35. I agree, but there are limits to freedom of speech (see laws against slander and libel)

True, but those laws don't apply very well on the Internet. I'm sure Gen. Petraeus will not be crying in his bed tonight because some leftist web site calls him a traitor. He's doing his job and since he's a public figure the slander and libel charge would be weak at best.

Sound Politics accuses local public officials of lying and perpetrates conspiracy theories about stolen elections all the time. People here lap it up. Now that the shoe is on the other foot your willing to talk about slander and libel.

none of that constitutes proof of a lie.

Let's see...Jessica Lynch (Pentagon version was a lie), Pat Tillman (Pentagon version was a lie), Link between Saddam and AlQ (lie), Saddam buying Yellow Cake from Nigeria (lie). I mean Bush even proposed an Office of Disinformation, which was proposed specifically to tell lies.

Bush himself may not be a liar, but the Pentagon press office is certainly doing their share of lying. Which makes people wonder what else they lied about (WMD's maybe?). Since Bush uses this information in his speeches would that indirectly make him a liar too?

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 02:44 PM
36. I dunno, Cato. You're the one who just called someone whose opinion you disagreed with a "moron".

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 02:53 PM
37. The Bush administration and their mouthpieces are punting this mess to the next (Democratic) administration, keeping our troops in harm's way in the process, and all the right can talk about is the shocking, shocking language of the opposition's rhetoric. Republicans deserve the political hell to which they'll be banished.

Posted by: blathering michael on September 10, 2007 03:01 PM
38. Cato, says "True, but those laws (SLANDER AND LIBEL LAWS) don't apply very well on the Internet." Have you kept up on this story at all?? This is not something posted on the internet--it was a full page ad in the NY Times. I'm not even saying that they should be charged with libel. What I said was "...freedom of speech does not mean that you do not have to answer to that freedom in the court of public opinion. You are perfectly free to say stupid things and we are just as free to point out that those things are stupid. In the case of MoveOn, it means we are free to point out that the things they are saying are beyond the pale."

Cato said "Bush himself may not be a liar, but..."

Ok, so you can't support the left's repetition, ad nauseum, that Bush lied, so now you are introducing new stuff. You have not refuted my statement that none of what you introduced before is a lie (you said "No one has to accuse, look at the Colin Powell speech before the UN. Exactly how much of his speech has been proven true? Rumsfeld said we'd 'be greeted as liberators'. In truth our troops are being greeted with IED's.").

It looks like you proved my original point that the left accuses the right of what they themselves are doing such as "Lie about the President's statements on the Iraq War by accusing the President of lying about the Iraq War." QED

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 03:15 PM
39. You're the one who just called someone whose opinion you disagreed with a "moron".

That I did, but it was to prove a point. His point was as illogical as me calling him a moron.
I don't actually know if Johnny is a moron or not.

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 03:17 PM
40. Blather says "The Bush administration and their mouthpieces are punting this mess to the next (Democratic) administration, keeping our troops in harm's way in the process, and all the right can talk about is the shocking, shocking language of the opposition's rhetoric. Republicans deserve the political hell to which they'll be banished."

Keep blathering and you will blather your way right out of a chance at the White House and a loss of your congressional majorities. If the left keeps it up, we could see a repeat of 1972.

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 03:20 PM
41. It can't be helpful to the Democrats when Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan interrupted the proceedings today with their hysterical screaming. It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media covers it.

The left is cocky and confident now, having won the last mid-term election. If the American people discover just how left the party has become we may well have a re-play of 1972 next year.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 03:24 PM
42. Bill, that's too funny! I didn't see your post as I wrote mine.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 03:27 PM
43. If the left keeps it up, we could see a repeat of 1972.

Just what we need, another crooked President and Vice-President who resign is shame and disgrace. Glad to see you think so highly of the GOP candidates this time round.

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 03:32 PM
44. "Just what we need, another crooked President and Vice-President who resign is shame and disgrace. Glad to see you think so highly of the GOP candidates this time round."

So now we're supposed to come back and say, "yeah, what about the Clintons"?

Oh please, Cato. That was a rather silly comment, wasn't it?


Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 03:40 PM
45. They were talking about the far left's candidate in 1972 and how he - and his supporters - got completely smashed in that '72 election.

And you know that's what they were talking about, Cato. Don't be coy.

