ARS on Twitter
RSS
MoveOn Movements
Posted by Raven on September 15th, 2007
The war of ADS has arrived and it’s just pathetic. Using our national security as an issue worthy of the tactics of MoveOn, we’re in trouble for sure.
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani criticized Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton in a full-page ad in Friday’s New York Times, accusing her of attacking Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus’ character.
The ad paid for by the Giuliani’s campaign attempts to link Clinton to another ad, paid for by MoveOn.org, a liberal anti-war group, that ran in the Times on Monday. The MoveOn ad accused Petraeus of “cooking the books” on the Iraq war and played off his name, asking, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”
I wasn’t in country when this all happened and didn’t learn of it until Thursday morning, when I turned on a TV for the first time in two weeks. MoveOn is a group financed by George Soros and his far left nutwhackjobs- some most of whom are aged hippies who wish to regain some long lost delusions of their 1960’s flower powered, peace picnic days of glory…the other people of MoveOn are limpdicked wussbags who cannot stand the idea of America fighting for ANYTHING. Everyone knows this group was formed back in the Clinton/Monica scandal days; it’s purpose was to encourage Americans to MOVE ON from that drama.
The Giuliani accuses Clinton, a New York senator, of participating in a “character attack” against Petraeus, citing her comments during a congressional hearing that the general’s progress report on Iraq required a “willing suspension of disbelief.”
Why hasn’t Shillary denounced the ad? Because, I am convinced, she is somehow involved in it’s production. Somewhere, deep in the piles of shit of MoveOn, Hillary’s bowel movements have left a mark…General Patraeus is just the man of the moment- this isn’t really a personal attack on him.
Shillary doesn’t make random statements. Every word she utters has been practiced and rehearsed to the end. She goes with the popular wind of the left:
Yep…when it’s about one man who lied under oath about his private but very public antics in the oval office, MOVING ON might be the thing to do. When it’s about a country’s national security, we have a different thought. The US should not be MOVING ON right now. These morOns chose to linger on the lines of lunacy and should join the Troothers…they would have a more interested audience…Clinton pretends to be skeptical of the General, to appease her MoveOn friends. What a leader she would be.
And Shillary loses this one in other ways too:
NEW YORK — A majority of Americans say they would feel more comfortable with Rudy Giuliani in the White House than Hillary Clinton if another terrorist attack were to happen in the United States, according to a new FOX News poll.
ANY GOP candidate would be FAR BETTER than ANY Lemoncrat candidate, but especially Shillary, in leading the country after the next terror attack…and thanks to the hard work of the left to appease our enemies, we can be assured of another attack.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Thought you might like to hear from an expert how the republicans have handled the job. From Alan Greenspan’s book: Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.
Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”
“They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose” in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate…
…Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.”
It was a presidency marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he writes, but he fondly describes his alliance with two of Mr. Clinton’s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, in battling financial crises in Latin America and then Asia.
By contrast, Mr. Greenspan paints a picture of Mr. Bush as a man driven more by ideology and the desire to fulfill campaign promises made in 2000, incurious about the effects of his economic policy, and an administration incapable of executing policy.
Don’t you think this might mean that Hillary is better equipped to handle our economic policies than the republicans have been?
September 15th, 2007 at 9:16 am
*
The idea that a Clinton would lecture anyone on the merits of truthfulness requires the suspension of all semblance of reality… yet they somehow get away with it.
The mother of all liars, hillary Clinton; don’t vote for her JAIL HER.
*
September 15th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Raven,
“Why hasn’t Shillary denounced the ad? Because, I am convinced, she is somehow involved in it’s production. Somewhere, deep in the piles of shit of MoveOn, Hillary’s bowel movements have left a mark…”
You’ve got that right!
The anti-war crowd goes way back:
http://mavericknewsnetwork.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/09/nothing-new-und.html
September 15th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Deb,
I’m afraid your comment consists of a number of non sequiturs.
