MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor

[radioguy]

MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor
Do Democrats in Congress agree?
by Pete Hegseth
09/09/2007 5:28:00 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/091rhesh.asp


Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'

So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?

MoveOn.org has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this war--MoveOn.org and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?

[Linkster]

I believe if you look at the ad they are running they never calls anyone a traitor - it has a few simple facts written in it - and asks the question if he will betray "us"

I also know for a fact that in their 3.3 million membership base they have quite a few Iraqi war vets that support them - and have been very vocal about it

The point that most people miss(which is probably the basis for the ad) is that this "report" is a congressionally required report from the president - Petraeus is just giving his assessment ahead of what the president will report on the 15th to congress - and their basis for "cooking the books" is that the assessment and the report are probably going to be the same since they have been working together on both

It would be nice if a highly decorated military man had the balls to report a complete assessment - but since his choice to be the head of the surge was based on political reasons reaching back to 2004 - I wont hold out any hope that this man will be honest unless you count leaving out parts honesty

[Linkster]

BTW - arent you applying a little bit of a double standard to misrepresented headlines? I know you were quick to point out that christians headline - but then you allow for someone evidently closer to your political viewpoint to get away with it? Very telling :)

[radioguy]

BTW - arent you applying a little bit of a double standard to misrepresented headlines? I know you were quick to point out that christians headline - but then you allow for someone evidently closer to your political viewpoint to get away with it? Very telling :)

There is nothing misleading about that headline at all. The headline reads "MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor" and that is the truth. The people who own MoveOn.org paid for that ad in the Times, so that is accurate and not misleading in the slightest. If it would have said that MoveOn.org subscribers felt this way, that could be deceiving if it were proved to be untrue.

If you are referring to their use of the word "traitor" in their headline, that's also accurate and in no way misleading. They asked the question whether Petraeus should be known as "General Betray us" and if you go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of the word "traitor", this is what you will find:


trai·tor
–noun
1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.


Since the ad itself made it clear that they weren't questioning this, but rather making the case that he had in fact betrayed the American people and offered nothing at all refuting this, they did in fact call the General a traitor.

Well Linkster, since the headline to the article I posted does not mislead or misrepresent the facts, your accusation that I have applied a double standard is absolutely baseless.

[Linkster]

Nice try - going for reverse definitions doesnt fly - when you use your own word and not the printed word - now lets look at the word they did use:
Betray
1 : to lead astray; especially : SEDUCE
2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery
3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need <betrayed his family>

[kres24GT]

The first time I ever went to moveon.org I thought it was satire. I still refuse to beleive its really all 100% serious.

[Linkster]

kres - theyve been around for years - before Bush even - they were the group that called on congress to censure Clinton and get over the little hissy-fits everyone was having at the time

[Bill]

If the radioheads are saying that moveon is calling petraues a traitor, that must mean that moveon is saying something worthwhile.

Where's my credit card - time to give moveon some money.

[Jennifer]

moveon.org is just a group of people who wish they could be as influential as Rush. Rush is just an egotistical talking head.

Can we put them all at the bottom of the ocean, demand the media starts just printing truth without commentary, editorializing or spin and get our country back?

or will Sensationalism, Yellow Journalism and Media Electioneering be the course of events until the end of this nation?

[Bill]

Can we put them all at the bottom of the ocean...

That's the spirit!

[disrupter]

In long-awaited testimony, the commanding general of the war said last winter's buildup in U.S. troops had met its military objectives "in large measure."http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AsPmfw_302PqHu0gurpmyBSs0NUE

This are words designed to deceive the American people ONE MORE TIME.

Bush & Crew are moving the goal posts one more time:

911 connection? no?

WMDs? no?

Democracy? no?

Surge 4 political progress? no?

these people are professional liars.

Just say NO to more lies.

This is now & always has been about ex-patriot oligarchic empire all purchased at the American People's expense.

[Jennifer]

Well, Cindy's going to jail. Hopefully they'll let her keep running against Nancy "The QueenBee" Pelosi that way I can watch Nancy fall from her throne and Cindy be the most un-influential congress woman in the history of the United States!

[disrupter]

Petraeus lost 190,000 weapons to the black market. Didn't even bother to record serial numbers.

Petraeus trained Shiite Security Forces who immediately became death squads.

Petraeus is now handing wads of cash to know Ethnic Cleansers.

This is a recipe to foster & more inflamed & incendiary civil war when we finally let it happen.

The sooner we leave the less violent the ensuing civil war will be.

Let Iran & Saudi Arabia spend their petro dollars funding it,
let's quit spending our children's & grandchildren's economic future prosperity pouring billions into the Iraq desert & setting it aflame.

