Right Wing Lunatic

Well it appears that Democrats LIKED the ad that was taken out against General Petraeus.  The infamous "General Betray Us" ad.  They aren't speaking out against it, only giving token statements.  Let's take a peek:

Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat "wished [MoveOn.org] wouldn't have done that ad," but declined to comment further.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.

Even Presidential candidate John Edwards won't denounce the obviously below the belt tactic done by his political masters:

A spokesman for former Sen. John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate who has benefited from full-page ads MoveOn.org ran on his behalf, said Mr. Edwards "honors General Petraeus' service and patriotism," but he did not disavow the MoveOn.org ad.

"The general is wrong to believe that the American people or Congress should give President Bush's failed Iraq strategy more time," said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.

In July, MoveOn.org ran newspaper ads for Mr. Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire after their members chose him as the winner of an online forum about global warming.

Is Barack Obama any different?  Nope.

Sen. Barack Obama's spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted that the candidate is not questioning the general's patriotism but rather his "logic," because the Illinois Democrat sees "no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."

After Mr. Obama won an online MoveOn.org forum about Iraq, the group set up a page directing its members to make direct financial contributions to whichever candidate they felt gave the strongest performance.

Of course, even Hillary won't denounce it.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said his boss would "keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."

So she can't be bothered to make a two sentence statement?

But do you know who actually denounced the ad on the Democratic side of things?  John Kerry.  Stop laughing, I'm not kidding:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, who on Monday called the ad "over the top."

But they are all saying that it's being used as a distraction.  This coming from the party of distractions.  Republicans aren't asking for this to be the main topic, they are asking for a bit of humanity from Democrats and they aren't getting it.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Democrats, General Petraeus, iraq, Politics, Republicans

# posted by Travis @ 10:16 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

They're discounting it because they know it's going to contain things that they don't want to hear:  That progress is being made in Iraq and that enough progress has been made to warrant more time.

What's worse is that they haven't even SEEN the fucking thing and they are already discounting it.  Why?  Because they're trying to do a preemptive strike against the President and undermine the war in Iraq.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

They are calling it the Bush report because they are trying to get American's who don't have a clue about how this report is going to be made, tricked into thinking that it's all a White House washout.  Bush couldn't claim progress if Petraeus isn't claiming progress.  General Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress about the progress in Iraq.  Any discrepancy between what he says to them and what Bush says in the report will be torn apart within hours.

These people have made up their mind already about the war in Iraq and have lied to the American people.  They trusted General Petraeus to deliver an honest report in September about the progress or lack thereof in Iraq.  Now that they have a gist of what's going to be in it, they don't like it and now are trying to undermine the credibility of a four star General.

That reeks of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers in Iraq.  General Petraeus has already said that we can probably maintain the same amount of security with less forces within a few months if things look good.  That's counter to what Democrats say that Bush wants.  So if we can do the same with less, then that's what we should do.  We should trust the guy who knows counterinsurgency like the back of his hand instead of trying to force their own naive views upon the military.

Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.

Ok, then let's go with that.  11 out of 18 failed to be met so far.  That means that 7 have been or are close to being done.  So you're willing to bail out when they're almost 1/2 way done with those benchmarks?  Democrats love to talk about soldiers dying for nothing, but they won't tell you that if they pull out of Iraq like they want to and Iraq spirals out of control, those who've fought and died to achieve what we have done so far will indeed be for nothing.

"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."

She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."

Even one of their own, Representative Brian Baird agrees that we should stay a little longer until they get back on their feet.  He voted originally against the Iraq war.  What do Democrats do about that?  They try to run smear campaigns against him and discount his own findings.  He went to Iraq and specifically asked to go into areas and get the full picture, not a "dog and pony show".  But other Democrats didn't like that he came to a conclusion that differs from their own.

That's playing politics with soldiers lives and the lives of Iraqi civilians.

So go ahead, discount General Petraeus, you're only showing yourselves to be petty and weak when you don't get your way. 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Democrats, General Petraeus, iraq, Politics

# posted by Travis @ 1:05 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Here's a transcript of his latest rant, but there's a few problems of course:

Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Mr. Bush’s trip, and his startling admission of the true motive for this war, which was revealed in his absence.

And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was.

But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.

As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home, Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying — is lying… will be lying — about Iraq.

He presumably did not know, that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper’s book “Dead Certain.”

“I’m playing for October-November,” Mr. Bush said to Draper.

That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan.

Really Keith!  Do tell!

Which is, to quote him: “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence.”

Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, “stay longer.”

And there it is, sir. We’ve caught you.

I'm confused, how do you catch someone when they say something out loud?