Contrary to what many on the left believe, George Bush is not running for President in 2008. Thus attacking his past economic policies and inability to stand up to the Republican congressional leadership spending excesses (during the era of a Republican majority) says nothing about the next President’s competency regarding economic policy should a Republican win the general election. You need to examine the economic positions and records of those individuals who are running for the Republican nomination rather than continue to run against Mr. Bush.
And I have no idea what appealing to Bill Clinton’s supposed economic abilities has to do with Hillary’s competency on economic matters unless you expect Bill to run this country from the bedroom. And if you do, then you’re also saying that Hillary is not her own person, which goes against the whole feminist mythology about Hillary.
If you check out Hillary’s statements since she’s been in the Senate, she has consistently supported every bonehead economic proposal that has come down the pike, showing a consistent allegiance to a collectivist and centrally dictated economy, a model which the past 50-plus years has failed miserably in almost every country that such as been tried. I’ve no confidence in her economic leadership.
Regarding Congress, the leadership of both parties continues to be fiscally execrable. However, when you turn to the backbenchers, I think you’ll find more Republicans than Democrats speaking out for fiscal sanity and control on spending (though not enough from either party by any means). At the state level, the Republican have an edge. Thus, on a party-wide basis, the advantage still goes to the Republicans, though it’s more of a choosing between two evils.
And again, I fail to see how a comparison of the two ex-presidents Bill Clinton versus George Bush (starting Jan 2009) is anything but a non sequiture regarding which party can manage our economy better during the term of our next President.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Always on Watch:
The “anti-war crowd”.? What exactly is wrong with being “anti-war”? As an “anti-war” person, I will tell you loud and clear: Those who are so gung-ho for war should try living in one. Those leaders who send other peoples children off to war should try going off to war themselves (those pampered chicken hawks in the White House refused). I am proudly against unjustified attacks against other countries that waste lives and billions of dollars, as in IRAQ. I was not against going into Afghanistan (shock! gasp! and me a liberal!) But the morons in the White House forgot all about the perpetrators of 9/11 in their haste to get a big fat presence in Iraq (the largest embassy in the world was not for nothing you know). And those of you who voted the neo-cons in should have been the ones raising holy hell for them to go after Bin Laden instead of Saddam. It’s obvious the hawks in the white house are not worrying about national security, but other agendas, and they have all the “always on watch” types buying into what their selling in the name of patriotism. The joke’s on you- you’re making them rich and powerful while America gets screwed.
September 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Wow, Civil Truth,
I think Greenspan speaks to more than just Clintons “supposed economic abilities”. What does it have to do with Hillary? hmm, by their history, I tend to think they have just a wee bit in common on economics.
“I think you’ll find more Republicans than Democrats speaking out for fiscal sanity and control on spending”… surely they have proved themselves otherwise. The myth of fiscally conservative conservatives is dead.
Your optimistic look forward is not walking away from the president you elected, it’s running as fast as you can, but a graceful effort. Too bad we still have a year and a half of this bone-head in office, he can still do alot of damage. But okay, lets look ahead- please, just please would the republican voter learn from this debacle and next time vote for more than just “he sounds like the cowboy next door”, or “the other guy sounds too smart, I’ll vote for my guy”. And I see the candidates are still falling all over each other to proclaim they are pro-life. Will someone please point out to the religious right that THIS “pro-life” president has killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Including, I’m sure, more than a few fetuses.
September 15th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Deb I don’t consider Alan Greenspan to be a non paritsan player here; he’s as liberal as they come and of course he’s going to praise Bill Clinton. Look who Alan is married to: Andrea Mitchell- one of the most liberally bias reporters there are. They’re both nothing more than mouthpieces for the Clinton Machine as far as I’m concerned.
Both parties have been miserable when it comes to budgets and pork and waste. But only one party stands up and funds national defense and it’s not the Democrats and you know it.