Shame on you self-blinded, wicked supporters of continuing this waste dump in the Iraqi desert.

You obviously hate unborn Americans to treat them this way.

[Jennifer]

Yup, and the weapons in the Iran-Contra affair were "lost" too.


AKA, since the UN won't let us sell weapons to militia groups, we "lost" them to Sunni and Shiite Militia members helping us rid their country of Syrians, Iranians and Terrorists.

[TheCenturion]

MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor
Do Democrats in Congress agree?
by Pete Hegseth
09/09/2007 5:28:00 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/091rhesh.asp


Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'

So, veterans who served in Iraq ask the Democratic leaders in Congress: Does MoveOn.org speak for you? Do you agree with MoveOn.org? Or do you repudiate this despicable charge?

MoveOn.org has helped frame the core choice: Whom do we trust to run this war--MoveOn.org and its allies in Congress, or Gen. David Petraeus and his colleagues?

Let me help you with this, Cher.

When Petraeus enlisted in the military, he swore an oath.

The solemn oath to which he swore wasn't to do whatever some grinning, glad handing politician in Washington DC tells him to do.

It wasn't to help pursue and fulfill the agenda of a pack of lying, thieving war profiteers at Halliburton.

It wasn't even an oath to protect Americans.

The oath he took was to "protect and defend The Constitution Of The United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic".

The Supremacy clause of The US Constitution ensconces all treaty obligations entered into by the United States as the "Supreme Law Of The Land."

The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter which is a treaty among member nations explicitly prohibiting military aggression without an expressed ad hoc authorization by the UN Security Council. In the case of Bush's invasion of Iraq, that never happened.

This means that Bush, and Cheney are war criminals and Petraeus is simply an accomplice to the crime.

In fact, the crime they are guilty of was identified and defined at Nuremberg as the Supreme Crime Against Humanity.

And, as an enabler of the Supreme Crime against humanity and an accomplice in the conduct with the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate, he has forsworn his oath of office and betrayed the American People through willful and flagrant disregard of his duty to The US Constitution.

And, accordingly, like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the others in the mob, he is a WAR Criminal and a Traitor as well.

See...it's rather simple when you think about it.

Now, please go put on some makeup.

Thanks

[Jennifer]

Let me make this plain, because evidentally you cannot read:

CONGRESS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING IN THE WAR, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

Check the Constitution.


Furthermore, General Petreayus has comitted no crimes, he has been charged with no crimes. But he has been subject to libel and slander by multiple organizations and individuals. With a fair judge and jury and enough time on his hands, he could win enough law suits to purchase the United States of America.

[Jesse Hemingway]

How could anyone respect David Petraeus his boss CentCom Chief Fallon: Petraeus Is ‘An Ass-Kissing, Little Chickenshit,’ ‘I Hate People Like That’ :lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

During the Iraq war, the Central Command (CENTCOM) head — who leads U.S. operations in the entire Middle East region — and the Multinational Force Commander (MNF) have regularly testified together about the course of the war in Iraq.

Former-MNF Commander Gen. George Casey and his CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid constantly briefed Congress about the situation in Iraq and its regional effects. In at least four public hearings after Casey took office in 2004, the pair testified together:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/

[Jennifer]

Sounds like someone was passed over for promotion. Sour grapes. Happens a lot in the military.

But, since you've never served, you wouldn't know that.

[disrupter]

Senator Larry Craig Supports Petraeus.

He came out from their closed stall meeting in the Senate men's room & announced that he was satisfied with Pretraeus's lip service.

[Jennifer]

Bill Clinton supports gang rape and AIDS transmission from under age individual to other under age individual.

What's your point?

[Linkster]

Sounds like someone was passed over for promotion. Sour grapes. Happens a lot in the military.

But, since you've never served, you wouldn't know that.

Umm - I dont mean to sound a litte off here - but Fallon is his boss - he hasnt been passed over he actually got a promotion to head of CentCom - over Petraeus - and I do know because I have served - but then thats not a qualifier to have knowledge - some of the people that serve in the military are just as jaded as people that dont - all depends on their backgrounds

[TheCenturion]

Let me make this plain, because evidentally you cannot read:

CONGRESS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING IN THE WAR, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

Check the Constitution.


Furthermore, General Petreayus has comitted no crimes, he has been charged with no crimes. But he has been subject to libel and slander by multiple organizations and individuals. With a fair judge and jury and enough time on his hands, he could win enough law suits to purchase the United States of America.

"Evidentally", (sic) you can't even read your own BS, much less spell it.

The Congress simply authorized Bush to apply military force - as a Last Resort and if necessary - to find and secure WMDs...nothing else.