Your goal is not to bring some troops home — maybe — if we let you have your way now;

How do you know that?  You're grasping at straws Keith.  "I'm playing for October-November" could very well mean "I'm trying to get Iraqi violence levels down to acceptable levels around October or November.  I want the American people more comfortable to keep US troops in Iraq until the Iraqi's are more able to stand on their feet, presumably within the next few months."  Keith, you're assuming things.  We all know that the President isn't exactly the best at public speaking.

Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal;

How do you know that?  You're assuming.

You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.

So he's trying to get other Republican Presidential nominees to see the progress in Iraq and be ok with keeping them there if the need does arrive?

Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal — perpetuating this war indefinitely.

We simply can't afford to be at war forever.  No one has even suggested it.  Well except you.

War today, war tomorrow, war forever!

And you are playing at it!

Playing!

A man with any self-respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country!

You have no remaining credibility about Iraq, sir.

You had none to start with Keith.

And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing — and this time, using the second of his two faces.
The President told reporters, “They, (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) “tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”

And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today: “Bush May Bring Some Troops Home.”

What makes it fraudulent?  If General Petraeus says "we should bring down troop levels", how can you possibly argue with that?  He's the guy on the ground, he's the one with the experience and he's the one who's actually making a difference.  Oh wait, that's right, he's also the one that Democrats are already calling a "Political Hack" and other nasty names because they know he's going to show positive results and it'll completely take the wind out of Democrats argument of complete and immediate withdrawal.

While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the President’s true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him, will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.

You're assuming again Keith, it seems to be a pattern with you.

But, to a country dying of thirst, the President seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen — a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.

Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush. Again. But now, we know why.

You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book

And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq — hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.

“If you look at my comments over the past eight months,” you told reporters, “it’s gone from a security situation — in the sense that we’re either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I’m able to speculate on the hypothetical.”

Mr. Bush, the only “hypothetical” here is that you are not now holding our troops hostage.

Hardly.  Now the "hypothetical" is when can we bring troops home and how are the Iraqi security forces doing?

You have no intention of withdrawing them.

But that doesn’t mean you can’t pretend you’re thinking about it, does it?

That is your genius, sir — as you see it, anyway.

So, I'm confused, is Bush a genius or an idiot.  Liberals flip flop on this so many times.  But then again, they flip flop like a fish out of water, so it's not surprising.

You can deduce what we want — we, the people, remember us? — and then use it against us.

You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation.

Ooooh a metaphor!  I'm impressed!

And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq — or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq — they will get the bullet points: ‘Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq.’

Yes, because after Generals on the ground have said we've captured or killed almost 4,000 Al-Qaeda members, we certainly are much less safe aren't we?  Al-Zahirwi has said that Iraq is Al-Qaeda's main focus point now, we've seen evidence of that statement to be true, so we must indeed be less safe!  It all makes sense now!

You can fool some of the people all of the time, can’t you, Mr. Bush?

You are playing us!

And as for the most immediate victims of the President’s perfidy and shameless manipulation — those troops, yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base…

Tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death…

The President saved, for them, the most egregious “playing” in the entire trip.

“I want to tell you this about the decision, about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground — not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media.”

One must compliment Mr. Bush’s writer.

That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly crafted phrase of his Presidency.

But well crafted or not, is it true?  I believe it is.  I believe it's the right thing to do.  Politicians, especially Democrats, will say or do anything to keep themselves in power and they see positive results coming from Iraq and with their constituency saying "get out of Iraq now!", they are stuck either looking like a pandering bunch of idiots, or a dangerously short sighted bunch of idiots.

For depraved indifference to Democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media… for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people — nothing… could top that.

As if, sir, you listened to all the “calm assessments” of our military commanders –rather than firing the ones who dared say The Emperor Has No Clothes, and The President, No Judgment;

Pretty hard to dismiss General Petraeus isn't it?  I mean he can do it, but it would be political suicide to do so.

As if, sir, your entire presidency was not a “nervous reaction”, and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician;

As if, sir, “the media” does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation’s future may depend on the airing of dissent.

And as if, sir, those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation’s agony and the nation’s insistence.

But this President has ceased to listen.

Why?  Because there are vast consequences to withdrawal that Democrats simply don't see?  They don't know about the 1991 slaughter of Iraqi citizens that rose up against Saddam that we encouraged?  They don't think that we'd have a nation of pissed off people if we pulled out and they were summarily slaughtered as well?

This President has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us, is safety.

To tell you the truth, I could give a shit what the world thinks of us.  I only care about the safety and security of America.

And this laziest of Presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity with soldiers, some of whom will — on his orders — be killed before the year, maybe the month, is out.

Just over 500 days remain in this Presidency.

Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield in these last 500 days.

