When it was MoveOn, the Left supported calling Petraeus a traitor, and in essence calling all the troops traitors, but when it is a Right winger like Rush Limbaugh, well, then they say that it is despicable to say something like that. Here's the thing, though: Rush said nothing of the sort. The Left is now saying that Rush is contemptible because he said that our troops are phony. What they don't mention is that Rush only called one troop a phony troop. Of course, the Left won't even say the radio show that this remark came from, and as any journalist knows, this is the stupidest mistake one can make. What Rush really said is that one troop who lied about his ranking was phony. This smear campaign has gotten special attention from Harry Reid.

Reid said that Rush's show "has been steadily losing listeners for years"

Anyone who knows anything about the program knows the opposite.

Reid said that Rush called "our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, 'phony soldiers.'" 

However if Senator Reid had bothered to actually listen to the show, he would know that Rush called ONE  soldier a "phony soldier" and he was, this soldier blatanly lied about his rank.

"he thinks that his opinion on the war is worth more than those who have been on the front lines."

What Mr. Reid forgets is that the troops on the front lines agree with Rush Limbaugh.

"We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice..."

And why did the Senator not vote to condemn an orginization who called our troops traitors?

"Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted."

Freedoms like saying "The war is lost"? Or calling our troops traitors?


"It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamental American right to free speech."

This is a contradiction within a contradiction. Reid knows that Rush said nothing of free speech, how is it imposing someone's free speech when you point out that someone lies?

"taking a stand against those who hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to...all of us"

This all started when MoveOn made their smear campaign, calling ALL of our troops traitors, and Reid thought it an accurate description, for he did not condemn it. Reid himself has even challenged the integrity of the troops, saying that "The war is lost", calling every troop a liar, for they all believe,no, they all know that they will win. And he has the filthiness to condemn Rush Limbaugh for calling ONE troop a "phony soldier" for lying about his rank?

So I asked my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to join together against this irresponsible, hateful, and unpatriotic attack by calling on Rush Limbaugh to give our troops the apology they deserve.

And when will they get an apology from you, sir? Or from MoveOn? The ones who actually called our troops liars and traitors, whereas Rush only pointed out that one soldier lied.

The only thing that need be asked of Senator Reid, and the MoveOn clan is "Have you no decency?" No, they don't. The Left is so obsessed with silencing those who oppose their own views that they lie about anything now. Anyone who bothers to pay attention will see that the Leftist Elites are communist, obsessed with themselves, and cannot stand when someone who disagrees with them gets more attention. They've become so obsessed with themselves they can't even see the light of day. If they don't agree with something, it is impossible for them to understand the other side, or why people agree with the other side. What was once a decent party has now become Liberalism, the new Communism.

Once more, MoveOn has decided to implement an offensive. There is one thing however that differentiates this one from all the rest. This time, they disguise it as an attack on Kentucky Senator Mitch Mconnell, but to any objective eye, it is obvious that this is an attack on Conservatives.


“The Republicans who brought us this awful war turned their backs on the men and women who fight it.”

Yet again, MoveOn either forgot, or just doesn’t want to admit that Congress voted to go to war against terrorism. They also, as usual, only give the magazine/newspaper and date that the article appeared, but do not give links (like they did on the Petraeus ad) to these articles. The reason they say “turned their backs” is because Congress also voted against clarifying the amount of time that troops are allowed to stay home.


“We trust them to put their lives on their line every single day in Iraq. And they trusted our leaders to keep their word.”

This is simply a denial of reality. MoveOn calls the Republicans betrayers because of the vote that was mentioned earlier, however, it was the Democrats’ word that has been broken. It was the Democrats who kept saying that they would vote to let troops stay home longer, and the Republicans who opposed it. I say that some of those who said they supported this bill voted against it. MoveOn forgets that Congress is now Democratically controlled, and that the majority vote wins, so how the Republicans turned their backs is beyond me. Even if all the Republicans voted against it, the bill would still pass, because the Democrats are the majority.


 MoveOn.org. “A betrayal of trust.”

I’m sure most of you have heard of the student getting tasered. The student got what was coming to him. If you haven’t seen the video, I advise you to do so. If you’ve only seen the part of the video that has been played on TV, then I especially advise you to do so.