It has nothing to do with Congress' sole power to declare war, which it has abrogated on multiple occasions. And it doesn't even matter.

Congress vested in Bush the power to apply military force based on circumstantial evidence. And that "evidence" subsequently turned out to be a pack of carefully crafted lies and fairy tales. Simply because Congress applies its imprimatur to the commission of war crimes makes them no less the heinous acts of international piracy they are. Nor do they absolve the participants from culpability for their participation.

The " I was only following orders" alibi was roundly repudiated and wholly rejected in 1945 at the Nuremberg Tribunals when the overlords of the Nazi Reich tried to use it as their defense.

And we know what happened to them.

And, in a civilized community of nations that reveres and respects the rule of law, that's exactly what should be the fate of Bush, Cheney, Petraeus and all the other conspirators, lackeys and sycophants who willingly participated in the plot to invade Iraq and perpetuate the illegal military occupation of the country.

[disrupter]

Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/

I guess he concurs with Larry Craig,
Petraeus gives good lip service. :lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

I wonder what people call Fallon behind his back? :grumble:

I think Petraeus having written the book on counter-insurgency, and what's playing out on the ground, speak to his credibility.

[Linkster]

I think if you look around most of the left-wingers cant stand Fallon - DailyKos wrote a story about him earlier this year where the author(a former navy commander) panned him - based on his being an admiral trying to run both ground wars - of course they were kinda short sighted with that approach as the guy probably had more experience in the middle east on the ground than anyone else in the military - but, the position that he's in is really a semi-political position - the Bush administration has made most of the top military a political institution very much opposing what the military had done for years - the only other ones that comes to mind that was put inthe same position by a president was Westmoreland and MacArthur(although he resisted it quite well)

[Smurf-Herder]

I think if you look around most of the left-wingers cant stand Fallon - DailyKos wrote a story about him earlier this year where the author(a former navy commander) panned him - based on his being an admiral trying to run both ground wars - of course they were kinda short sighted with that approach as the guy probably had more experience in the middle east on the ground than anyone else in the military - but, the position that he's in is really a semi-political position - the Bush administration has made most of the top military a political institution very much opposing what the military had done for years - the only other ones that comes to mind that was put inthe same position by a president was Westmoreland and MacArthur(although he resisted it quite well)


I think Fallon is mostly "old School", compared to Petraeus and Gates.

And he's only in his present position because he'd be the best choice for an Admiral controlling a regional war involving Iran - having served as a carrier commander in Desert Storm. He's a future strategic asset.

[Linkster]

Should have added - Petraeus didnt write that manual - thats a misnomer - it was originally written decades ago - and was recently updated at Lt Gen Mattis's request by the Army Training and Doctrine Command - Lt Gen Petraeus was one of the two Gens who had to approve the manual - the team that wrote it was actually run by Conrad Crane and Lt. Col. Lance McDaniel from the Army and Marines respectively - they had two services teams working together to update it from Marine Corps Combat Development Center at Quantico, Va and U.S. Army Military History Institute, in Carlisle, Pa

[Smurf-Herder]

Then I should also add that Petraeus was extremely successful on his first tour in Iraq, employing those counter-insurgency tactics. Putting him in the position of giving joint final approval of the manual.

Either way you cut it, the plan from the military perspective is showing major progress. As opposed to last year's strategy.

[Linkster]

Uhh - you might wanna check your facts - Petraeus didnt have anything to do with "counter-insurgency" on his first "tour" of Iraq - as a matter of fact he was the commanding general of Ft Leavenworth prior to this tour in Iraq - in the US. Prior to that he was the commander of the Iraq National Security Transition Team which had nothing to do with counter-insurgency - they were the people sitting in offices in the green zone figuring out how to get electric and water - and police officers trained - and failed on all three - His training in counter-insurgency came from when he was deputy commander of the Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force in Bosnia as part of the NATO stabilization team

[disrupter]

he wrote a book? ooooooh i am so [NOT] impressed.

probably another 'ghost' written text that a publisher can use his current popularity to pedal books.

News flash Smurfie,
This was supposed to create room for our INSTALLED government to reconcile all the variant factions of Iraq,

NEWSFLASH
Iraq government FAILS to accomplish ANYTHING!

CONCLUSION = SURGE FAILED!

Chickenshit Petraeus lost 190,000 weapons to the Iraq black market.
didn't even record their serial numbers.
How the fuck is that helping anything other than gun manufacturers?

Now he hands wads of cash to known Ethnic Cleansers to buy them off & calls it some kind of success?
And 'claims' he isn't arming them?

What a liar.

The neocon plan appears to be to make the eventual civil war as violent & bloody & do it all at taxpayers & your children's expense.

NeoCon = a traitor to America.