politicalpartypoop.com

MUST SEE VIDEO

What a dickhead!

This is old, I forgot to post so here it tis in case you have not seen…

Lot of good reading over at Sweetness & Light In case y’all forgot.

Sen. Clinton Calls for Iran Sanctions
By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jan 19, 2006

Sen. Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran and faulted the Bush administration for “downplaying” the threat Tehran’s nuclear program poses.

In an address Wednesday evening at Princeton University, Clinton, D-N.Y., said it was a mistake for the U.S. to have Britain, France and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past 2 1/2 years. Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.

“I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations,” Clinton said.

---

Sen. Clinton Urges U.N. Sanctions Against Iran
By Dan Balz
Friday, January 20, 2006; A06

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.

The senator’s statements, in which she said the administration should make it clear that all options remain on the table for dealing with the Iranians, came during a speech about the Middle East on Wednesday night at Princeton University. She criticized the White House for turning the problem over to European nations and said Iran must never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

“I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations,” Clinton said. “I don’t believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines.” …

New York Sen. Clinton Says Iran a Threat
New York Sen. Clinton Calls Iran a Threat to U.S., One of Israel’s Greatest Dangers

By SAMANTHA GROSSFeb 2, 2007

NEW YORK - Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel’s greatest threats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said “no option can be taken off the table” when dealing with that nation…

Read it all at Sweetness & Light

This from Amy Proctor

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino and ultra-liberal reporter Helen Thomas exemplified a classic example of the difference in decorum and substance between anti-war nuts and those who thoughtfully support the war effort in Iraq. In this exchange, Perino tolerates Thomas and her idiotic assertions that the U.S. kills innocent civilians and wants to know why we should listen to GEN Petraeus’ advice on the war.

From the New York Post via the blog What Bubba Knows

Americans won’t see their movies. While the public is staying away in droves from “Rendition,” “Lions for Lambs” and “In the Valley of Elah,” audiences are really avoiding “Redacted,” De Palma’s picture about US soldiers who rape a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then kill her and her family. The message movie was produced by NBA Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, who insisted on deleting grisly images of Iraqi war casualties from the montage at the film’s end. Cuban offered to sell the film back to De Palma at cost, but the director was too smart to go for that deal.“Redacted” - which “could be the worst movie I’ve ever seen,” said critic Michael Medved -

took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters, which means roughly 3,000 people saw it in the entire country.

Oh shit, I thought this was a typo!! 

“This, despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity, high praise in the Times, The New Yorker, left-leaning sites like Salon, etc. A Joe Strummer documentary [of punk-rock band The Clash] playing in fewer theaters made more in its third week,” e-mailed one cineaste. “Not even people who presumably agree with the movie’s antiwar thesis made the effort to see it.”

Hey Cuban your basketball team SUCKS TOO! LOL!!!!

The fact that Bill is just flat out lying about his position on Iraq means Mrs. Bill is in trouble with her wacko left leaning anti-war crowd.
I find it amusing that dude still has not learned about the power of the blogsphere and You Tube. Politicians can’t get away with being a fucken liar because it is so easy to expose the real truth.
This is another issue I will monitor to see if the MSM ignores the facts.

From the blog Don Surber, Daily Mail

Do we really want to bring back this soap opera for 4 more years?

Patrick Healy of the New York Times reported that Bill Clinton is telling people on the campaign trail that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning.”

Of course that’s not the truth.

CNN reported on June 23, 2004:

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

“I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,” Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book “My Life.”

My point is not about Hillary trying to renege on her authorization of this war. My point is merely that under another President Clinton we will get more lies by any administration since Josef Stalin passed away.

Had enough?

The Times story is here. The CNN story is here. Linked by Memeorandum.

UPDATE: Oliver Willis: “As one of President Clinton’s strongest supporters and biggest fans, it pains me to point out that what he’s saying here is a load of bull.”

I did not have military relations with that war, that Iraq…

Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start  —  During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.

