| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| MoveOn.pimp's Hypocritical "Slam" on Bush |
| 2007-09-21 |
| In his first public comments on the MoveOn.org controversy, President Bush on Thursday excoriated Democrats for not repudiating the activist liberal group, which ran a newspaper ad attacking a respected U.S. general. Responding to a question by The Examiner at a White House press conference, Bush ripped last week's MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times that mocked General David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, as "General Betray Us" and accused him of "cooking the books" on Iraq. "I thought that the ad was disgusting," a clearly agitated Bush said. "I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org — are more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal. It's one thing to attack me. It's another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus." Word. Not one false statement or suggestion here. Nothing a sane person could use against him. Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn. Of course, he'd take anything as an invitation to accuse W of betrayal he's so blinded by hate. Or money. Or both. "What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war," Pariser said after the press conference. Jesus H. Christ. Look who's talking. Tugging at every heartstring and throwing out every buzzword he can in a desperate bid to seem valid. Where do I begin? Since MoveOn fired the first shot, I would say that they were the ones who are interested in political (and personal!) attacks to achieve their goal-for-the-ignorant. W would not have issued any attacks had it not been for this "ad", which more than called for W's understated response. "The president has no credibility on Iraq: he lied repeatedly to the American people to get us into the war. Most Americans oppose the war and want us to get out. Right now, there are about 168,000 American soldiers in Iraq, caught in the crossfire of that country's unwinnable civil war, and the president has betrayed their trust and the trust of the American people." Stuck on stoopid. You obviously are looking at old statistics, and no statistics regarding congress's approval rating, which is about 1/3 of W's. You'd best go do a little reading before you slither out from under your rock to say something. I hate it when adults act like children. My kids don't think I see right through what they say, either. Or do they think their audience is stupid enough to believe it? Maybe they don't care about the ones who don't. Just about anything they say depends on people's ignorance. For beginners, what passed as a "civil war" to liberals because it was a handy excuse for their arguments is now a thing of the past. If W lied then so did the intelligence agencies of every other country out there. So if lying counts as betrayal, then it isn't W who is the traitor here, it's MoveOn.pimp. The ad has not been denounced by most leading Democrats, including the top-tier contenders for their party's presidential nomination — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. I'd sure like to know what is going through their heads other than "Don't pi$$ off my pimp." Even their supporters would probably like them to say something in a timely fashion that could have gone like "I don't like the ad but it still doesn't change my position on the war". At least it would suggest they weren't the whores that they are. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #16 To add to Nimble Spemble's excellent summary, the key fall out of the very low valuation for the US$ will be the imminent unpegging of the Saudi currency (and oil prices in general) from the dollar. It was that peg that let us borrow so heavily and spend the money on consumer goods & expensive houses without paying a predicted penalty a couple years earlier than today. The desire for dollars was less about the strength of our economy by, say, 2005 than it was about the need to use dollars for energy trading and secondarily for other trading. Our current situation, in which consumers are mostly insulated against the penalties for a weak dollar, is not sustainable. When the piper comes to be paid, he will be paid painfully, I fear. Caveat: geopolitics and geoeconomics are shifting in fundamental ways. Add in a really transforming technology that gets commercialized fast ... say, a breakthrough nanotech / energy / robotics application mature enough to spin off products that are worth the cost of switching ... and all bets are off. |
| Posted by: lotp 2007-09-21 20:45 |
| #15 Hope we get the bands and BRM. |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-09-21 18:53 |
| #14 That's all true, gorb, but there are some downsides. We finance a lot of our growth and high standard of living by borrowing from foreigners. If they think they will be paid back in dollars that will be worth less, they will charge a higher interest rate to lend us money. That will result in less foreign borrowing, fewer imports and a lower standard of living or in higher interest rates and ultimately a recession. There is also a foreign policy implication. Countries with a strong currency are seen as strong countries that can manage affairs. Countries with weak countries are seen as ill-disciplined sloths who cannot manage their own affairs let alone those of others, see Italy. A lot of that may be written off as perception. But most financial activities rest on confidence, which is ultimately a perception. This is the culmination of a lot of trends, some of which go back to FDR. It will be a long time a fixin, also. But once the boomers do the far, far better thing than they have ever done before and kill Medicare and Socialized Security to pay for the coming War, things will get back on track. Otherwise, the future may look a lot like the 50's and 60's for Britain as our currency falls from favor as a reliable store of value. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-21 17:30 |
