It just occurred to me why MoveOn.org’s disgusting attack on David Petraeus —in which he was called “General Betray Us”— makes no sense: people who support MoveOn.org are not real Americans and, so, are incapable of being betrayed.
Wasn’t Petraeus confirmed in his present role by unanimous consent of the United States Senate not even a year ago? How do losers like Dick Durbin and Harry Reid explain their votes to the filthy hippies?
I just watched the replay of last night’s Jon Stewart monologue on General Petraeus —and it was typical Stewart: smug, half-informed, and chickenshit.
The anti-war Leftists and liberals have it in mind that the only thing that approximates ideological coherence for them is their opposition to the War for Iraq. But why do they believe that this opposition, in itself, is worth anything? The great majority of them don’t put any strategic or tactical or political thought into why any particular aspect of the war is wrong or right, so what is the point of their opposition? Simple: if they can take their hatred of George W. Bush —and wrap the ethical argument of pacifism for one and all around that— then they believe they are innoculated against charges of treason and of sympathy for the enemy. After all, they [support the troops] —except when they assist in those same men’s and women’s excoriations before the world as torturers, murderers, mercenaries, and all-around sadists. But, you know, dissent is patriotic and other garbage.
The headlines today are all about the Democrats’ rejection of the draw-down that Petraeus envisions. “Too little, too late” and that kind of mindless prattle. Could such criticism be any more transparently devoid of thought or any more obviously partisan in its motivation and logic? To say that the proposed number of troops in the draw-down is “too little” is to suggest that one knows of a better number. Well, the pacifist would say that the only number is the one that accounts for all, but what anti-war leaders are saying that? The nuts. Shitforbrains like Kucinich. Your average Leftist blogger. These mindless ninnies want us gone from Iraq yesterday. But that isn’t going to happen, is it? So, what number is the right number? What is the logical or strategic basis upon which to insist that a certain number of our troops be withdrawn —no matter what?
One’s personal pacifism isn’t the answer.
One’s partisan motivations shouldn’t be the answer, but what else could it be?
Enjoy the coming year, comrades. Your inexplicably insane and white guilt-ridden support of Barack Obama is bound to rend your party in half. Possibly into thirds. You’re closer to having some principles this time around, if only by accident, but now it’s going to cost you extra. A large number of you are destined to be forever associated with anti-Americanism. The failures of your imagination —Obama, the Clintons, the wretched buffoon Edwards, and maybe even the Gorebot itself— are now all in line to drag your hopes of Executive control down into the dust.
I savor the prospect.
It’s no mystery to me, but a guest poster at Andrew Sullivan’s blog observes:
Anti-totalitarianism was once an animating feature of the Democratic Party, and the American left in general. It was FDR who led the United States against Fascism, Harry Truman who aided anti-communists fighting in Turkey and Greece and John F. Kennedy who stated that the United States “would pay any price, bear any burden” to defend freedom abroad. The American labor movement played a crucial role in fighting communism (both domestically and internationally), with the AFL-CIO’s Lane Kirkland, the “Champion of American Labor,” at the helm.
What has happened to this spirit? That’s a question I ask today, in reference to Bayard Rustin, one of the most enigmatic, independent-minded, consistent–yet barely remembered–heroes of 20th century liberalism (he also happened to be openly gay, an aspect of Rustin’s life that Andrew examined here). A social democrat to the end, he joined other liberals (many of whom would eventually become neo-conservatives) in supporting Scoop Jackson for president in 1976, formed the Coalition for a Democratic Majority to fight the McGovernite wing of the party and was a founding member of the Committee on the Present Danger. He was also a strong supporter of Israel and one of the few black American leaders to warn of the dangers that a Zimbabwe led by Robert Mugabe would bring to bear.