Posted by: jimg on September 10, 2007 03:43 PM
46. Bill H: Funny you should point to that flawed and corrupted election of 1972- but again you're shooting the messenger and changing the subject. This debate is not about Moveon.org. It's about the administration convincing no one that anything's better or different today than it was 3 years ago.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney's credibility was used up long ago- they had to send in Petraeus and Crocker who were still relatively clean. But all the king's horses can't change the basic geometry that this war was founded on a mistake by a president unsuited for the job. Earnest uniforms and impressive pie charts can't change the reality of this debacle. Congressional Republicans know it, the American people know it. Watch the numbers, my friend, and pray for the troops

Posted by: blathering michael on September 10, 2007 04:00 PM
47. Cato-
Why would be it a crazy idea to think that Al Queda and Iran wouldn't seek to fund organizations that are seeking to get our forces out an area the would like to control?

If you can't get the connection between an organization that seems to be mouthing the words of our enemy and the idea that this same enemy might be using some of their vast financial resources to bankroll said organization, then you might want to think about participating in an intellectual discussion, and you definitely don't understand the power of propaganda.

Read a few books on the subject and you might get it a little better I guess. I'm sure they don't teach it in school these days. Propaganda as a weapon of war is an incredibly compelling subject. Many wars have been won and lost based at least in part on the power on propaganda. If the U.S. had a way to pay off a 3rd party in Al Queda or Iran the way that those entities could pay off Moveon.org, you could bet they would do it in a heartbeat. It makes total sense to do it.

(Back when I was in college they actually used to recommend some military strategy books on the subject as part of a marketing major. It's like any other form of advertising when you think about it.)

It's really too bad that in their quest for "truth" the major media second and third guesses everything that our military says while reprinting every Al Queda press release and assertion from an an "unidentified source" that says bad things about the U.S. military as if it were straight from God gospel. It gives the enemy a real edge and helps them gain the upper hand in a war that they shouldn't be winning. After all, it's Al Queda and Iran that are funding all those bombs exploding in public markets in Iraq killing innocents, but somehow they've managed to convince useful idiots here in the U.S. that this is all America's fault.

If you don't believe that the enemy knows this and capitalizes on it, you need to do some serious research. There are numerous examples of how photos have been doctored and released to the media, so called "massacres" have been reported that end up having no basis in fact, and other examples of this. The media itself admits as much. (Although they tend to do it somewhere other than page 1 above the fold.)

As for Bill O'Reilly, I don't really listen to him much since he tends to on later in the afternoon in this market, but last time I did, I seem to remember he was very much against the U.S. remaining in Iraq. (Another example of lack of research on your part I guess.)

Posted by: johnny on September 10, 2007 04:01 PM
48. And you know that's what they were talking about, Cato. Don't be coy.

Bah, you guys are no fun. =)

I think if you check the polls that a lot of America is fed up with both Bush and Congress. Voters might be looking for a change this year. A lot of the old GOP stalwarts are retiring, gay sex scandals rocking the GOP side of the House and Senate I wonder if the 'moral majority' will even turn out this year. I guess the GOP can always toss around the gays and illegal immigrants thing again but even that's getting stale.

God forbid the GOP nominate a Mormon, I'm sure half of middle America still associates Mormonism with polygamous cults and young people in white shirts showing up at their door proclaiming their belief in the one true religion.

The cards are certianly in Hillary's favor this time around. Though it's still way to early to tell.

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 04:06 PM
49. Bill Cruchon--"Bill, that's too funny! I didn't see your post as I wrote mine."

Great minds...

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 04:06 PM
50. Cato "I wonder if the 'moral majority' will even turn out this year."

I guess it's lucky the election isn't until next year. :=)

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 04:10 PM
51. Blather said "Funny you should point to that flawed and corrupted election of 1972..."

If you are talking about the Watergate breakin, that was certainly stupid, but it didn't have an effect on the election. McGovern did not even come close in that election--Nixon got 520 electoral votes to 17 for McGovern (John Hospers, the Libertarian candidate got the last electoral vote). Nixon also got more than 60% of the popular vote.

"This debate is not about Moveon.org. It's about the administration convincing no one that anything's better or different today than it was 3 years ago."

No, the debate is about Moveon, take another look at the topic above...

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 04:19 PM
52. I guess it's lucky the election isn't until next year. :=)

Touché. =P

No, the debate is about Moveon

Actually it about Free Speech, and how Sound Politics readers are against it when they are mildly offended by something as stupid as a full page ad taken out in the NY Times (something most SP readers would never touch in the fist place).