Democrats have promised to clean up Congress. Yet we read endless accounts of Mr. Murtha bullying his way around to get special earmarks for corporations in his own district that don’t even exist; we see Ms. Pelosi making sure her district gets its unfair share of working American tax payer moneys to fund her pet projects. We see more waste from the very leaders who promised to clean up the house. You can’t blame people for holding Congress at it’s all time low- never in the history of the US has Congress been viewed with such contempt by the majority of Americans. All under a Democrat leader.
I have absolutely no confidence in any of them to do the right thing, but I do trust them to do the popular thing which isn’t always in the countrys’ best interest. At least President Bush understands this. He’s not perfect and I have many issues with him- but he’s honest and always has been. Many people don’t like that- a politician who is honest is rare. It’s not a sin to uphold and keep promises one made during his campaign.
September 15th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
It’s quite debatable whether or not he’s honest- misleading the people on the reasons why to send their children off to war is criminal dishonesty, as is letting servicemen and women think that they are over there to “avenge” Saddam for 9/11. BUT I know you disagree with me on those issues, so SAY he is honest. So is my 12 year old, and I don’t think she’s competent to lead the country either. I do think she is wiser. And definitely more articulate. I’m sure she has a higher IQ, but then I’m biased.
September 15th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Deb,
You didn’t leave me with much to respond to that I haven’t already said. You seem to saying that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill (at least in economic views). Which is it: is Hillary her own person, or should we vote on the basis of the first Clinton reign – in which case it’s only fair game to examine the whole Clinton record.
Your hatcheting of my paragraph on Congress is straight from a Soviet journalistic textbook. And I guess you just couldn’t resist throwing in the pro-life issue to muddy the waters – since I suspect you’d still be unhappy with Mr. Bush on Iraq even if he were on the other side of the abortion issue. So I guess I’m left with wishing you a happy rest of the weekend. Thanks for stopping by.
September 15th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Sorry Civil Truth, I was referencing and didn’t consider it hatcheting since your comment is right here for all to see. I agree, the records on both sides have been abysmal. And yeah, the pro-life issue is a itchy point for me, since it helped get him elected and was such a farce. You are right, I would still be unhappy with the Iraq issue. Aren’t you?
September 15th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Deb the abortion “issue” is worthy of debate. I like to ask good people like you why it’s ok for almost 5 million human lives lost, since the war started? I know the answer too- a fetus isn’t a life. I disagree.
Think about that. 5 Million.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Deb,
Thanks for your respectful response. We’re heading off soon for a baseball game to which I was given free tickets this morning, so I won’t have much more opportunity for conversation today.
Regarding Iraq, in terms of the politicans, we have had an inarticulate President matched off with an equally (or even more) incoherent Democratic leadership. Thus, we’ve got to look to better sources to find out and evaluate what’s going on. In terms of the past, yes there’s been significant mismanagement of the war. Currently, though, we’ve probably got the best people in charge militarily that we’ve had since the end of the conventional fighting at the onset.
A favorable outcome is certainly not guaranteed, especially with a strengthened Iran (and their proxies) and the reemergence of Russia into the Middle East arena. However, we have made committments to various Iraqi leaders and others who have allied themselves with us at great personal peril, which we need to honor or else our word as a nation will be irrevocably viewed as untrustworthy. That duty, coupled with a reasonable plan for dealing with the insurgent groups, in my mind justifies going forward at this time.
September 15th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Civil Truth, that was a civil and thoughtful reply. I have great reservations about leaving Iraq, as Colin Powell warned, we broke it. But I am unhappy about the leaderships incompetence and therefore potentially unending amount of time we will be there, the cost and fiscal mismanagement and even suspicions about where many billions have gone, the attitude of Bush to “kick the can down the road” to the next administration (“let them fix it, I can’t”). I think it’s criminal that Bush got us to this place, will never pay for his mistakes, and will retire smoking a cigar all the way to the bank. I think our word as a nation is already viewed as untrustworthy, and was not in this position before George. I agree that simply leaving may create a disaster, while staying may lock us in for the next fifty years, as I think the neo-cons may have wanted all along to create a permanent presence.
