Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Born to Lose, You're Just Bad News
The telescreen is tuned, as always, to Fox News. Sean Hannity introduces a segment on the U.S. Senate's lopsided vote for the Cornyn Amendment condemning "personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces." Read: MoveOn.org. Hannity sneers that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, who didn't vote for the bill, "confirmed their membership in the MoveOn.org Democratic Party."
Now to debate the issue: Rick Santorum and Harold Ford, Jr. Both of whom lost elections in 2006.
I understand why most of the GOP is backing the war and knocking down Democratic attempts to pull troops out of Iraq. I'm less sure why they think that they're going to win an election doing so when the people who agree with that strategy lost their elections.
UPDATE: During the commercial break we get a preview for American Commander: General David Petraeus. Don't miss it!
UPDATE II: Charlie says:
Maybe they actually think that continuing the war is the right thing to do, elections or no elections.
I agree, but I don't understand the fist-shaking "we'll have the last laugh!" pose they're in. It's pretty clear that if November 2008 comes and the surge petered out, absolutely zero voters will punish Democrats for an ad attacking one of our many unsuccessful generals. If November 2008 comes and the surge worked? Then Republicans will win anyway.
It's really hard to believe the Sigourney Weaver-in-Aliens* defense of Petraeus is a good faith effort with no electoral overtones. Sen. Cornyn was at the Republican Convention where this happened.
*("Get away from her you bitch!")
|9.20.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Mr. Weigel,
It is really admirable of you to suffer through this stuff so that
we don't have to. What type of controlled substances are you using
to make the experience tolerable?
iih|9.20.07 @ 9:35PM|#
Mr. Weigel,
I second JLM. I stomached only 2 minutes or so of the segment and
then felt pretty bad just seeing Santorum. Hannity included Obama
in the blame even though Obama did not vote (according to Hannity),
which I thought kind of stupid. So I just switched the channel.
|9.20.07 @ 9:41PM|#
Don't confuse the politicized upper-level brass with soldiers. As soon as Petraeus started spinning the inevitable draw down that would occur as rotation schedules ended as something that was happening because of improvements in Iraq, it became obvious that he was one of the Perfumed Princes of the army that Hackworth used to criticize. All those medals don't make him a hero.
|9.20.07 @ 9:41PM|#
I said this before. I'll say it again. I thought conservative right-wingers were supposed to be against "political correctness", and therefore shouldn't have any problem with people attacking a general?
|9.20.07 @ 9:42PM|#
What type of controlled substances are you using to make the
experience tolerable?
Oxycotin with a shot of Fighting Cock Bourbon? Just a wild
guess.
|9.20.07 @ 9:45PM|#
Since, technically, I'm not retired, but rather "an inavtive
member of the Naval Reserve", Y'all better watch your smartass
posts on this here blog from here on out! :-)
How fuckin' stupid is this?
SIV|9.20.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Oxycotin with a shot of Fighting Cock Bourbon? Just a wild
guess.
Oxy and the Kick'n Chick'n are a nice combo.
|9.20.07 @ 10:06PM|#
Dave, I know this idea will be a strain for you, so I want you
to take a deep breath, prepare yourself --- maybe even have someone
bring you a glass of water and some smelling salts.
Maybe they actually think that continuing the war is the right
thing to do, elections or no elections.
Got that? Right thing to do? Profiles in Courage, all that? Doing
what you think is best for the country, even if it means you might
not get as many votes next time?
Fluffy|9.20.07 @ 10:29PM|#
Actually, Charlie, the absurd little pantomime they're doing
over the Moveon.org ad exposes that as a lie. This has nothing to
do with trying to do what's best for the country. It's about
employing distraction to attempt to escape blame for a dreadful
policy failure. It's too late for the rump Republican party to
dissociate itself from the war, so they have no choice but to
attempt lame little charades like this.
Hannity wants what's best for the country. Riiiiight. Come on,
don't make me laugh in your fucking face. Hannity's a pathetic thug
and intellectually dishonest scumbag. The fact that he's leading
the charge on this Betray-Us nonsense tells you all you really need
to know.
|9.20.07 @ 10:30PM|#
General Petraeus is a big, fat poopyhead.
Condemn that, bitches!
So let me get this strait...
The Senate of the "United States of America" is passing a bill
condemning the political opinion of an organization?
.......
|9.20.07 @ 10:33PM|#
Doing what you think is best for the country, even if it
means you might not get as many votes next time?