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 04:47 PM
53. Cato and others continually want to turn any topic here into a Bush bashing session. It's like going over to HA and asking, "well what about killing unborn babies?" regardless of the subject. I think most conservatives have a bit more class than to do that.

This topic scares them a bit I think. I think the Democratic candidates will eventually have to distance themselves from Moveon, the daily Kos, etc.. That will mean that they will have to move to the right. In turn that will anger the far left and the netroots. If they get mad enough there could be a big move to a third party candidate. Those dreams of Hillary in the White House could go poof over night.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 05:05 PM
54. Cato,

You said: Actually it about Free Speech, and how Sound Politics readers are against it...

Can you show me how SP readers are against free speech? I can't see call to curtail speech. I don't see any attempts to prevent Moveon.org from advertising. I think I see a lot of complaints about the context of their speech and how it is wrong, inflammatory, possibly libelous and certainly beyond the pale.

Can you explain to me how SP readers are trying to curtail speech in any way? I don't mean one or two off-hand hyperboles that might exist in a 50+ comment thread, but a contributor-wide thing. Please let me know. I kind of like free speech and would like to see it continue, and if I am missing an important attack on it, I would like to be informed of it.

Thanks

Posted by: Eyago on September 10, 2007 05:07 PM
55. I don't think we're "against free speech" Cato. That's the province of your politically correct crowd on the left.

What being said here is that besides being in bad taste, the Moveon ad was probably not a very smart move politically. That you believe SP readers are against "free speech" proves what I have often said here. Those on the left really have no idea what conservatives believe.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 05:12 PM
56. Cato-
Moveon.org has a right to place ads in the times. We can agree on that.

We have a right to say that moveon.org is:

1) Throwing mud at a man that was overwhelmingly confirmed by the senate just a few months ago.

2) Mis-representing the facts about the surge

3) Aiding and comforting the enemy.

If this general is so dishonorable, why did congress pretty much unanimously confirmed just a few months ago. Did "stupid" President Bush outsmart those super smart democratic congresspeople yet again? Why is it suddenly he's getting slimed only because dems don't like what he's saying?

It's not like he's the only one reporting progress. There are numerous sources that say the Surge is working. Here's two.

- The New York Times had an editorial very recently from two reporters that spent time in Iraq. They agreed that there was major progress since the surge began and (quite humorously) guessed that a win by the U.S. military might represent an embarassment to the dems.

- A democratic congressman from Washington state reported progress after going there and interviewing military, average Iraqi's, clerics, and politicians. (I notice this guy is getting slimed now too although every dem loved him during the last election cycle. I wonder why that is?)

There are others out there - but I thought the leftie newspaper of record and democratic congressmen might be sources you would actually respect.

To any thinking person out there can there be any doubt that a retreat in Iraq would be a win for Al Queda. (If we can't agree on that, you're the one that is not living in reality - please turn off the computer and back away slowly.)

It's pretty pathetic that dems are so intent on beating Bush that they are rooting for a loss in Iraq, and I think more and more American's are beginning to understand how pathetic they really are. (Have you looked at CONGRESSES approval ratings lately?)

I think this is a bigger issue than whether Moveon.org has a right to do what they did. I think the real issue is why democrats and the moveon.org crowd would rather see Al Queda win than admit that there has been progress. Could it be they have their own power grab in mind instead of the good of the country?

Posted by: johnny on September 10, 2007 05:21 PM
57. If they get mad enough there could be a big move to a third party candidate.

Hah, like the Left would ever abandon a first tier candidate for a third party again. I think the far left learned their lesson with Nader. Personally, I think they'd hold their nose and vote for the chosen Dem. candidate rather than have to deal with the GOP hold the White House for another four years.

I kind of like free speech and would like to see it continue

Me too, at least there is something we can agree on. =P

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 05:35 PM
58. You're right, Bill, the Republicans won handily in 1972, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Nixon's illegal overreach to defeat a very weak candidate ended up disgracing a Republican president and putting the GOP in the tank for a few election cycles.
You and other Bush Republicans want to talk about anything but the dubious efficacy and the incompetent prosecution of this war, -but it won't go away, and your attempts to split the Democrats won't work either: ours is the anti-war party in 2008 despite all your efforts. Pray for the troops, and vote Democratic.