Discussion: Don Surber, The Politico, Firedoglake, BBC, The Atlantic Online, Examining Presidential …, National Review, NY Daily News, The Carpetbagger Report, Right Voices, MSNBC, Sweetness & Light, Outside The Beltway, The Page, Liberty Pundit, Sister Toldjah, Jules Crittenden, Dr. Sanity, Hotline On Call, Oliver Willis, New York Sun, Obsidian Wings, Macsmind, Death, THE LIBERAL JOURNAL, BitsBlog, Gateway Pundit, CALIFORNIA YANKEE and USS Neverdock

Bill Clinton 1998 Iraq Liberation Act

Her meeting with Code Pink, in case you forgot, LOL!

Whoppi missed this You Tube Clip

Found via Hot Air, from the Daily Kos

We won’t wait anymore.

Since Congress, particularly the congressional leadership, refuses to do so, my wife and I are personally defunding the war and occupation of Iraq. We refuse for the foreseeable future to surrender the portion of our taxes that pays for U.S. imperialism and the militarization which backs it up. We’re inventing nothing, merely joining with thousands of other war-tax protesters whose history on the North American continent dates back to 1637 when the Algonquins refused to pay a Dutch tax levied to remodel a fort built in the midst of these Indians to control them on their own land.

Our action may seem pitiful in that it amounts to cutting off money to Iraq for about as long as it takes you to read half this sentence. Moreover, if it wishes, the government can extract even that pittance from us by force. But only if officials are willing to expend more money to collect from us than they will obtain in the process.

We take this action reluctantly, fully aware of the potential consequences. But Congress leaves us no choice.

Read the rest here and try not to laugh!

(Story Link) NAJAF, Iraq — At what’s believed to be the world’s largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn’t good.A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that’s cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.

 Also from Hot Air: Bad news from Iraq: Funeral industry suffers as death toll drops

You know people, I’m not smart enough to try and figure out the logic behind this story.
I’m er uh…..speechless. This is one of the most retarded stories I have ever read, and I read a lot of crazy liberal shit!

“Certainly, when the number of dead increases I feel happy, like all workers in the graveyard,” said Basim Hameed , 30, a body washer. “This happiness comes from the increase in the amount of money we have.”

Death is something everyone must face, he noted. “My job demands death, and this is our fate, all of us.”

This is from the liberal blog Firedoglake I follow politics quite a bit, maybe too closely sometimes. I would never ever consider voting for Hillary Rodham under any circumstances; in fact out of all of the political candidates on both sides of the political fence Hillary would be at the bottom of my list.

I was already familiar with Hillary’s socialist crap and I already knew that Hillary would say and do anything to get the presidency, but the more I read about her the more I am concerned at the prospect of her presidency and what it would do to this country.

Now it’s one thing for someone to challenge my opinion of her based on her political positions versus my favorite candidate Thompson or any other Republican, but I doubt any liberal supporting her can tell me where she stands on anything.
Nobody knows what the bitches position is on any damm thing, and that is intentional.
She totally counts on her supporters ignoring the truth about her.

Now although Hillary’s comments in the post are not earth shattering it is another example of her comments being in direct contrast to what she has already said in other public forums.
Her political pandering is unlike anything I have ever witnessed. This bitch is crazy.

I can’t wait until we get down to the final two candidates where she is going to be forced to answer for all of this crazy shit.
You people who are planning to vote for this crazy bitch need psychiatric help.
No rational person who is paying attention to her crazy shit and her daily morphing political stances can in good conscious say a Rodham presidency would be good for this nation.

Blog Post

Every year I go to a fundraiser luncheon sponsored by group called Eleanor Roosevelt’s Legacy Committee. It’s a group that raises money, recruits and trains Democratic women candidates and give campaign grants to those running in New York.Hillary Clinton has been a patron of this organization from the beginning, and is often the keynote speaker. As you can imagine, the lunch this year was Hill chillin’ with her homegirls.So, maybe it made her let down her guard? Or maybe she recognized that a group of politically active NY Dems is no place to advocate for residual troops, or maybe the polling after the last debate convinced her that being Joe Lieberman light is not playing well? Who knows?