ROFLMFAO, as the kids say. Seriously, I just about spewed my
Arrogant Bastard all over the keyboard when I read that -
ended up choking on it instead... Speaking of controlled substances
JLM, I want to know what Charlie is on if he actually believes that
because it's gotta be some good shit! That's some serious
hallucinating there.
|9.20.07 @ 10:42PM|#
So let me get this strait...
The Senate of the "United States of America" is passing a bill
condemning the political opinion of an organization?
Pretty much, but that's a good thing. We need Congress to do a lot
more stupid, trivial shit like that as it leaves them less time for
passing substantive legislation. Would that Congress contented
itself with passing only ceremonial pronouncements while leaving us
otherwise alone.
|9.20.07 @ 10:44PM|#
Bush has already sacked some fine generals for telling the truth; all moveon did was use a little derision and satire. The Bush Administration spends so much time on crybaby stuff. He thinks he's part of history, but all there is is histrionics.
|9.20.07 @ 10:51PM|#
Pretty much, but that's a good thing. We need Congress to do a lot
more stupid, trivial shit like that as it leaves them less time for
passing substantive legislation. Would that Congress contented
itself with passing only ceremonial pronouncements while leaving us
otherwise alone.
It ceases being trivial when it becomes precedent.
|9.20.07 @ 10:54PM|#
mmmmmmm.... arrogant bastard. Hops.. delicious
hops..
Added bonus: Hops are closely related to cannibus, according to
Modern Marvels: Brewing on the History Channel.
That one is set to "Until I Delete" on the ol' DVR.
bill|9.20.07 @ 11:07PM|#
I wonder if most people have even read the ad. Except for the headline it's really not that scathing.
|9.20.07 @ 11:22PM|#
I'm surprised so many Democrats voted for the resolution. Nobody
cared when the Swiftboat guys were smearing John McCain or John
Kerry, but now it's balls to the wall the second somebody impugns a
military guy.
I guess the context is different being that Petraeus is in charge
of something. I also guess that if we actually believe in the
separation of civilian and military leaders the moveon.org ad was
different than the Swiftboat hatchet jobbers. Even so, not one of
these patriotic numbnuts stood up and officially said the
Swiftboaters are anti-American, even though the Swiftboat campaign
was purely political and based even less in facts than the Petraeus
hatchet job by moveon.
Personally, I think it is disgusting that, despite free speech (and
I realize it's just a resolution), the government would take it
upon itself to officially denounce speech by American players. How
about a simple "OK, we get it already"?
|9.20.07 @ 11:28PM|#
mmmmmmm.... arrogant bastard. Hops.. delicious
hops..
Yep, overly hopped in a good way. If you like hops and you want to
experience them in something other than a traditional IPA you
really should try this beer! But be warned - this beer isn't for
everyone. ;) From the bottle label:
Arrogant Bastard Ale: This is an aggressive beer. You probably won't like it. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or sophistication to be able to appreciate an ale of this quality and depth. We would suggest that you stick to safer and more familiar territory --- maybe something with a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at convincing you it's made in a little brewery, or one that implies that their tasteless fizzy yellow beer will give you more sex appeal. Perhaps you think multi-million dollar ad campaigns make a beer taste better. Perhaps you're mouthing your words as you read this.
But hey if you don't want to take my word for it,
check out this endorsement from none other than the Vice-President
himself.
Ron Baileyesque disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with, nor do
I have any financial interest in, Stone Brewing or Arrogant Bastard
Ale.
|9.20.07 @ 11:33PM|#
Screw Arrogant Bastard. If you're looking to get messed up, try some Ojo Malo!.
|9.20.07 @ 11:39PM|#
"Ron Baileyesque disclaimer:
Wouldn't a Baileyesque disclaimer be more along the lines of "I own
Stone Brewing, and personally developed all of the Bastard Ale
varieties. But you have to admit I have a critical eye, so if
there's a more druggy beer, I'd say so....."
The Wine Commonsewer|9.20.07 @ 11:44PM|#
Arrogant Bastard has a nice brewery and serves a decent lunch. As beer goes, it's pretty good.
teh|9.20.07 @ 11:53PM|#
If Bush and the Republicans were confident that they were doing
the right thing and were going to succeed then they would have sent
the Secretary of Defense or someone else to defend the policy in
front of Congress. Instead they decided to send a military
commander because they cynically hoped that someone in uniform with
4 stars giving the testimony would insulate them from criticism. If
that isn't a vote of no-confidence in their strategy (or at least
their ability to change public opinion) then I don't know what
would be.
Anyhow, Petraeus is in charge of implementing a military strategy.