Posted by: blathering michael on September 10, 2007 05:40 PM
59. #58. "ours is the anti-war party in 2008 despite all your efforts."

Exactly like your party in 1972. I ought to know, I voted for McGovern.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 05:50 PM
60. 3) Aiding and comforting the enemy.

While I agree the first two points are true but seriously, number three is quite a stretch.

There are numerous sources that say the Surge is working

There's also numerous Govt. sources that say the Iraqi Govt. is broken and can't make any of the milestones set out for them.

It's great the surge is working but if the Govt. is a failure it doesn't bode well for the countries future.

It's pretty pathetic that dems are so intent on beating Bush that they are rooting for a loss in Iraq

Actually they feel they were tricked into a war that they were against in the first place and want out. How did you feel after you found out the Gulf of Tonkin incedent did not happen as it was originally reported? Would you have second thoughts about invading Vietnam?

I think the real issue is why democrats and the moveon.org crowd would rather see Al Queda win than admit that there has been progress.

No, they would rather see the money spent on national defense rather than nation building. One has to question why we spend so much money attacking Iraq when the real threat seems to be two Arab guys with cameras boarding a ferry and asking questions

Did invading Iraq really make us any safer or did it just give rise to a future generation of terrorists?

That would be my interpretation of the leftist point of view, which is NOT 'Oh yeah, I want Bin Ladden & AlQ to win so they leave us alone'.

I thought the leftie newspaper of record and democratic congressmen might be sources you would actually respect.

Maybe you should read my comments some time and stop trying to lump me in with the MoveOn folks.

FYI: I am willing to listen too all points of view. A lot of times I like to disagree with people here just for the sake of disagreeing. It's fun to watch everyone get all riled up.

Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 05:59 PM
61. What makes you think I'm a "Bush Republican". In fact, I am a libertarian--I voted in 6 presidential elections before I ever voted for a major party candidate.

You say "it was a Pyrrhic victory". Well, you're right that Nixon's disgrace (I agreed that he should have been impeached if he had not resigned) got us Jimmie Carter (the worst president as well as the worst ex-president in my lifetime), but McGovern's run and the overreach of the left wing of the Democratic party labeled the Democratic Party as a party not serious on National Security. The left is threatening to reprise that role.

Keep in mind that although you got Jimmie Carter, the Republicans held the White House for the following 12 years. The Dems did not get back in until the Cold War was over. Regardless of how you feel about the Iraq War, we are now involved in a dangerous war against Islamic Extremism. If the Dems bow to the left wing represented by MoveOn and Daily Kos, as well as empty heads like Rosie O'Donnell, you will see a repeat of Democrats in the wilderness as far as the White House is concerned.

Look for Hillary to try to look like she is more "right" than she is to try to distance herself from the likes of MoveOn or Kos for the general election.

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 06:05 PM
62. blathering michael-

" Nixon's illegal overreach to defeat a very weak candidate ended up disgracing a Republican president and putting the GOP in the tank for a few election cycles."

It was exactly one election cycle and we got Jimmy Carter as the democratic President that paved the way for 8 years of Reagan.

On that criminal overreaching, it's interesting to note that the big crime that really got Nixon strung up wasn't the break-in, it was the fact that he had possession of single FBI confidential file of one of his enemies. That was the one that fanned the flames of discontent in the U.S. The media hounded on it endlessly and created furor. That any President would dare to use the FBI as an intelligence arm to gather dirt for his re-election, well, that was positively un-American.

Compare that with a just a few decades later when Clinton and Co. were caught with over 200 such files of U.S. senators in their possession and the reaction was diddly-squat.

Kind of makes you think doesn't it?

Posted by: johnny on September 10, 2007 06:05 PM
63. Cato-
That meme about how the dems were "tricked" into this was ring so frigging hollow. Go back and read the words of people like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, back then.

These are people that had access to all of the intelligence. They sat on the intelligence commitees. They set on the military oversight committees. One of the candidates was the wife of the President and billed herself as the "co-President." (Her words - not mine.)

These people were just as convinced that Saddam was a threat as George Bush, and supported the war every bit. It wasn't until they realized that they had ONLY liberated a country that had been living under a brutal dictator and that they might find themselves feeling the wrath of the hippy left that they changed their tune.