Raven, re the abortion issue, I won’t pretend I know when life begins. But I guess I don’t think it starts with the first cells clustered together. I personally don’t even think an abortion should happen after the first trimester. If you can’t keep yourself from getting pregnant in the first place, and then if you are pregnant, you can’t figure out what to do about it within three months, then you’re too stupid and careless to raise a child. Am I happy about 5 million abortions? I think thats disgraceful. Does this country know what to do with 5 million unwanted children? Is the pope or the anti-abortion marchers paying for or adopting 5 millions children? I doubt it. Do I think the pope, or some Christian fanatic from Kansas, or any man, should be telling women what to do with their bodies? Do I think a woman who has been raped should be forced to have that child? Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. But if you’re not offering to adopt those potential 5 million unwanted children, don’t legislate my body.
I don’t even understand why this is a “Republican issue”- if they are for smaller government, want government to stay out of our lives, and don’t even want us to legislate their guns, how can they be for legislating our bodies?
September 15th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Legislating our bodies? The government legisates everyday what we can do to our bodies. Suicide? Not legal. Taking narcotics… not legal. The problem is that many do not consider the life inside the mother in this entire “choice” argument. It is just a cluster of cells. Ofcourse, those cells are not the mother’s body and have their own unique DNA sequence. They are a separate living creature. At that point… life has already begun.. is it sentient.. no, not yet.. but it will be..
And “if you’re not offering to adopt those potential 5 million unwanted children” argument sounds awfully chickenhawkish to me. And given the number of people unable to have children who go overseas and adopt children from China, Europe and Africa, I’d bet they’d put a large dent in that unwanted child number you’re throwing around.
September 15th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Yeah, it looks like Slick Willy is being added to the entire Hillary Clinton campaign as another 2-for-1 deal…. yay…. :roll:
September 15th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Duncan-
I just had an epiphany! I think that we should pass a law that no man will have sex with a woman without signing an affidavit that he will share the financial and emotional and care for any ensuing child. That includes diapering, tutoring and taking to ballet lessons. What do you think?
September 16th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Deb, thank you for being someone worthy of some debate here…people like you don’t come here too often so it gives me hope for human kind!
About Bush’s honesty re. the war- I believe he was mislead- as was a great deal many people…the intel was faulty but much of the world had the same intel…just not the balls to do something about it.
I think invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but they didn’t do it right. Colin Powell was correct- we should have had MUCH more boots on the ground. I think we wouldn’t be where we are had we done it right..I don’t think leaving is the best thing either. We have an obligation to clean up the mess we, and our enemies, have created over there. I fully believe too, that our enemies have exploited our presence there to their own ends.
As for how we are viewed in the world: Before Bush we were seen as sheeps. Total wuss of a nation and one that would sell it’s soul before standing up for itself. Is that bad or good? history will tell.
And let’s let history judge Bush, not us.
About abortion: I would adopt. In fact I have looked into it several times. I also would like to see more education and birth control options be given out- not as a hand out, but as a viable option. When we play we must expect to PAY or, prevent the game from being created, so to speak…
I wouldn’t put it past Lemoncrats to enact something like you mentioned…and you know it wasn’t too far back in our history that men who had sex with girls, women, WOULD do the caring and diapering and all that. Back when honor was an honorable thing. That’s been lost.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:16 am
There are MILLIONS of women right here in America who cannot have their own children. Millions who would adopt an unwanted baby- who would make those aborted fetuses, WANTED children. Are there other reasons why so many abortions happen? yes…the biggest being pressure placed upon the girls and women to get the abortion vs. so called ruining their own, and the lives of their parents or BF’s who don’t want the responsibility.