Consider the singular fraudulence of this President’s trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of the Petraeus Report in these last 500 days.

Consider how this President has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream in these last 500 days.

And consider again how this President has spoken to that biographer: that he is “playing for October-November.” The goal in Iraq is “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence” and consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered in these last 500 days.

In the context of all that… now, consider… these next 500 days.

Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end.

Even if it means your resignation.

Won't happen.

Even if it means your impeachment.

REALLY won't happen.  Democrats simply don't have the backbone to do it.  So whine all you want, we all know you're full of hot air.  They also don't have the votes, or the criminal charges.

Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term.

President Cheney?  Yeah, I'm sure that Democrats would go for that.

Even if it means a Democratic Congress — and those true Patriots among the Republicans — standing up and denying you another penny for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.

Go for it.  Hell, I double dare you to do it.  You'll end up getting the reputation that you so richly deserve just like the one you got after Democrats defunded the Vietnam war.  Ones of cowardice and undermining troops with no money to pay for proper equipment and supplies.

But alas, Democrats don't have the backbone to do it.  They are too worried about doing what's popular instead of what's "right" in their minds.  They lack the courage, the conviction, and the moral radar to actually do anything about the Iraq war, which they are so enraged about.

This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days…

Not while you, sir… are playing.

And you sir, are assuming, grasping at straws, and trying to rile up people who aren't going to have the intestinal fortitude to stand by their principles.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Democrats, idiocy, iraq, Keith Olbermann, Politics, Republicans

# posted by Travis @ 4:48 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Uh Oh, it looks like major Democratic donor Norman Hsu has skipped out on his court appearance and there's been a warrant out for his arrest. It'll be pretty nice to see him in handcuffs because once he's arrested, he won't be getting bail and his $2 million dollar bail has been forfeited to the county.  A nice chunk of change if you ask me.

I wonder if Representative Kennedy will NOW return the campaign donations that Hsu gave or if he's still going to argue about sending back the $6k.

But one thing Kennedy didn't take into account was the fact that Hsu was already convicted of the crime and was due to be sentenced to 3 years in jail when he skipped out in 1992.

Last week, Hsu said he thought the criminal charges had been taken care of when he completed his bankruptcy proceedings in the early 1990s.

"I have not sought to evade any of my obligations and certainly not the law," Hsu said in a prepared statement.

Really Hsu?  Then why did you skip out on your bail today?  It's because you're a common criminal who thinks he's above the law.

I wonder why Democrats don't get all in a hissy over this guy. He's basically the same thing as Jack Abramoff.  A corrupt major donor to a political party.  So let's hear it Democrats.  Tell me what a horrible guy this Hsu is and how he deserves to go to jail.

Or will you end up being the apologist and making excuses?

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: corruption, Democrats, Politics

# posted by Travis @ 3:32 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

No of course not, why would he bother returning money so that it at least appeared that he wasn't going to be swayed by tainted money?  Even Hillary returned Hsu's money.  Now is he not returning the money because he actually needs it, or is he not returning it because he's a scumbag? 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: corruption, Democrats, Politics

# posted by Travis @ 4:35 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Well Congress is back to work and their top agendas are Iraq, the SCHIP, and the mortgage crisis going on.

I think what you'll find is that not a lot is actually going to get done on the Iraq front until you see the report from General Petraeus next Monday.  What's worse is that even with positive parts leaking out into the wild world, you're seeing Democrats already trying to spin it towards getting us out of Iraq asap.

The same report will also be cited by anti-war Democrats who say military success has little relevance given the failure of Iraqi politicians to stop sectarian fighting and create a viable government.

Does the Iraqi Parliament need to get on top of things?  You bet your ass they do, but to leave Iraq is indeed a vast mistake.  With the threats we are getting already from other nations such as Iran, leaving Iraq without a stable government would be a big mistake by anyone who has a brain's measure.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Congress, Democrats, iraq, Politics

# posted by Travis @ 10:50 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

Oh of course the investigation will continue.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  However, with Democrats doing the "investigating", even if they do find wrong doing on Gonzales' part (which they will because he lied to Congress), they simply don't have the backbone to do anything about it.

The nominee must also pledge to cooperate with ongoing congressional oversight into the conduct of the White House in the politicization of federal law enforcement. Hearings on the nominee will provide Congress with another opportunity to examine the new, flawed FISA law and will aid in our efforts to improve it.

So here we have Nancy Pelosi denouncing the "politicization of federal law enforcement" but then she turns around and tries to politicize the new FISA law. 

Sometimes I wonder if she actually reads the press releases she puts out before they are printed or if she's really that dumb.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, attorney general, Democrats, Nancy Pelosi

# posted by Travis @ 2:43 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

It's perfectly fine to have nervous feelings towards the current Iraqi leader.  Most people are justified with that.  The guy has a hard job to do, but it's not impossible.  Sure, I imagine there are things that he could be doing better, but I'm willing to cut him some slack.