The dem-friendly newsmedia may give these people a pass, but anyone that actually remembers the facts remembers that there was a whole lot of support for this war at the beginning from the democratic party. If you need to, I can cut and paste the words to the various speeches from the dem leadership of the time as well as a lot of the dem candidates running in this election cycle.


Posted by: Cato on September 10, 2007 06:16 PM
64. Bill H says, "Look for Hillary to try to look like she is more "right" than she is to try to distance herself from the likes of MoveOn or Kos for the general election".

I think she'll have to, and in doing so may find herself in a trap as the far left moves towards Obama in droves. She might not even get the nomination.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 06:19 PM
65. We are in the opening phases of a new 30 years or 100 years war with islamo-fascism. This is because islamic extremism is a popular mass movement spanning mulitple countries and continents, sometimes with state support and sometimes in spite of state opposition and so it is diffused and not easily targetted. We can't go to war with the islamic world but we can try to influence reforms in the near east so that stable, secular, more or less democratic states exist that can help provide islamic citizenry an alternative to either islamic dictatorship and/or theocracy. The islamo-fascists, whether you call them Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, the PFLP, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. have been waging war against the west for years. Remember all those hijackings and bombings back in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s? Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a state-sponsor of terrorism (not *the* state-sponsor behind the 9/11 attack but one of the major state sponsors of terrorsim in the near east). If you claim otherwise what was salman pak intended for?
In addition, the B'ath government of Iraq repeatedly fired at U.S. aircraft policing the no fly zone under authority of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and the UN, plotted the assassination of a former president, repeatedly violated UN resolutions and engaged in WMD research. Then of course, there was all those mass graves in Iraq, and using nerve gas on the Kurds. Those are the inconvenient atrocities for our liberal friends, who prefer thinking of the killing fields only as long as they are favored topics at Daily Kos, ad nauseam. For the lefties who yearn for the days of Jimmy Carter's "human rights policy", the one that helped install Ayatollah Khomeini in power, the Democrats in 1977/ 1978 used the excuse of human rights violations to justify cutting off aid to the Iranian government, thus preciptating the installation of a radical islamo-fascist regime in Tehran that has been attacking the U.S. and it's allies since 1979. The same Democrats helped ensure the fall of South Vietnam, another ally, by cutting off military aid to South Vietnam when they were under attack by North Vietnam, whose aid from the USSR and the PRC was not cut off. So, fast forward to 2007 and the liberal "patriots" say "withdraw now!" from Iraq even if it paves the way for a proxy state for UBL or for Iran to be created.
Back in the days when I would vote for Democrats I believed their baloney. Not anymore. I don't believe the creepy troll leftists on this website care for a nano-second about this country or for our national security. I do believe they feel the U.S. is the villain of the world and, heck, if Tehran or UBL lob a few more planes into U.S. skyscrapers, then, heck, we must've had it coming to us. I don't really care that social democrats the world over hate the U.S.A. Get a clue. Those folks have always hated the U.S. The day we start trying to buy the love of leftists the world over is the day we will seal our own defeat. The left wants UBL and Tehran to win. I'm not going to watch the Democrats help another radical enemy regime get installed in another near eastern country because the Democrats have the attention span of fleas and the steadfastness of limp noodles. The islamo-fascists are going to be out there for years to come due to their numbers, religious fanaticism and due to the states that keep supplying them with increasingly potent weapons.

Posted by: Attila on September 10, 2007 06:56 PM
66. There's a lot the left conveniently "forgets". I think you are spot on, Attila.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 07:01 PM
67. I believe the Clintons paid a heavy price for very little, but again you change the subject.
Even as a liberal Democrat, I'd never stick up for Jimmy Carter. He was a terrlble prez who only redeemed himself lately with his good works.. He was a grumpy southern born-again loser whose incompetance was the gateway for one of the more dangerous presidents, Ronald Reagan.
And you're right, Bill, everybody's going to move to the middle after the primaries are done. Hillary or Barack will cruise into the blessed mean, and watch the evangelicals get thrown off the boat by Rudy, Mitt, or Fred. It's geography and the system, Bill- makes 'em all look sleazy.
(pray for the troops and vote Democratic)

Posted by: blathering michael on September 10, 2007 07:07 PM
68. I think Hillary will move right, Michael. She can re-invent herself at will because no one really knows what her actual postions are. She won't get criticized for "flip flopping" the way Romney has been. But I don't think Obama will move right. I sense he will stay more left. That could fracture the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 07:26 PM
69. And as you commented at #58 Michael the Dems are the "anti-war party". Hillary has avoided placing herself solidly in that camp. I think things are going to get very interesting. I'm willing to bet Hillary was none too happy with that NY Times Moveon ad, and I'm sure she wasn't happy with Cindy Sheehan and company shrieking at the hearings today.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 07:58 PM
70. Bill Cruchon says "I'm sure she wasn't happy with Cindy Sheehan and company shrieking at the hearings today."