It’s really a sad thing. Abortions for the convenience of others.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Actually Raven, according to the news article out this morning, Greenspan calls himself a Libertarian/Republican. I have to wonder about that though, if he so adamantly supports Clinton. He’s also claiming that the overriding concern about Iraq was not WMD but, the threat Saddam was to the oil. I’m buying his book to read.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Deb CT is right about the less of two evils when it comes to fiscal responsibility within Congress. Both parties were totally selfish in much of what they did, but it was mostly GOP Senators and Representatives who spoke up of the waste. Many of them were simply brushed off like pieces of dust. The Democrats have been extremely irresponsible since taking “control” and hence, the poor ratings.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Please don’t forget that President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion. President George Bush ran a deficit of $319 billion in 2005. Discretionary spending under Bush rose from $649.3 billion in 2001 to $895 billion in 2004. At the same time, the administration opposed renewing rules for government spending that required all tax cuts or spending increases to be offset elsewhere in the budget. Bush wanted such rules to apply only to spending measures and not to tax-cutting proposals. Those rules imposed a discipline on the Clinton administration that forced it to keep deficits in check. That restraint has disappeared. On top of this, Bush has spent over 500 billion of your childrens money on a war in Iraq that has gotten us nowhere. In my house, if we can’t afford it, we don’t buy it. Not so with Bush. He and the Republicans congress took out a credit card with your children’s names on it and went to town. How can you argue that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible? They just have not been.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Deb, I think Kim put in a nutshell what I’ve meant when I talk about Republicans being more fiscally responsible. It’s sort of like saying that on a hundred point test, the Republicans scored 20 compared to 15 for the Democrats. (And again, the Republican advantage is from their backbenchers, not from their leaders.) Neither score is anything to boast about, but one is higher than the other.
The Congressional shenanigans regarding budget projections has been a disgrace for decades. The spending cuts offsets of the Clinton era were just a different version of the same game when you remember the hand-waving that went on to generate the numbers. The one thing that remains constant is that spending keeps going up, whether Democrats or Republicans control Congress or the White House. The most restraint has occurred when one party controls Congress and the other the White House.
Thus most of the budget surplus/deficit has resulted from changes in the revenue side rather than spending (except for Iraq, of course, although there is some partial revenue offset). And in that context, I believe that you give Mr. Clinton too much credit and Mr. Bush too little. Recalling that Clinton reigned in the era of the dot.com bubble which artifically raised revenues, coupled with “gridlock” that did restrain spending somewhat by prevent major new spending initiatives.
The start of Mr. Bush’s tenancy coincided with the dot.bomb era, which decreased revenue and led to an economic slowdown. The Bush/Republican tax cuts actually were effective in helping to avert a recession and did stimulate tax revenues as well, although the jury is still out on whether the net impact was to increase or decrease overall revenue. I personally was surprised that they worked as well as they did, which is one of the things that made me reexamine my political assumptions a few years ago, comparing rhetoric and theory with what actually works.
The people who I personally trust regarding financial matters seem to agree that our current deficit level is not alarming when compared with GNP. And at present the deficit seems to be stabilizing rather than theatening to spiral out of control.
However, I do greatly fault Mr. Bush for failing to rein in the Republican Congress and leadership on its pork and frivolous spending when the Republicans held the majority. That was an abdication of leadership and unnecessarily aggravated the deficit, while also severely damaging the Republican “brand” regarding fiscal responsiblity. But since taking back the Congress, the Democrats in Congress have perpetuated the porking behavior, just changing the beneficiaries. There’s plenty of
glorymanure to go around for the leadership of both parties.Interestingly, I’m not hearing much about fiscal restraint from any of the leading Presidential candidates so far in this election – just arguing over where to spend money.
As the grassroots (or at least the netroots) I do hear differences between conservatives and the left: the conservatives advocate spending restraint (except for defense); the left advocates expansion of social programs in conjunction with unrealistic expectations of paying for them through reduced defense spending and the golden goose of business and “the rich”. Both are frustrated that the leadership doesn’t listen to them. The difference for me is that the numbers on the left haven’t added up so far.