| #13 Oil will get way more expensive. And foreign products. And foreign work. There will be a limit of course, when taking care of things locally offers more value than going abroad. But that limit is at prices significantly higher than they are now. On the flip side, everyone will want to buy our stuff because our price is pegged more to the dollar than the euro, and will therefore be cheaper than what they can buy at their home. It's a mix, but I don't see that other countries that had a currency with low valuation suffered all that badly. Maybe I'm wrong here. I don't know what effect it will have on our bond payments etc., but I would think they would be paid off in dollars. Of course the dollars are worth less, so it should be easier to meet those obligations in a way, especially with tons of euros coming in. If this is true, then I don't see why any country with investments here would like to see the dollar devalued. I suppose I am probably half-baked here. Can anyone else shed some light on this for me/others? |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-09-21 17:07 |
| #12 Barbara: i have been listening to a Canadian station for awhile ( better music) and they are concerned because there have already been big job losses ( ~ 250K) due to loss of buying power. add in the better value in the US and the Canadians have been streaming across the border ( here is WA state) and spending like mad. (refuse to say like a drunken sailor) that equates to a loss of tax revenue. for us US tourists, it means that we cannot get so much when we go up north. i travel up ther almost monthly to go racing and we are now carrying our booze and food more than before. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-09-21 15:55 |
| #11 Maybe someone can explain to me the problem of the Canadian dollar matching the US dollar. It means some people's Labatt and Molson is going to cost more before they filter it through their kidneys. :) |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-21 15:50 |
| #10 Maybe someone can explain to me the problem of the Canadian dollar matching the US dollar. It did when I was younger, and I don't remember anyone whining about it. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-09-21 15:39 |
| #9 The only negative to some quarters is the valuation of the US Dollar. (I believe the Canadian Dollar matched it in the last day or so? That was on the front of the local commuter paper/fishwrap--albeit on Friday's they carry The Manolo, which is cool.) |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-09-21 15:05 |
| #8 The economy's in a tailspin? Since when? Record low unemployment means record high employment. Record highs on Wall Street despite a few adjustments which were overdue. Record tax revenues so the government and both parties can spend like drunken sailors. Where's the tailspin? Where's the recession? Where's the irreparable change making us all peasants? Even without a job currently my credit rating is good enough that all I need is a co-signer to get a new car, I've got an unemployment award that almost equals my bi-weekly net takehome, and I have a roof over my head, food in my stomach, a little leftover play/beer money, and enough to take care of everything else. I'm no serf - and neither are the people I work or otherwise associate with. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-09-21 14:52 |
| #7 Was stuck in a doctor's waiting room yesterday, watching the big screen tv on CNBC (Shudder) as the crawl on the botom said "Bush approval rating is 39%" they instantly cut the crawl. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-09-21 14:11 |
| #6 Guess he never heard of the concept: "If you want peace, prepare for war." |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-09-21 10:02 |
| #5 Clowns like Eli Pariser live in their own echo chamber and only accept information that conforms to what they want to hear. How blind is this? Consider the politicizing the military? Four thousand years of human history clearly demonstrate you want the military not to be politicized cause in the end, they become the people running the government. I guess the Eli thinks its different here, special above every other human pattern of behavior. He's also failed to notice in the real reporting that America's military is eating the insurgency and AQ alive. So, just pause Eli, you think that after the generals accept the authority to run things, that we could rise up to overthrow the suits? Look again. They've been damn well successful in cleaning house. They're getting the strategy and the tactics in dealing with the 'problem'. They're taking down your allies daily. So much so, that your allies know that their only hope of success is for you to win within the beltway cause all else is lost. Dream on. The allure of the song of the barricades is indeed a dream. Like - in the sleep of death what dreams may come. Don't ever force the American people to have to choose between weiners like you or their military. Cause you ain't it. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-21 09:57 |
| #4 Ass-kicking for Tarzan Sheth in Aisle One, please. Ass-kicking to Aisle One for Tarzan Sheth. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-09-21 09:39 |
| #3 Maybe we will get lucky and Pariser will emigrate to Finland. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-09-21 09:26 |
| #2 name one, punk |
| Posted by: Frank G on the road 2007-09-21 09:06 |
| #1 "The president has no credibility on Iraq: he lied repeatedly to the American people to get us into the war," oh wait a minute no he didnt, well actually he did LIE. |
| Posted by: Tarzan Sheth3256 2007-09-21 08:35 |