I'm sure you are right there! I hope they did more than just kick those people out--hopefully some of them got arrested. You don't have "free speech" rights to disrupt testimony to a Congressional Committee.

Posted by: Bill H on September 10, 2007 08:46 PM
71. Moveon.org is a generally toxic website - they use a similar brand of rhetoric used by the old Soviet Union. If the Democrats would stop being intimidated by them and show up on a certain cable TV news network without fear of reprisal by moveon.org or the Daily Kos, I would have more respect for them. It will take more than one Dem candidate to do this in order to decimate the power of the far left websites. If Obama and Clintton and possibly Edwards would go on Fox for a debate or just appear on Fox news Sunday, I would see that they aren't afraid of answering tough questions that they rarely see from other networks and not trying to hide anything.

By the same token, I would have more respect for Republicans if they would do a YouTube debate like the Democrats did. If they don't, it would appear that they are afraid and hiding something too.

Posted by: KS on September 10, 2007 09:56 PM
72. So sad. It seems to me that SP is preoccupied with anything BUT the facts.

If any of you actually listened to the Brit Hume interview tonight or the testimony on CSPan, you would have heard the General refuse to answer even Brit's questions about the issues of how Iraq was affecting our global security. Petraeus was a model of what he is supposed to be ... an agent of his CIC. As a good soldier he refused to speak off topic or lie.

What the good man said was pretty much what other moderates, including Sens Biden, Obama and Clinton, as well as experts Pollack and OHanlon have offered. Five years into Bush;s folly, the atrategy Petraeus and others advocated BACK then is working better than the strategy followed by the Bushistas.

Petraeus has shown us that a sensible strategy can help stabilize Iraq. He did say that a percipitous withdrawal would be a disaster ... just as all the eleading Dems are saying.

What is most important are the questions he refused to answer. He would not address other strategies for drawing down, the limits of our troop support for Iraq, or .. most importantly ... the issue of what our goals are! This was a very controlled performance by a General saying he had met his tactical goals. He said nada, zilch, nothing about the srategic goals because THOSE ARE NOT HIS CHARGE.

All of us should be grateful that Bush is finally following the advice of the professional military instead of his amateur chickenhawks, We should all ope that as soon as possible this expert General can work for a better CIC.

More at SeattleJew

Posted by: SeattleJew on September 10, 2007 10:06 PM
73. SeattleJew, Is it possible for you, and other Bush hating trolls to stay on topic?

On second thought, your vitriol is exactly on topic. My mistake.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 10, 2007 10:19 PM
74. It's about time for Leno and Seattle Jew has tuned up my laugh muscles by calling Clinton a "moderate".

Posted by: PC on September 10, 2007 11:33 PM
75. SeattleJew: you are the biggest liar on SP: what would YOU know about FACTS?

Posted by: pudge on September 11, 2007 09:09 AM
76. I think Hillary will move right, Michael. She can re-invent herself at will because no one really knows what her actual positions are.

Hillary is good at that, unfortunately it's that kind of skill that wins elections. People have to think you agree with them and best represent your values.

I don't think Obama will move right. I sense he will stay more left.

Obama was anti-Iraq War from the start, I expect he will continue to play the center-left field. He's done very will with his donations and viral internet marketing.

Moveon.org is a generally toxic website - they use a similar brand of rhetoric used by the old Soviet Union.

Funny I feel the same way about Little Green Footballs (though I think their rhetoric might be more equiv to something worse)

Posted by: Cato on September 11, 2007 11:48 AM
77. CATO
Funny I feel the same way about Little Green Footballs (though I think their rhetoric might be more equiv to something worse)
*****************************************

O-brother, Cato can't even get that right.
LGF a hate site? Your pissed because they proved the Dan BLATHER was a liar.
Put down your joint and get some fresh air.


Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2007 01:36 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?