First of all, the student went over his time limit. When someone asked him to sit down and shutup, he made the point that Senator Kerry had spoken for 2 hours, so he should have the right to speak for two minutes. The problem is he had already spoken for two minutes. The University even turned the mike off, but the student was intent on making his point. Eventually, the police tried to escort him out, but he avoided them, and kept speaking. Eventually the officers got a hold of him and started taking him out of the room, and when this happened, the people cheered the officers. You can, however hear the Senator say that he did not care, and wanted to let the student keep speaking, but the officers still escorted the student out of the room. The student struggled immensely, which is a reason in itself for him to be tased. Now we get to the only part that the media shows. The student eventually was tased, and he screams like he is almost dying, but this scream is involuntary. Anyone who has been tased before will tell you that the pain is in fact seemingly unbearable, but as soon at the actual tasing stops, you don’t even feel the pain anymore, and you are fine. Some contest that the officers did not have a right to tell him to stop, but in fact they do. Disobeying a direct order of an officer of the law is illegal, so he really should have been arrested, which means he should be glad that he got off easy.

Now the president of the University is having the officers investigated for misconduct. This is asinine; the officers did everything right, according to their handbook. Officers not only have the right to tase someone who is resisting them, they are advised to. It seems that nowadays average civilians are given the benefit of the doubt, above the legal system, and above officers of the law. I applaud Senator Kerry, for about a minute after the incident started, he took control of the situation, and started to answer the students questions. However, this was indeed useless, because there was probably no one who was paying attention to him at this point. One last point of how this student was senseless in his actions is that the entire incident was staged by him. He told his girlfriend to videotape him speaking, and I guess that his plan backfired on him.

Before MoveOn’s attack on Rudolf Giuliani, they had launched a similar attack on President Bush for the number of troops in Iraq.



MoveOn said: “Americans had elected a new Congress to bring them home. Instead, Bush sent 30,000 more troops.”

This is a LIE. The article that they cited actually said: “The new strategy includes about 20,000 additional U.S. troops deployed to Iraq to help the Iraqis regain control of Bagdad and the surrounding 30 miles, where about 80 percent of the violence in Iraq occurs.” (emphasis added)

MoveOn was of by 9,000! Surprised? I’m certainly not.


"‘The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction,’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said in a statement.” (Boston Globe, “Bush Set to Endorse Plan for Troop Cuts”; Farah Stockman, Bryan Bender; 9/12/07)

Nancy Pelosi is despicable. Nowhere has anyone said that 130,000 troops would stay for 10 or more years. Petraeus’ report said that the entire Marine Expeditionary Unit will be withdrawn by July ‘08. After that, he said that it would be misleading and hazardous to project too far into the future. And that ended it. It was the Lefties who started this 10 or more years thing.

One of the sources that MoveOn cited was an interview with Senator John Edwards. This is just stupid on their part. Edwards said that Bush was “…the President is pressing on with the only strategy he's ever had — more time, more troops, and more war.” However, the Senator failed to list his sources of this ‘fact’.



“So, next year, there will still be 130,000 troops stuck in Iraq.”

I wonder why they fail to mention the addition 12,000 troops that Petraeus recommended be withdrawn by the end of this month. This, as well as others, is why MoveOn has betrayed us.



MoveOn.org. “A betrayal of Trust.”

MoveOn is at it again. The target of their propaganda this time? Rudolph Giuliani.



“Rudy Giuliani has always been a big fan of George Bush's war in Iraq.”

It appalls me that MoveOn would attack the Mayor simply because he supports a sitting President. After that, they attack him for not being present at every single meeting of an Iraq study group, and because he cancelled it after two months.



“And gave speeches.  For money.”

As far as I know, at every speech that a politician makes, he or she makes money. Not only that, I find it extremely disgusting that they would attack him for simply making speeches for money, while they boldly lie about people they disagree with. (they never listed what types of speeches they were). At most of the speeches, however, Rudy received absolutely no money, it was a fundraiser for another politician, and only that politician received money.



“Giuliani said recently he's never been to Iraq.”

I am willing to bet that none of the liberal idiotic pundits over at MoveOn have never been out of this country, much less in a war zone.


MoveOn.org. “A betrayal of trust.”

This is a very old story, but I feel I should write about it.

I feel Larry Craig, should not only stay in office, I think he should be acquitted. Now, I realize this is not a popular position, but as always I shall explain myself.

First of all, the officer who arrested the Senator, arrested him for “soliciting sex in a public place”. The problem I have with this is that he allegedly tapped his foot, touched the officers foot, and looked into the officer’s stall. With the possible exception of  touching the officer’s foot, I see no problem with what he allegedly  did. The reason I say possible exception to touching the officer's foot is this: Senator Craig is not a very young man, and to be sitting in his own stall, move his leg in a way which it is not made to go, and twist his ankle in a manner which is very uncomfortable. This requires much more flexibility than I would think someone his age has.