What I do know, is that I heard her say that she would end the Iraq war immediately upon taking office. Lots of heads snapped up when she said that (and there was plenty of applause, even a little whooping) and the very politically plugged in person sitting next to me remarked that the statement was “completely new”. She went on to say that the troops had already done everything they had been asked to do: got rid of Saddam, created a situation where elections could take place, surged to create political stability so the elected Iraqi government could do some legislating and work out a political solution (which she said they have not done) and that it was unfair to ask our troops to stay in Iraq and “play referee to an Iraqi civil war.” She said there is no military solution.

I’m not a Hillary watcher, so somebody in the comments may want to contradict that, but it certainly is the first time I’ve heard that and is very different than what I heard her say in the last debate.

Some of the big applause lines were:

• She said she would “take the tax subsidies away form the oil companies, they don’t need them anymore’ and use that money to create a strategic alternative energy reserve.
• On pledging to change our posture and direction vis a vis other countries: “You can’t lead if no one is following.”
• “They say we can’t be both secure and free. Yes we can, by following the Constitution.”
• And she spent many minutes body slamming Bush on No Child Left Behind and for vetoing SCHIP.

Nice clip on Rodham’s changing views

From the old, this bitch is crazy files…Adviser downplays Hillary Clinton’s conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt

From Red StateYou people who are going to cast your vote for this nut should be ashamed yourselves.
She is the Mitt Romney of the left.

So, we hear today that Hillary would use violence against Iran in SPITE of her earlier pandering (er, I mean assurances) to the anti-war crowd insisting she would negotiate with Iran - with NO conditions. And yet she had no problem suggesting Barack ‘Democrat of Hope’ Obama is naive in opining that he would do the same thing.Now, I love me some good popcorn and cheap beer theater as I watch these clowns go after each other issue by issue, but really now-which is it love?

In her latest ‘Romancing the Libs’ novel, Hillary wants us to see her as both tough and soft in matters of foreign policy:

The next U.S. president will have a moment of opportunity to reintroduce America to the world and restore our leadership. To build a world that is safe, prosperous, and just, we must get out of Iraq, rediscover the value of statesmanship, and live up to the democratic values that are the deepest source of our strength.

Of COURSE she wants us to see her as having it both ways…it’s something we’ve seen repeatedly with this Liberal over the years. My question to the Mistress of Liberalism is this: Exactly how do we commingle ’statesmanship and retreat’ on the world stage?

Read the rest here

Wow I say Nancy Pelosi on the View this morning and was shocked. The leader of the most ethical congress in history has been in hiding for quite some time.

From the blog Lee Rockwell.com

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer about why the Democratic Congress refuses to end the war they were elected to end. She said she needs two-thirds of the votes in each house to override a veto.Nancy, you can audit my class in the Constitution anytime.”All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…”

That means that to end the war, the House must simply fail to pass a bill to continue funding it. That would take a tie vote!

They could also pass a bill to fund the withdrawal. The President could veto that but then would look like an ass and a liar if he later complained that he lacked the funds to withdraw the troops.

On CSPAN, Joe Biden mumbled out some scenario like “I won’t leave troops in the field without equipment.” Huh? Joe, when the Congress cuts off funding, the program must cease. If the President continues a federal program without authorization, he should be impeached. If his intentional disregard for the Constitution causes a single unnecessary death, he should be prosecuted.

******
Pelosi nixes idea of ‘war tax’

All told, the Democratic proposal for an “Iraq tax” lasted about four hours. That’s roughly the amount of time from when House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) gave life to the idea with his endorsement to when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) strangled it.“Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax,” Pelosi said in a statement issued this afternoon.

Pelosi continues to hide from the Moonbats who are still waiting for her to end this damm war!!!

Have you heard about the latest “controversy” involving Rush Limbaugh that has been made up from scratch by Media Matters and relentlessly promoted by the left side of the blogosphere? Well, no worries, I’ll tell you all about it.Here’s what Media Matters is claiming Rush Limbaugh said, Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are “phony soldiers.”

Now, you might actually conclude from reading that headline that Rush Limbaugh said that, Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are “phony soldiers.”