Hillary Clinton isn't.  That's fine too, but she's calling for his ouster.

Clinton went on to say she "hopes that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks."

Hillary, the guy was democratically elected.  Calling for his replacement at such a crucial time isn't going to help the fledgling government.  They'll have to have new elections, get a guy in, then he'll have to get up to speed.  Those things take time and waste valuable resources.

What it amounts to is her trying to have it both ways.  Undercut the Iraqi government while trying to pander to Americans who want the surge efforts to continue.

We all see the sheep's clothing Hillary.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, iraq, Politics

# posted by Travis @ 12:36 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Well his heart is in the right place, but Democratic Senator Max Baucus is wrong on this.  It's not about the money per se, but it's about desire.  Sure, $25 billion is a lot of month to be throwing around, but my point is a different one.

You can't give away an education to someone who's heart isn't in it.

You could offer me up a free ride to college for a degree in Chemistry, but because my heart's not in it, I wouldn't make a good Chemist.  Sure, I'd have a decent paying job, but to really compete we have to get around a few core problems first.

Stop ridiculing and looking down upon smart people.

There I said it.  This society looks up to flash people:  Athletes, music stars, etc.  But when was the last time MTV interviewed a molecular chemist?  When was the last time a scientist was on the evening news solely because he/she was smart?

The only time you hear about scientists is when they've found a cure or potential cure to societies ills.  Cure cancer?  You bet your ass will be on the front page of every newspaper in the country.  But two weeks later, there's Britney Spears' vagina soaring around the Internet at light speed. (I've seen it, it's not impressive).

My point is, is if we want to compete in math, science, and medicine, we're going to have to make it more glamorous then it currently looks.  Perfect example:  My friend Daehoon (he's Korean) is getting his degree in medicine.  He wants to be a surgeon.  He does it because he's good at biology, math, science, and wants to help people.

His heart's in it.  Now, once he actually becomes a surgeon, then he starts seeing the rewards:  Large home, new Mercedes in the drive way, and lots, and lots of girls.

Sure, you don't see a doctor running around with 3 girls on his arms like you do with rap artists, but I can tell you without a doubt, one of the greatest pickup lines in history is: "I'm a doctor".  There isn't a woman alive (except maybe lesbians), who wouldn't love to have a man who's a doctor.  Successful, semi wealthy, helps people, etc.  The only profession that I know of that scores more tail is a fireman.

But Daehoon's a bit too skinny to be a fireman.

In short, Senator Baucus gets an A for effort, but an F for thinking it through.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Democrats, Socialism

# posted by Travis @ 3:22 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Let's take a look at the hypocritical nature of the Democratic Party shall we?  In 2000 and 2004, when Democrats lost the Presidential elections, many people, including prominent Democrats, got pissed and whined about how Al Gore REALLY won the election because he won the popular vote.  When told "that's not how it works", they all cried that we should change it.

Well we've all been on the same system for pretty much as long as America has been around.  So you'd like to think that if Republicans supported a change to reflect a more of a "popular vote" method, that Democrats would be all for it.

You'd be wrong. 

"It shows that without much (campaigning) ... there's a gut-level notion that this is the fair way of doing things," said Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation, a committee recently set up to push the measure.

However, the state's Democrats argue that the proposal is nothing but a "right-wing power grab."

"Republicans are in disarray nationally right now. And in California, they aren't even treading water. They'll do everything they can to steal the White House in 2008. Our job is to make sure that we take it seriously and do everything we can to kill it," said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the California Democratic Party.

So tell me, why is Roger Salazar against this proposal?  If Democrats REALLY wanted to be fair and change our voting system to a more "popular vote" type, they'd support this wholeheartedly.  However, since California has been a typically Democratic state, they don't want to change it there.  They want to change it when it suits them like the 2000 election.

That's hypocrisy boys and girls.  That's the kind of stuff you'd expect to see from a child.  What Democrats REALLY should do is say "ok, we'll change it in California, if we can put forth initiatives like this across the country".  That ways it's fair across the board.  But they don't want to because they know that certain areas of California would be won by Republicans and they are doing everything they can to get the White House back, including showing blatant hypocrisy. 

However, there is support for the initiative amongst Californians, 47%-35%.

It's sad really when you think about it.  You'd think that everyone in the political spectrum would want elections to be open and fair, but when it comes down to it, Democrats seem to want to change the rules only when it suits them, not in the name of fairness.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Labels: Democrats, election, hypocrisy

# posted by Travis @ 12:39 PM 0 Comments Links to this post