Liberals and anti-war Leftists are not united or motivated by any belief in the power of Americanism or in the country that created it, but only by partisan hatred and their inability to deal with their recent electoral failures (and I would certainly include 2006 in that, which was heralded by the disgusting whores in Big Media as a “Democratic mandate,” but which was never going to be anything of the kind). Thus, when the only thing that matters is attacking the other party, it is no surprise that the Democrats’ rhetoric is usually indistinguishable from that of the al-Qaedists, Ahmadinejad, and his Shiite proxies. The Democrats find themselves allied with totalitarians and followers of sharia —too stupid to realize that they are supporting anti-democratic ideological zealots.
Just like when they were servicing Chairman Mao and Uncle Ho.
And Fidel and Che.
Stalin, too.
Why has NBC put Keith Olbermann on the main network tonight before Sunday Night Football? I guess it’s some sort of experiment to see how much anti-American bullshit Middle America can take in one sitting. Guess they’re doing some prep work for the DNC demo projects this coming election year.
One way to cut the crank for the non-cultists would be to soften it up with a Bob Saget-level blooper segment. Nice choice. Then segue into the usual viciousness and ignorance.
They’ll have a laugh and then learn about the President’s secret plan to suspend the 2008 Elections. And then maybe something about Britney Spears.
You know: whatever is chickenshit.
On 6 May 2003, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof, in whch this piece of intelligence is shared:
I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
Keep in mind that these words were printed in the most influential newspaper in the United States two months before Joe Wilson’s own, notorious op-ed piece was run in that same paper.
There’s no question that the “person” and the “someone” mentioned by Kristof were none other than Wilson and Plame —feeding Kristof and other reporters intelligence details in a bid for the A-list on the Leftist celebrity cocktail circuit. How did they divulge to Kristof the circumstances of their knowledge? How much leg did they have to show to land an op-ed piece in the Times? Why hasn’t Wilson been made to answer for his lies?
I don’t know what the upside is to pre-emptively excusing the latest squeezings of the traitor Michael Moore, but that’s what sorry, sorry apologists do:
It’s true that I wish Michael Moore were a wee bit more scrupulous with the facts in his films, but I sometimes wonder if he doesn’t insert random distortions into his movies deliberately. With rare exceptions, after all, they’re small things that could just as easily have been presented correctly without damaging his narrative at all. But the end result is the kind of publicity money can’t buy, and it’s the sweetest kind of publicity of all: the kind that’s subsidized by his enemies, who helpfully boost ticket sales by furiously denouncing his films for weeks on end.
Got that? Lying is a respectable tactic. A marketing tactic used throughout a propaganda film to generate free publicity and sell tickets. Of course, there must also come a tipping point with such a scheme where the lies and manipulations become so numerous that the marketing tactic gives way to a general impression that the “filmmaker” is a lying cocksucker who hates his country.
Which brings me around to Kevin Drum.
Why are you such a partisan hack that you would try to mitigate the work of a traitor?
As one of my favorite characters from The West Wing once said, you’re not Satan —you’re the guy who runs into the 7-11 to get Satan a pack of cigarettes.
With props to Scott Johnson, have another look at Ronald Cass’ article in the 15 January 2007 version of RealClearPolitics:
We don’t know what Mr. Berger might have removed from the uncatalogued materials reviewed in his earlier visits, but we know his last visit focused on a memorandum called the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR). Copies of this report were made available to the 9/11 Commission, but the information in those copies undoubtedly is not what interested Berger most. Berger took five copies of the report and later destroyed three of them.
What was on the copies he destroyed? Handwritten notes from Berger, the President, or some other official? Observations that would be embarrassing to them, evidence they missed an important threat or considered or recommended actions - or decisions not to act - they wouldn’t want to defend in public? Evidence, perhaps, that would have supported the Bush Administration? We don’t know, and no one who does is saying, but the evidence must have been terribly damning for Berger to take the risks he did.
And then Cass’ piece today on Berger’s uncontested surrender of his law license to the District of Columbia Bar to kill any chance at an investigation into his criminal conduct:
For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.