Actually, he didn’t.

Once again, here’s the headline, from Media Matters,

Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are “phony soldiers.”

Continue reading here what Rush Limbaugh actually said, during a conversation with a caller. Also go to his site Rushlimbaugh.com if you REALLY give a shit.

More: Background Material…

Seattle Post Intelligencer: Poster soldier for anti-war movement was a fake
RCP: Winter Soldier Syndrome - Michelle Malkin
Hot Air: Jesse Macbeth: I admit it, I’m a filthy liar
AP: 8-month sentence for man who lied about Iraq fighting
Feds nab VA cheaters in ‘Operation Stolen Valor’

But first My two cents:

Ah hell I was not sure I wanted to post this, but since dude on Right Wing did a piece on this “phony” outrage, I figured my Poop readers should get the 411.

You know while on one hand I really getting tired of Media Matters and their blatant distortion of the facts on shit they have on their site, I kinda understand why they do what they do and why they are so successful at smear.

I heard on Rush’s show some of the comments made by some liberal Democrats denouncing what Rush said, I always have to remind myself that Democrats and liberals are never interested in truth, it’s simply about winning and Media Matters knows that the majority of their kook constituents only priority is getting their people in office at all costs.

Now don’t get me wrong, the purpose of this blog is to post stuff that interests me and my political views and yes, I want “my side to win.”
But I have never knowingly posted 411 here that I knew was bullshit just so I can make a fucking cheep political point.

Democrats must use deception to stay in power, but the scary thing is it works like a charm.
I’m dumbfounded at how many websites posted bullshit about O’Reilly and how they took his comments out of context when after reading further, few if any actually read or heard the comments themselves.

I’m perplexed at the vast differences in simple logic between the right blogsphere and the left.
Blogger on the right, in most cases go out of their way to get to the bottom of a story or issue and actively seek to get as much firm details on an issue as possible and the rarely comment and post shit unless they have their fucken facts straight.

Media Matters has these crackpot liberals by the mental ballz. It’s apparent that liberals can’t process information unless it has been pissed on by Media Matters.

Here are a few examples:

(link) Media Matters for America is calling attention to a Rush Limbaugh rant from his show on Wednesday in which he dismisses U.S. troops, including those now serving in Iraq, who disagree with President Bush’s stay-until-victory strategy as “phony soldiers.”
And my colleague Jeff Fecke at Blog of the Moderate Left wonders whether those, including Sen. Norm Coleman, who were outraged by the MoveOn.org ad that was insufficiently respectful toward Gen. David Petraeus, will bring equal energy to denouncing Limbaugh for being insufficiently respectful toward some of the troops.

*********

(link) Following the MoveOn non-controversy, some of our local dingbats went on a largely unnoticed mini-crusade to get WA-08 Congressional candidate Darcy Burner to condemn the anti-war organization’s ad. Now that Rush Limbaugh has said something that was considerably more offensive to our men and women in uniform, we’re certain that Mark Gardner and the rest of the fair and balanced wingnutosphere will demand WA-08 Congressman Dave Reichert condemn Limbaugh’s remarks.

****

Will Norm Coleman denounce Rush Limbaugh for “phony soldiers” comment?
*******

Pallone Blasts Rush Limbaugh, Implies Republicans are Hypocrites

Earlier today Republican hero and recovering drug addict Rush Limbaugh slandered thousands of American soldiers who are risking their lives overseas as “phony soldiers.” Why? Solely because they question the rationale for the Iraq War.

*****

(link) How about leading conservative host Rush Limbaugh, a man who has regularly interviewed the president, vice-president, and numerous other conservative Republican luminaries?

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.”

From the DCCC:

Chairman Chris Van Hollen Condemns Rush Limbaugh’s Outrageous Comment that Soldiers Who Support Withdrawing From Iraq Are “Phony Soldiers”

“Rush Limbaugh’s personal attack on our men and women in uniform is reprehensible. It minimizes the sacrifice our troops in Iraq and their families are making and has no place in the public discourse. Rush Limbaugh owes our military and their families an apology for his hurtful comments that minimize their service to our country.”