Second, and this has been called a “weak argument”, is that the Senator was arrested illegally. The constitution states that a lawmaker cannot be arrested  while on their way to a vote.

Therefore, as in all court cases, since the officer acted illegally, by court law, all evidence collected by this officer needs to be thrown out, and unusable. Now that the evidence has been thrown out, the officer has no case, because all evidence has been thrown out. Therefore, since it is impossible, with the new situation to  show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Larry Craig is guilty, he should be declared innocent, and retain his Senator-ship.


Now, I realize that the people may not trust him anymore, even if he is declared innocent. It is relatable to the O. J. Simpson case,  in that, even though in a court of law he was declared innocent, the people saw the evidence, and declared him guilty. The same may happen with Craig, and that is uncontrollable by anyone, however, in a legal sense, I believe that Senator Craig should be declared innocent.

I seriously didn’t want to write about this, because it truly is not political, but it has become too big an issue to ignore.

I’m sure you have heard about actress Sally Field and her controversial remark at the Emmy Awards Ceremony.

Ok, I’ll get to the point:


Sally Field was censored when she said “goddamned”. Most of the  media, and some of the liberal blogosphere are certain that FOX censored the word because of political reasons.  Personally, I think this shows the incompetence of the Liberal Left.

The SeattlePI ‘Big Blog’ said that FOX censored the word either “ for an obscene word or because she was making an anti-war statement.” The Leftist media was the first to bring politics into it, like they will do almost anything. SeattlePI also brought up the fact that FOX  was “owned by the politically conservative Rupert Murdoch”. Wow, what do the  politics of the FOX owner have to do with the censor?

Almost every blog and news report said that Canadian TV did not edit the remark. This may be true, but it is also irrelevant.

Think Progress said that the remark “recognized the mothers of U.S. troops.”, which is just entirely untrue. The remark, if you listen to it, claimed that mothers “wouldn't be sending our children off to be slaughtered." This is not a “recognition”, this is a feminist speech, which is also entirely untrue.

MSNBC stated that the remark “received praise from former Vice President and environmental crusader Al Gore…” Al Gore’s words in the full are:

    “I honestly think that one of the reasons why we made this big mistake of getting into the Iraq war is that so much of the television media has been concentrated in a relatively few hands.”


Now, I would have respected Gore if he had stuck to the issue, but, I cannot respect someone who “dances around issues” even when it does them no harm politically when they don’t. Gore tries to make the issue about the media (a Conservative tactic, really) and says we are in Iraq because there are too few media sources.


The Moderate Voice wonders “…why a political statement so mild in this era of screehing talk radio and equally screeching weblogs is censored at all.” Apparently, this man does not listen to much talk radio (probably only Rush Limbaugh) because if he did, he would know that 1) Radio has more restrictions than Television, and 2) that Conservatives, in general, are milder, and less offensive in their speech than Liberals. (I say this, because talk radio is mainly dominated by Conservatives)  The Moderate Voice also called whoever ‘bleeped’ the comment “politically dumb”.

This issue is a non-issue, and doesn’t really deserve to be blogged about. It is not political, and the only ones who are trying to make it political are the Liberal Left, and the Mainstream Media. This is why I hate (most) TV  corporations, they are run by extreme Leftist, who try to make anything a political argument.

 

I admit, in my last blog, I didn’t cover EVERYTHING, and so here is ‘the rest of the story’.

“General Petraeus presented cherry-picked facts and misleading data to sell the idea that the surge is working”

MoveOn’s evidence for this is quite nonexistent. The only “evidence” they have came from who? None other than the all-knowing Nancy Pelosi! Both other articles, as I’ve said either stated the exact opposite, or had nothing tho say about this issue.


“he offered a twisted version of the truth designed to support prolonging the war”

Prolonging the war? From what I heard, his speech said exactly the opposite (familiar?). If you read the General’s testimony, you will see that from what it said, the war will be anything but prolonged. My question for MoveOn: Why would a General, especially one in charge of so many lives, want to put them in harm’s way? Why would he want to be potentially responsible for so many lives lost? Maybe they should think about that, and check up with the facts next time.


“that Petraeus is neither objective nor trustworthy when it comes to assessing progress in Iraq”

And they are? It seems to me that a four-star General (who, may I remind you has actually been there, and fought) has MUCH more credibility than some liberal nut-job website that gets its money from attacking anyone or anything that isn’t as removed from reality as they are>


“the President can continue to hide behind him”

Hide? And here I thought it was his testimony and his alone. This had absolutely no evidence to back it up. They just saw their chance to take a shot a President Bush.

