Monday, September 10, 2007

General Betray Us?

It looks like the ultra-liberal group MoveOn.org is questioning the patriotism of our top military leader in Iraq.

I thought that nice people weren't supposed to question the patriotism of their fellow Americans.

Silly me.

UPDATE: It looks the same way to an Iraq war vet who isn't amused.

18 Comments:

Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2007 at 9:50 AM 
Anonymous Randal said...

This is the influence these radical Libs have bought from your party with their donations, Dave.

MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout — and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line

Yep. And these radicals kooks grow nuttier by the day.
Who elected them to anything, anyway?

September 10, 2007 at 11:20 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM 
Anonymous Randal said...

Talk about a one hit wonder, Dave. Have you read any of the stuff you post? Lol…

Funny how the Right never needs to defend their patriotism.

In the paper today RINO Specter is quoted as saying how he will not blindly follow the General’s recommendations in his report. But no mention was made of the LibDems who have all committed themselves to blindly opposing it …before even hearing what it says.
Maybe, just maybe, you LibDems should have waited to hear what Petraeus’ report actually said before rushing to condemn it. Ya think?

Now, just which side was it again that is so blindly and viciously partisan that they keep our country divided for their own political ambitions?

I never said I was pro-war or against dissent. But I will not sit quietly as shrill LibDems side with our enemies and continually aid them by attacking our President during wartime under the guise of free speech and dissent.

The President of the United States is not the enemy; terrorists and their traitorous Liberal enablers are.

September 10, 2007 at 11:53 AM 
Anonymous Ed said...

How do figure the Iraq policy is a failure? I love that line. No one can ever back it up. How long does it take to build a country from scratch David? Did we fail in Germany or Japan after WWII? We still have troops in each.

You are one of the main reasons the insurgents fight. They know that they can (try to) influence American policy through people like you. That I believe is one of the main reasons why you hate George Bush. He doesn't cave to you and your kind. He is going to stay the course and follow the plan until the end. You don't like it so you call it a failure. You have nothing to back it up though. How much further along should they be right now?

September 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2007 at 2:32 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Diano --

As always thank you for the MoveOn.Org/Cindy Sheehan point of view. Good luck building a political majority with it.

September 10, 2007 at 3:32 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2007 at 3:49 PM 
Anonymous Ed said...

I think you're wrong David. I think the insurgency started when non-Iraqi insurgents entered Iraq through Syria as part of the jihad. I think it gained momentum when Americans joined the insurgent's cause and turned on our people calling the shots for political reasons. Then they realized "hey all we have to do is make the news and we'll have Americans trying to oust Bush".

September 10, 2007 at 4:36 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

No, a faction of the Democratic party is NOT a majority.

And the more that the Anti-war/Code Pink/Cindy Sheehan wing of the party is identified with the Dems the more Independents will probably vote Republican.

See if you're :) next November.

BTW, Davey, any comment on the General's testimony?

September 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM 
Anonymous Randal said...

You [David] are one of the main reasons the insurgents fight. They know that they can (try to) influence American policy through people like you.
… it gained momentum when Americans joined the insurgent's cause and turned on our people calling the shots for political reasons. Then they realized "hey all we have to do is make the news and we'll have Americans trying to oust Bush"


Yep. This is how they aid our enemies in their quest to seize power.

Treason is not protected free speech, Dave, any more than slander and lies are. And merely calling it such changes nothing. You domestic insurgents should worry X3.

September 10, 2007 at 6:23 PM 
Blogger Franny Ward said...

Randal Said: "Treason is not protected free speech, Dave, any more than slander and lies are. And merely calling it such changes nothing. You domestic insurgents should worry X3."

SoRandal, do you work for DHS or something more sinister?? Your reply reminds me of Heinrich Himmler.. You know, the former head of the SS in Nazi Germany?

Quit being so O' Lielly and get a grip on reality.

September 10, 2007 at 6:30 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trea-son: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.

Uh, yeah it fits. Creating a web site to purposely sling around half-truths and misrepresentations to gain perceived political ground while undermining the very fabric of our society is at the very least pro Islamic militant and could certainly be construed as treason.

September 10, 2007 at 8:00 PM 
Anonymous Randal said...

Leave it to a Lib to pull out their silly Nazi label when trying to defend their brand of “patriotism”. Lol…

Sure it’s treason, A. Most definitely.

September 10, 2007 at 8:51 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2007 at 11:58 PM 
Anonymous Ed said...

As Centcom spokesman General Vincent Brooks stated on April 6, 2003:
"There was a raid last night by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. What they raided was a training camp near Salman Pak....This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics....
[T]hat's just one of a number of examples we've found where there is training activity happening inside of Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between his regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests. Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, and some from other places, and we've killed a number of them and we've captured a number of them [emphasis added]."

In the beginning, the insurgency was primarily made up of Former Regime Elements (Saddam Loyalists), Syrian Baathists and jihadis that were recruited in Syria, trained and crossed the border into Iraq to fight the infidels (as Bin laden did in Afghanistan against the Russians).

The looting and break down in civil order were completely different things that are out of anyone's control. That is like blaming the court system in the Rodney King verdict or the City for the L.A. riots.

To suggest that this was the cause for the insurgency and that had we prevented looting and provided better services, that the insurgency would not have happened is ludicrous.

September 11, 2007 at 5:36 AM 
Anonymous Randal said...

That is like blaming the court system in the Rodney King verdict or the City for the L.A. riots.


LOL! Lobs are like that!

September 11, 2007 at 11:15 AM 
Anonymous Randal said...

*Libs

September 11, 2007 at 1:23 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home