General Betrayus to replace McChrystal!

[Coito ergo sum]

McChrystall and his staff think the Obama Administration is full of clowns and wimps.

So, McChrystal is fired, and replaced by that lying scumbag, General Betrayus!





Curiously...oddly.....moveon.org has now scrubbed its website of any reference to the old advertisements questioning Petraeus' character, record and patriotism.

When Obama the Senator himself criticized Petraeus he questioned the surge strategy (which he immediately embraced upon becoming President), accused Petraeus of “punting,” accused him of only producing only modest results, and accused him of not “kicking A-S-S.” That, of course, was when the Democrats were slandering anything they could about the war and anyone associated with the Bush administration.

Now we won't see much in the way of criticism of Petraeus, because Obama likes him now. I wish I had saved some of the RDF posts about Petraeus. It would be nice to recall what was said about him then.

[Martok]

That, of course, was when the Democrats were slandering anything they could about the war and anyone associated with the Bush administration.

Considering how badly the Bush administration handled both wars its more than understandable that people would be skeptical and critical about anything they planned.

[Coito ergo sum]

That, of course, was when the Democrats were slandering anything they could about the war and anyone associated with the Bush administration.

Considering how badly the Bush administration handled both wars its more than understandable that people would be skeptical and critical about anything they planned.

Badly handled wars? Whatever - that's beside the point. Nothing about this has anything to do with being skeptical and critical about things they planned. It is about the unbridled, unapologetic, almost insulting, duplicity on the part of politicians and political groups, and their supporters.

But, of course, that means that General Petraeus was, at that time, General Betrayus, and he lied all the time (constantly at war with the fact). Now, of course, Moveon scrubs its website of all reference to that, because now that Obama is President, Betrayus us Petraeus again. He's not constantly at war with the facts anymore.

This is such a transparent political ploy to bolster his faltering image.....It's "see! I am hiring Petraeus!"

I take it we can all agree that Moveon.org, and everyone who was railing against Petraeus a few years ago, were just fucking bald-faced lying, or just making shit up without regard for the truth, because, we all know that Obama would never hire somebody who really was "cooking the books for the white house," would he?

[Martok]

That, of course, was when the Democrats were slandering anything they could about the war and anyone associated with the Bush administration.

Considering how badly the Bush administration handled both wars its more than understandable that people would be skeptical and critical about anything they planned.

Badly handled wars? Whatever - that's beside the point. Nothing about this has anything to do with being skeptical and critical about things they planned. It is about the unbridled, unapologetic, almost insulting, duplicity on the part of politicians and political groups, and their supporters.

Bull. It has everything to do with how those wars have been handled. Approximately 4,000 US troops have died in Iraq AFTER Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1 2003. They never anticipated the insurgency, or should I saw, they dismissed warnings of an insurgency.
And due to Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq, Afghanistan became an after thought and it gave the Taliban time to regroup.

Put on top of that Bush's major domestic security failure (9/11), and the collapse of the economy, its little wonder 65 historians placed Bush's presidency among the worst in US history and it shouldn't be a major surprise that people found it hard to trust in anything his administration had to say on anything.

[Coito ergo sum]

That, of course, was when the Democrats were slandering anything they could about the war and anyone associated with the Bush administration.

Considering how badly the Bush administration handled both wars its more than understandable that people would be skeptical and critical about anything they planned.

Badly handled wars? Whatever - that's beside the point. Nothing about this has anything to do with being skeptical and critical about things they planned. It is about the unbridled, unapologetic, almost insulting, duplicity on the part of politicians and political groups, and their supporters.

Bull. It has everything to do with how those wars have been handled. Approximately 4,000 US troops have died in Iraq AFTER Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1 2003.

And, only complete morons took that to mean, "oh, I guess everything is done and we can wipe our hands of the whole Iraq thing - no rebuilding will ever have to take place - no more guns will ever be fired." You know - what kind of a total mental midget can't fathom that "Mission Accomplished" was a celebration of the military victory - the military mission - that invaded Iraq and toppled the Hussein regime in a few weeks? Just as Bush said in his speech that day, it was "one victory" in the war on terrorism. It wasn't "the victory" and now we're done.

Plus, what the does that have to do - at all - with whether General Petraus was formerly General Betrayus, who is at war with the facts and "cooking the books for the white house" is now perfectly fine to manage the war in Afghanistan for Obama?

They never anticipated the insurgency, or should I saw, they dismissed warnings of an insurgency.

So, now General Betrayus is General Petreaus again? Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense....

And due to Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq, Afghanistan became an after thought and it gave the Taliban time to regroup.

Oh, you must be joking...now, the fact that Obama's plans in Afghanistan aren't working the way he would hope, that's going to be Bush's fault in your mind, too? And, by the way, what in the world does that have to do with whether General Betrayus is now General Petraeus again?

Put on top of that Bush's major domestic security failure (9/11),

Everything happening under Obama's watch is Bush's fault, and everything happening under Bush's watch is Bush's fault. The domestic failures had nothing to do with Bush's predecessor, but all of Obama's failures have everything to do with his predecessor. Makes sense.

and the collapse of the economy, its little wonder 65 historians placed Bush's presidency among the worst in US history and it shouldn't be a major surprise that people found it hard to trust in anything his administration had to say on anything.

Sooooo....that means that there's nothing hypocritical of a whitewashing of the past to cleanse all of the slanderous nonsense foisted by the left and liberal onto General "Betrayus" - oh, wait, he's Petraeus again. And, it's not hypocritical for Obama, who raked him over the coals a couple of years ago as Senator Obama, to now appoint the guy in some transparent ploy to get military credibility by moving away from the far left loonies.

[Martok]

And, only complete morons took that to mean, "oh, I guess everything is done and we can wipe our hands of the whole Iraq thing - no rebuilding will ever have to take place - no more guns will ever be fired." You know - what kind of a total mental midget can't fathom that "Mission Accomplished" was a celebration of the military victory - the military mission - that invaded Iraq and toppled the Hussein regime in a few weeks? Just as Bush said in his speech that day, it was "one victory" in the war on terrorism. It wasn't "the victory" and now we're done.

Speaking of morons and mental midgets..

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war.

The warning is described in “State of Denial,” scheduled for publication on Monday by Simon & Schuster. The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

As late as November 2003, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying of the situation in Iraq: “I don’t want anyone in the cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.”

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washi ... count.html

I think most rational people will see that Bush and his administration were repeatedly wrong about Iraq. By the time the surge was being debated it was more than natural to argue against it and those who supported it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Martok - are you not able to distinguish the difference in two issues:

1. The issue in this thread, which is the decision on the part of Obama to appoint as McChrystal's replacement, Bush's general Petreaus who was roundly criticized and lambasted by Obama himself, by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and by every major group supporting the Democrats, as epitomized by the slanderous campaign against him by the Moveon.org group, and

2. The wholly different issue of whether Bush did a shit job with the war in Iraq?

Why are you conflating these two things? This thread is not about whether the war was justified or the aftermath handled properly. If we assume for the sake of argument that the war was illegal, and was waged worse than any other war of all time, then we are still left with the issue number 1 above.

In fact, bellyaching about how shitty Iraq was handled under Bush raises more questions as to why Obama would appoint Petraeus to lead the Afghan war now. Petraeus was Bush's general and was resoundingly criticized by the Democrats, and Obama, and basically called a stooge and an incompetent. Moveon.org said he was cooking the books for the administration (lying) and at war with the facts (lying). So, now what? He's a great choice to replace McChrystal because.....he's no longer a liar and a betrayer?