“every word of the ad was entirely accurate”

Do some research, and the true facts will shine through. The ad was false, and the, no doubt know it.

“The surge isn’t working.”

The only basis for this conclusion is that our military and Iraqi military started working together before the ‘surge’ which, obviously, has nothing to do with the conversation.


I urge you, people of common sense, to research this for yourself, and e-mail MoveOn.org, and show them the true evidence.

Here is MoveOn’s director’s e-mail address. Let the light shine through.

elijahpariser@moveon.org

"General Petraeus is a man constantly at war with the facts"

Really? I decided to research the controversial MoveOn.org’s article, and found some very interesting lies, and contradictions. The layout of this is:
  ==============================================================
“MoveOn.org’s quote”

Their source
-what the source actually said, and the reality of the situation
==============================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.”

GAO report, 9/4/07
-the truth is that the report mentioned nothing of the ‘surge’

NIE report, 8/23/07
-“These assessments, which are based on incomplete or at times
fragmentary information are not a fact, proof, or knowledge.”

-“rest on previous judgments,”

-“In either type of judgment, we do not have ‘evidence’ that
shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.”

-“Words such as ‘may be’ and ‘suggest’ are used to reflect situations in which we are unable to assess the likelihood generally because relevant information is nonexistent, sketchy, or fragmented.”

-“There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation”

-There have been modest improvements in economic
output, budget execution, and government finances

-We assess…that Iraq’s security will continue to improve modestly during the next six to 12 months

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front.”

“Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07
-If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal.

The difference between a ‘sectarian’ murder, and a ‘criminal’ murder hardly constitutes the difference between an assassination and just a random murder.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. "

The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07
-it would be premature to draw a final statistical picture of the effect of the added troops.


Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.”  9/5/07
- _Aug. 14, 2007, nationwide: 4,110 megawatts. Hours per day: 10.

NOTE: this also contradicts the NPR column, which said that Baghdad only had 6 hours of electricity each day

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war." (The New York Times, “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, is Wary of Cuts,” by David Sanger and David Cloud, 9/7/07; The Washington Post, “Petraeus Open to Pullout of One Brigade,” by Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman.  9/7/07.)

-both articles, in all reality and actuality, say nothing of the sort.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MoveOn.org also had a link so that you can “see the reason behind this ad”. I decided to follow that, and even more lies, and propaganda.



“Pay attention: this is how the right-wing uses the media to manipulate the truth and silence dissent against the Iraq war.

“Even before MoveOn.org's ran its controversial ad about General Petraeus in the New York Times, The Weekly Standard published an article by Peter Hegseth…The headline of the article accused the MoveOn.org ad of calling Petraeus a 'traitor'.  The only problem:  the word 'traitor' appears nowhere in the MoveOn.org ad nor anywhere on the MoveOn.org page about the ad. It is Hegseth's article that introduced the word 'traitor' into the story -- an outright lie intended to silence dissent against the war.” (Huffington Post, "How Right-Wing Lie About MoveOn Ad Became the Story" 9/11/07)



To think that the Left would go to this extreme is beyond me. Their best argument is that the exact word ‘traitor’ never appears? I guess, then, if I accuse, say, Ted Kennedy, of withholding the truth, then am I not calling him a liar? This is the sad low of the Left in my opinion.

“(Hugh) Hewitt also repeated the Hegseth lie in a Townhall.com post, posting a statement to the widely-read conservative blog that is outright false when he stated that the Senate had used ‘MoveOn.org as their party's attack dog to call David Petraeus a traitor’ --despite the fact that the MoveOn.org ad did not call Petraeus a liar.”

Again, an example of how the Left just lies! The article plainly called Petraeus a liar. Calling him “at war with the facts”, and claimed that he had “cooked the books for the White House“, they say that we have not achieved progress, and have ’documented’ it, and if that is not calling the General a liar, then I don’t know what is.

Here is the Webster’s Dictionary definition of the word ’betray’:

 1 : to lead astray
2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery
3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need 4 a : to reveal unintentionally

Now, here is Webster's definition of the word 'traitor'

1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty (emphasis added)
2 : one who commits treason

MoveOn.org also questioned the Generals integrity by saying:
“the General does have a history of overstating the case for progress for political reasons.”


However, they offered absolutely no proof of this accusation; they did use an article that Petraeus had written close to the ‘04 elections that “were viewed as a tacit endorsement for Bush”.   Again, they provide no evidence that the General in any way did, or even that he wanted to support President Bush.

Another accusation that they made was that the report of Petraeus was not “his and his alone”. The “proof” of this is documents that RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and General Petraeus had contacted one another to set a date for when the General would announce his plan to Congress. Not only is this another lie of MoveOn, Petraeus ADMITTED that he had talked to people higher than him about his testimony.