******

(link) John Amato: “I’m calling on the Senate to pass an amendment or uphold their latest one and condemn Rush Limbaugh’s cowardly acts on our troops! Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne in Iraq wrote a NY Times op-ed—criticizing the war in Iraq, and had the bravery to suggest that it was time to develop an exit strategy. Two of them just died. Are they phonies, Rush? Where’s the “sense of the Senate” on this outrage?

Let me be clear, I don’t give a shit that you oppose the U.S. being in Iraq, or oppose our Middle East policy, or how we use our troops or what our military priorities should be.
When I read lefty blog I’m interested in the discourse many provide and of course I don’t agree with much of it, but I think it’s important for me to be knowledgeable on issues and to remain grounded in my viewpoints I have an obligation (to myself) to be informed, understand and comprehend opposing viewpoints without filters. Whether it’s Media Matters or the MSM, John Stewart, Keith Olberman on the left, Newsbusters, Rush, O’Reilly on the right.
Especially since I dedicate so much time keeping up this paltry blog

Through my extensive blog reading on the right and left, watching the MSM, watching a lot of You Tube and taking in countless other political information sources I have a pretty fair grasp on the world around me and one thing that Rush taught me when I first started listening to his show (from day one) and why no other on air pundit comes close to him is he encourages his listeners to seek out the truth. Don’t simply take his word on issues, read and hear the bullshit on the left for yourself.
You should never be afraid at seeking opposing viewpoints and listening to opposing viewpoints.
This is why people who say they don’t watch Fox News are cowards and tells you everything you need to know about them intellectually.
I would never EVER, encourage anyone NOT to listen to a MSM network,  a liberal talk show host, or a source like the NY Times, it’s not even logical.

Far too many people are just too fucken lazy to seek the truth on issues and choose to allow their minds to be filtered.

This is not about “standing up for” Rush, dude is a fucken multi-millionaire, he could care less what I think.

This is about simple honesty. If the goal of the left and lefty blogsphere is simply to WIN then by all means distort, lie, manipulate, conceal. Ignorance is obviously bliss in the liberal world.

There are countless blog entries commenting on the useless Democrat debate last night and I have been glancing at the news networks as well.

People these Democrat debates are pointless; it is pointless to continue to try and psychoanalyze the mindset of Democrats. None of those candidates’ exhibits the characteristics of a leader, not one of them are willing to tell the American people their true core beliefs. Democrats are completely incapable of running a campaign without massive deception.

I have been telling people for years, Mrs. Snoop can verify, not only are we NEVER leaving Iraq even if a Democrat is elected president they won’t leave either.
Now that has been confirmed, these pussy whipped Democrats see the writing on the wall, now they must change the strategy and now they must explain to the loony Democratic base this change in philosophy and mindset.

I thought Bush lied and millions dies, I thought Bush mislead the Democrats, I thought Bush lied to the American people and got us into a meaningless war.

Anywho the text below is a transcript from Rush as he goes into more details.

If I did not dislike liberals and Democrats so much, I would feel sorry for them.

RUSH: I have the San Francisco Chronicle in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers here today. It’s a story by their Washington bureauette reporter Carolyn Lochhead: “Even if Democrats Win White House, Troops Likely to Remain in Iraq.” Now, where did you first hear that, and how long ago? You first heard it on this program back in March or April. The light bulbs are starting to go off there in the Drive-By Media and with the rest of the Democrats. They’re slowly getting around to seeing the point that I was making since Monday about Mrs. Clinton’s comments about staying in Iraq after she is elected president, when she said it on George Stephanopoulos’ show. “The leading Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, steadfastly refused as recently as Sunday’s round of talk shows to promise that all U.S. forces would be withdrawn if she is elected. … Charles Kupchan, who worked in the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton…”People ask, “Rush, what’s so important about this? Of course it’s true. Why do you keep harping on it?”