The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration’s failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda’s later attacks?
When Fox News’ Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton’s Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.
Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don’t know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill’s third term?
There is no other explanation: Berger did what he did to hide the evidence of secrets he shares with Bill Clinton and probably others. It was a great crime against History and I will continue to note the fact of Berger’s crime as often as necessary.
John Edwards is so goddamned stupid that he has actually caused me to stop and look around the room for the inevitable hidden camera:
NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a “global war on terror,” calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush Administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.
In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a “bumper sticker” slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.
“We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes,” Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. “By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam.”
This idea that we are not in a real war and that Osama’s got us right where he wanted us all along and that Iraq is the best recruiting tool the terrorists ever had and blah, blah, blah is just fucking embarrassing. For one thing, if we aren’t really at war, then why don’t the terrorists (and Edwards did actually use that word) know that? They seem to think we are at war. They are engaging in hostilities against our military by conventional and unconventional means —so what the fuck is Edwards talking about? He doesn’t approve of the idea of this being war semantically? I mean —what? He’s a fucking dolt.
By the way, why do Democrats forgive Edwards for helping to make possible Bush the Yonger’s re-election in 2004? Have a look at what Bob Shrum is saying in his new book about John Kerry’s choice for running mate that year:
Shrum says that, in the end, Kerry “wished that he’d never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut” and selected Dick Gephardt. And the feelings between Kerry and Edwards seem fairly mutual. After Kerry reached out to Edwards in the wake of his wife’s disclosure of a recurrence of cancer, Shrum writes, “Kerry told me that the Edwardses simply stopped returning calls or talking to him and Teresa.”
Who’s got time to return phone calls when there’s money to be made giving speeches to college kids of the evils of poverty in America?
A “hyper-ambitious phony.” That’s what Bob Shrum says of Silkiness. Pretty devastating, I’d say. But, really, I’d like to know what my commenters think of it.
It’s hard to watch this, you know? It’s real hard to have to tolerate the sound of his fucking voice when he throws his lies and smears around and squeezes some more of the same out of the other filthy fucking traitors he consorts with every night.
Fuck Keith Olbermann. He’s a partisan hack of the worst sort.
Oh. Why am I watching? Because he promised at the top of the hour to say something critical about the Democratic leadership. I just have to hear the gears grind when he starts pulling those punches.
UPDATE: That was boring.
Miserable ex-President Jimmy Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:
“We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered,” he said. “But that’s been a radical departure from all previous administration policies.”
“The concept of pre-emptive war” is an intellectual construct made by people who are too fucking stupid to recognize the many reasons why our nation goes to war. Our rationale is inherent to our situation in the world. When we attack an enemy, there may or may not be a proximate cause or some obvious trigger, but that is only one factor among many. The circumstances are clear enough to honest people, but to this present generation of anti-war Democrats, they want to pretend that —on the sole basis of whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction— we invaded the traitor Michael Moore’s kite-flying paradise of Iraq.
It is false to believe that America doesn’t attack its enemies before, during, and after —or first, next, then, and last. America attacks its enemies whenever it wishes and by whatever means it can. It does so obscurely or it tapes itself in the act of its ultra-violent missions for later viewings on film day with the boys.
The romantics amongst us never learned what we do: we liberate and ameliorate. We prop ‘em up and knock ‘em down. We’re the best friends and the worst enemies any of these bastards ever knew.
But don’t listen to what Jimmy Carter thinks about what our country does or is or stands for. He is an an ignorant and supercilious old man. A few years ago, when Loudmouth Matthews asked him to draw a parallel between the American Revolution and the War for Iraq, Carter said:
Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.
Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.
Is it really possible to think this way? To dismiss the necessity of our ancestors’ fighting in the American Revolution because it could have been chatted over instead? What sort of pansy-assed nonsense is that? Who the fuck has ever believed any such thing? It is an embarrassment to know that this seditous old scab was once our nation’s leader!