MoveOn.org calls General David Petraeus “a man at war with the facts” maybe they should check the facts themselves. As one famous reporter put it:
   
    “I guess reporting is easier, when you don’t worry about the facts.”

 

Unions are useless for all reasons other than to complain.  They also do the exact opposite of what they claim to do. they claim to be "a friend of the worker" trying make the working class happier. They demand more pay, better work conditions, or something similar, therefore, if the companies comply, they must spend more, which means they must charge more for their product. And when unions get their way enough, no one will use that company anymore, and then that company must either lay off most of its workers, or completely shut down. either way, the workers lose, and because the unions just complain and complain until they get their way. it's childish, really.

"Changing the definition of success to stay the course with the wrong policy is the wrong course for our troops and our national security. The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now — not six months from now." — Sen. Barack Obama

Obviously, he didn’t listen to Petraeus, because this is EXACTLY what he said. The pullout will start immediately.

____________________________________________________________________

"Our troops who have performed heroically and have done everything they've been asked to do in Iraq have no business refereeing an Iraqi civil war ... It is up to the Iraqis to make the decisions as to how they will stabilize their own country." — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary is possibly the WORST candidate for Presidency. If she would just get her head out of her @^%, then she would know, that there isn’t any civil war, nor is there any evidence for one. Al-Qaeda has even admitted this. (Al-Qaeda also supports Hillary, as does Jugo Chavez)

_____________________________________________________________________

"I am saddened, but not surprised, by the recommendations of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on Iraq. I do not question the integrity or competence of these gentlemen, but the strategy George Bush and Dick Cheney have asked them to execute has failed. The course General Petraeus has recommended we take — more of the same — is unacceptable, irresponsible and dangerous." — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

This is just denial of reality. I find it interesting that The Dems have been pushing a pullout ever since November, and now because of Bush's plan, there will be a pullout, and a very significant pullout, because they didn’t get what they wanted in the first place. He also lied in the very first sentence. He said he does not question Petraeus' "integrity or competence", and then turns around, and calls him "unacceptable irresponsible and dangerous".

___________________________________________________________________

"Congress must now decide whether they will serve the American people or simply follow the same Beltway mentality that has led to more inaction on Iraq. Even in the face of rising American causalities, greater civil unrest and no political progress, the Congress continues a false debate about whether President Bush should be granted more time. President Bush's Iraq strategy has failed, and Congress must not cave. Congress must support our troops by using every tool available to force the president to agree to a withdrawal." — Former Sen. John Edwards

Again, another Liberal who is just denying the truth. The American people do want to follow Petraeus' plan. And to say that there has been "inaction", " rising American casualties civil unrest, and no political progress" is a lie and he knows it. He is calling Petraeus a liar, with no proof, and denying the truth and denying reality.

_________________________________________________________________

"The fact that there are questions about General Petraeus' report is not surprising given that it was brought to you by this White House. In contrast, independent report after report indicates that the whack-a-mole strategy has made this the bloodiest summer of the war. And by the general's admission, the so-called surge has not achieved its goal of political progress."_ Sen. Chris Dodd

There isn’t even a shred of truth in this mans statement. Petraeus NEVER said that the "surge has not achieved its goal", if Dodd listened at all, he would know this. Dodd also stated that this has been "the bloodiest summer of the war" this is also just a flat out lie. ALL, and I repeat,  ALL, evidence says otherwise. If you know anything about the War in Iraq, then this would be it. There has been less bloodshed in the past year than in one month of any other year.

_________________________________________________________________

John Yarmuth from Kentucky stated that General Petraeus "confirmed that the success was nominal to nonexistent". and that  "this war has brought us no closer to lasting peace"

In all reality, however, Petraeus said "As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met", that "Our operations have, in fact, produced substantial progress against Al Qaida and its affiliates in Iraq." . He also said "aspects of the surge have achieved progress and generated momentum"

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Representative Baron Hill of Indiana, when interviewed about Petraeus didnt even mention the General, or his testimony. He just attacked Bush, and said that we shouldnt even have gone into Iraq. Apparently, he didnt even pay attention to Petraeus' testimony (a common theme with these guys), for he said "It is madness to try to continue what we're doing right now"


CONCLUSION: These Liberals, like most, dont want to listen to the facts. They will do anything to try to advance their agenda, without thinking of the consequences. they will lie, and go back on their word, and sometimes break the law, and dont even think twice about it. this is why we must know the truth and expose the Liberal lies.