My friends, let me explain why I keep harping on this to you and why it is crucial. I’m glad for the question. Sometimes I assume everybody’s on the same page with me. This is not Social Security. This is not the SCHIP program. This is not some domestic policy thing. This is about the national security of our country. It is about the defense of the United States of America. For the last four years, the Democrat Party — aided and abetted by its insane, deranged, and delusional base — has been trying to undermine US victory. They have invested in — and as you’ve heard me say, now own — the concept of defeat. All along, it has been a lie. Now, they have been trying to secure it. They have been trying to secure defeat, primarily to destroy the Bush presidency, to enable their easier ascension to the White House 2008 — and they don’t care if they destroy the country in the process. Ah, they’ll fix it when they get back in power. They have been lying to the American people, and their lies have shown up throughout the Drive-By Media, and the Drive-By Media and the fringe base have all bought the notion that the Democrats in the ‘06 election was about getting out of Iraq.

The Democrats are not going to take us out of Iraq. The reason why this is important is they have been lying to their own voters, they have been lying to the American people, and their lies have been amplified across the Drive-By Media, on an issue that matters. US national security is at the top of the list. It’s more important than Social Security reform or anything, because all that stuff’s academic if the country isn’t adequately defended against future attacks. And they have not been on the same page. They have been actively undermining that, knowing full-well that if they were in power they would do nothing different than what Bush has done, in the sense they wouldn’t pull troops out of there. They wouldn’t pull an immediate withdrawal. They wouldn’t put a date certain on it. They wouldn’t do any of this. They never have when they’ve been in the White House. Clinton never met his promised withdrawal dates out of Bosnia. FDR didn’t fight World War II this way. Well, yeah, you could say Bay of Pigs, but that was a botched operation when we got out of there. This is not a botched operation.

They’ve been trying to say that it is. So that’s the only reason I’m harping on this. I’m interested in truth, and especially on an issue like this, and if the Democrat Party is going to lie to the country and is going to have their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media lie to the country about what Democrats actually want to do, then it’s important — because if they’re lying about this, what else are they lying about? And it’s irresponsible. So now, for some reason, Mrs. Clinton has been forced into the open and asked the question, “What will you do as president?” She could not say, “Well, I’m pulling them out of there.” She could, but it wouldn’t work. Because the bottom line is she’s not going to. She would have to pull a stunt shortly after her inauguration. “I had no idea what the Bush administration hid from me, and all of us. Why, I have been privy to information that I didn’t know. It is much, much too serious. I was in the dark. We can’t pull out,” and that would be tough.

Plus, you know, she can’t get elected if all she does is make a play for these kooks, these delusional freaks that make up the Democrat Party base. These people cannot be happy. MoveOn.org has been thrown overboard. Now Mrs. Clinton’s basically thumbed her nose at the anti-war movement and said, “Ah, we can’t pull out.” So where does the anti-war movement go? Hopefully, they will create riots at the next Democrat National Convention, like they did in 1968. And that’s not out of the realm of possibility, because these people are delusional and they are deranged, and their sole reason for existence has been to get out of Iraq and secure US defeat. And they’ve been told by their elected Democrats that that’s exactly what the Democrats are going to do, and now Mrs. Clinton just said, “You know what? I’ve been lying to you all along. I have no intention of pulling the troops out of there. Ha-ha-ha.” Now, they’re aged — these are the Sixties relics from Jurassic Park still hanging on. They can’t recruit any younger members. But we’ll see.

From Michelle Malkin

The troop-smearer can’t hide from Jason Mattera of Young America’s Foundation, teaming up with Hot Air TV, who asks the Democrat congressman whether he will apologize to the exonerated Haditha Marines:

Flashback: Investigating officer recommends dropping murder case against Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum

Flashback: Hello, Jack Murtha, are you there?

Flashback: Charges against Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt dropped

Flashback: Marine’s parents want Murtha censured

This from WorldNetDaily

 .

Muslim terrorist leaders are “thankful” for the efforts of activist and congressional candidate Cindy Sheehan, stating in a new book Sheehan’s anti-Iraq war activities and her statements against President Bush “give us hope” the U.S. will change its Mideast policies.

“You [Sheehan] give us hope and you show us that there are different Americans than those whom we know,” stated Ramadan Adassi, chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group in the West Bank’s Anskar Refugee Camp.

