We're probably watching the first test of the Bush administration's last attempt at a strategy to escape responsability for the defeat in the Iraq war. For chauvinistic war-monglers like Bush, Cheney et al, losing a war is the biggest disgrace imaginable. So the most important thing for them now, is to to try at any price to avoid being labeled the aministration that lost the war, and knowing them, nothing is going to be too dirty to escape responsibilty, and be able to blame someone else. Since they wouldn't get away with blaming the military as a whole (as Hitler did, saying they had been too weak and had deserved to loose), the now have gone for the generals. "It wasn't our fault!" THEY lost the war! The generals did it! Traitors! TRAITORS!"

Disgraceful.

I completely agree with Greenwald that those of us who are not fans of the Bush administration's neoconservative agenda adopt political tactics in which "a corrupt standard is applied equally rather than allow it to be applied by one political faction against another."

What Greenwald describes as "the war-hungry Right," can also be described as the out-of-control Right, thanks to our Congress abdicating its responsibilities to uphold the Constitution and to participate fully and meaningfully in our system of checks and balances, and assuming the unbelievably outrageous responsibility of formally censuring the exercise of our free speech rights by our citizens.

A tried-and-true method to teach people something, is to create a scenario for them to discover the truth themselves about the something the teacher is leading them toward. This is why I wholehearted support Greenwald's words: "Taking the corrupt political tactics wielded by the war-hungry Right and applying those same tactics to them (rather than ineffectively protesting the unfairness of the tactics) is the only way to ensure they cease."

Edwards didn't put his campaign on hold and address only the hair "issue". He put an ad on the web and moved on to serious issues.

And as a result, people have stopped talking about Edwards' hair, right?

I read several liberal blogs, and I've read a lot more about the ad and Congress's reaction to it than I have about what was actually said in the hearing. MoveOn wanted to focus attention on Petraeus's lies. The right wanted to distract the world, including us, from what Petraeus said.

If only blogs didn't talk about the MoveOn issue, the focus in the media would have returned to all the high-minded political dialogue about the war which normally happens?

The right won.

What did they "win"?

I've been really surprised by the lack of news coming from Iraq ... Juan Cole's daily compilation suggests violence continues, may be growing ... thing are bad ...

The progression of cholera from the north ... reaching Baghdad was the last news I heard on that front ...

Maliki and the rest of the politicians reject the Senate endorsement of "soft partitions" ... upstart ingrates!! who do they think they are?

Are they going to stick with "the surge" strategy until next spring or are they busy formulating some new "post-surge strategy"? I lose track.

war? what war?

GG wondered who is saying that Congress violated the 1A by censuring the MoveOn ad. I don't like this sort of "who says" bit, since there tends to be views out there all over the place, even if only a small group supports a certain stance. And, yes, I have seen arguments that the 1A was violated here. In fact, on his weekly appearance on the Thom Hartmann show, Sen. Sanders (I-VT) raised the issue. Does he count?

If Sen. Sanders said that a non-binding resolution violates the First Amendment, then he doesn't really understand what the First Amendment prohibits.

Personally, I think it violates the spirit of the 1A when the Congress officially uses its powers to selectively criticize an organization's speech in this fashion. I think there even might be a R.A.V. v. Paul connection -- selective attacks on hate speech is problematic.

R.A.V. dealt with binding law and punishments for speech - not non-binding condemnations.

As to the fight fire with fire argument ... I admit I don't have the stomach for it. Yes, we aren't talking torture or whatnot here, but as an amateur intellectual, I don't have much chance to torture etc., but I do have some ability to argue and debate. And, this approach is a sin to my intellectual beliefs.

Politics isn't art or philosophy. It's about results. Personally, I think it's a selfish indulgence to stay about the fray to prove how pure and elevated you are, thereby letting reprehensible people and ideas triumph.

Second, our side simply is not as good (thankfully) at this sort of shit.

That's because so many people on that side want to remain above everything.

I find the proposal distasteful, dangerous and a bit naive. Count me out.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and Fox will be happy to hear that. MoveOn and future targets of these campaigns will likely not be.

There is nothing noble about unilateral disarmament.

Remember the roller coaster ride down thr Red River? Remember the insense sticks of precious herbs dring in the son? Remember the Central Highlands?

The mountain-yard (mispelled, reverently) papa's would help us anti-war GI's walk on red=clouds of smoke? Gads. The burden some carry, stateside too, and O, i got a shush-sensation. Mediddy mung.git/

A Yowsa~!~Love tap. no hate.

DATA- is meaning a DAP Ya's!

Data- is meaning we can still love, unconditionally.

do re.mia- miss.in.action. pickin 'maters for battle.

From: http://tinyurl.com/26pbmv

Army of Dude

Reporting On Truth, Justice And The American Way Of War

Friday, September 28, 2007

The Real Deal

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.”

And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq , said ”We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”

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

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence...

When Col. Hunt went on the attack at Fox, he was attacking the fact that there are Generals out there who still have enough honor and courage to prosecute military personnel who violate the UCMJ and the laws of engagement. He wants no limits on the means used to "defeat the enemy". Civilians? What civilians?

The MoveOn ad, as you can see above, in no way, shape or form descnds to this level, nor to any other level common among the bottom-feeding pundits and radio bomb-b(l)ast(er)s. MoveOn states the truth and then backs it up with citations.

Their outrage over the Petraeus/Betrayus header is a ridiculous attempt to distract from the content. They fear attacks on their veracity and that shows in their level of vehemence.

MoveOn hit a nerve and that's telling. I say do it more, but stay true to the tenor of exposing the lies and stay away from the more vile methods that distinguish their use of these tactics from ours. Was "Betrayus" too close to that line? Maybe, but I think there was enough truth in it to justify it.

There's an old saying that I think applies here well:

"Tough titty" said the kitty, "but the milk's still good."