“This sincere woman says what we’ve been saying all these last years – Saddam never threatened America or its security. Now Iraq is being decimated and America is losing. Voices like Sheehan’s show things can change,” said Adassi.

Read the rest here

This is from Wizbang, Basically this is commentary about a leftist moonbat blogger making excuses about the Move on ads.
This is typical liberal crap I know but I can’t help posting examples of twisted liberal logic, it tis always so entertaining.

It’s really sad to see children try to pretend they can keep up with adults in the arena of ideas. Take the ever talkative Larkin from Wizbang Blue who tries to put in his two cents about the “General Betray Us” ad. It seems in Larkin’s world view, the General brought it on himself.

Such attacks were predictable given the General’s apparent acquiescence in becoming the chief spokesman for the White House in what should be an entirely political debate (i.e., no generals invited) centered on the the question of the continued involvement of US forces in Iraq.

After all, in America, it’s rule by the people, not the generals. And the people’s representatives, the 435 members of the House, the 100 members of the Senate, and the President should be the ones to decide how many troops we will keep in Iraq and for how long. The input of the generals is of course informative and essential, but it should be funneled through the proper channels, namely the civilian leader of America’s impressive war-making machine, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Gates should have been the one to deliver testimony on the state of our mission in Iraq on Capitol Hill last week, not Petraeus.

Read the rest

From Sister Toldjah

Why did the NYT slash $116,000 off the normal rate of a full page ad for MoveOn.org’s disgraceful ad which essentially called General Petraeus a traitor? Charles Hurt from the NY Post reports:

September 13, 2007 — WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org’s ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined “Cooking the Books for the White House,” the ad which ran in Monday’s Times says Petraeus is “a military man constantly at war with the facts” and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that “General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.”

More

From the blog: Bottom Line Up Front, Amy Proctor

Bottom Line Up Front:  Despite knowing more soldiers will be killed and more money spent, GEN Petraeus said he wouldn’t be in Iraq commanding the war if he didn’t believe in the importance of the mission, no matter the personal cost.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina asked GEN Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services Committee today if he stood by his recommendations to continue the surge despite the fact that Petraeus’ 20 year old son, who graduated jump school on Sept. 8 and is now airborne qualified, will likely see combat.

Gen. Petraeus travels to Fort Benning for son’s final jump

Ah hell I can’t resist posting shit about loony idiot ass liberals.

.

The moonbat organization ran a full-page ad in the NYT attacking Gen. David Petraeus:

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.’

Check out more on the blog D.C. Thornton

Sphere: Related Content

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Tuesday that a power vacuum is imminent in Iraq and said that Iran was ready to help fill the gap.”The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly,” Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. “Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.”

Although Ahmadinejad did not elaborate how Iran could fill a power gap, his bold remarks reflected what may be perceived as Iran’s eagerness for an increasing role on its neighbor’s political scene.

Earlier this month, during a visit here by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iranian leaders said that only a U.S. pullout would bring peace to Iraq and pledged their government would do its best to help stabilize the country.

Ahmadinejad accused the United States of interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs, and dismissed U.S. criticism of al-Maliki’s unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the country’s Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

“They rudely say (the Iraqi) prime minister and the constitution must change,” Ahmadinejad said. “Who are you? Who has given you the right” to ask for such a change, he added, addressing the U.S. critics of al- Maliki, who is also a Shiite.

Ahmadinejad dismissed the possibility of any U.S. military action against Iran.

“I tell you resolutely that there is no possibility, whatsoever, of such a decision in the U.S.,” Ahmadinejad told reporters. “Even, if they were to decide to do so, they would be unable to carry it out.”

U.S. has accused Iran of being behind attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq—a claim the Iraqi government has only partially backed, saying Iran could have a role in the attacks. Iran has denied the accusations.

What the NIE Really Says - The Weekly Standard 

Iraq Troop Drawdown

Warner Says US Should Start Withdrawing Iraq Force (Update2) - Bloomberg

Report: Top Gen. To Advise Iraq Troop Cuts