He shouldn't be the one defending the White House's policy on the
war, which is a political issue. (duh)
teh|9.20.07 @ 11:55PM|#
I should also add that they came up with the idea of making this Petraeus' war like 6 months ago. It would have been logically impossible for them to even know if the surge was going to work back then. If they were such sincere believers, then why would they have cared about PR so much back then? Didn't they have any expectation that the surge would work and move public opinion in their favor?
|9.21.07 @ 12:04AM|#
I like hops, but Arrogant Bastard just didn't do anything for
me. Made me want to hurl, actually.
Now Sierra Nevada. Theres a good California brewery.
Untermensch|9.21.07 @ 12:10AM|#
If you're looking to get messed up, try some Ojo Malo!
I don't drink and so can't attest from personal experience, but I
was told by some Norwegian friends that the thing that really works
for this is an Icelandic mead (fermented honey beverage) called
"Skull Cleaver." The name sounds promising…
|9.21.07 @ 12:26AM|#
My arch-conservative brother, a booster of the war since it
began, recently tolled me he thought the whole thing has turned
pointless and it's time to get out.
Over the past year, I've watched many of my conservative friends
either reverse their positions or get pretty quiet on the whole
affair.
Last week I heard his "concert" and he had Ann Coulter on. In the
first sentence she said, "Last year we were winning the war and now
the Democrats are in charge and we're losing it."
I'm pretty sure Hannity and Coulter worship satan. Together.
|9.21.07 @ 12:27AM|#
Now to debate the issue: Rick Santorum and...
That's good enoug for me. Any excuse to link to
this.
Ahhh just keeps getting sweeter.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.21.07 @ 1:08AM|#
Gawd, Warren, if you weren't on a sled to hell with greased runners before, you sure are now. :-)
The Wine Commonsewer|9.21.07 @ 1:09AM|#
Jesus didn't turn water into beer!
I believe that, ladies and gentlemen, is a fargin' THREAD
WINNER!
RonPaul2008|9.21.07 @ 8:11AM|#
I love Arrogant Bastard and drink it often. But if you like hops, The Maharaja is delicious hop-juice!
|9.21.07 @ 8:24AM|#
Cesar,
The Sierra Nevada line of beer mustards are fantastic. My work wife
bought me them on a lark for my birthday last year and I've
converted everyone I know.
Online
store
|9.21.07 @ 9:07AM|#
Seen any polling on Patraeus's report?
2/3 of the public agree with Hillary. More PR fluff from the
administration.
On the Repubicans' strategy: I'm sure they understand all that,
Dave, but hiding behind the troops is pretty all they've got left
to keep even their base from turning tail and running.
|9.21.07 @ 9:18AM|#
Politicians are children. Talking about politics, particularly
from a partisan position, makes children of us all.
I can't believe we have at least another year of
electioneering.
|9.21.07 @ 9:19AM|#
I can't believe we have at least another year of
electioneering.
Who do you think will run in 2012? ;)
|9.21.07 @ 9:41AM|#
Who do you think will run in 2012?
The way things are going, we likely won't even have elections by
2012.
|9.21.07 @ 9:42AM|#
The condemnation in the Cornyn amendment only addressed the
attack on the patriotism of General Patraeus by the unpatriotic
moveon.org. It does not say everything is peachy. Hillary would not
sign on to that condemnation. She is with the 2/3 of the public
that believes things are going "not so well", but that 2/3 does NOT
believe the general should be refered to as a traitor. (I haven't
seen the polling on that, but I'm pretty sure 2/3 of the public
don't assiciate the man with communist spies, Rosenbergs, shoe
bombers, muslim jews, blame-America-firsters, and others who would
"betray us")
joe, did you conflate the two just for laughs? I do that
sometimes...
|9.21.07 @ 9:45AM|#
David Weigel:
I agree, but I don't understand the fist-shaking "we'll have the last laugh!" pose they're in. It's pretty clear that if November 2008 comes and the surge petered out, absolutely zero voters will punish Democrats for an ad attacking one of our many unsuccessful generals. If November 2008 comes and the surge worked? Then Republicans will win anyway.
Weigel, you have missed the main point, at least from my
perspective. You boil this whole thing down to the election booth,
and toss out the ugly, lying attack on Petraeus. "As long as we
win, who cares what we say." Do you subscribe to no ethics at
all?
It is no different than me saying, "David Weigel is a child
molester" and later rationalizing my accusation by reckoning that
Reason's circulation is not likely to be affected either way by my
slur. As far as I know, you are not a child molester, but
considering your lack of ethics in other areas...
|9.21.07 @ 9:47AM|#
Not that I support the ad, but what part of the ad could possibly be construed to call him a "traitor"? As they say on some other sites... RTFA. Context is everything. They're saying he's lying his ass off for political reasons. Not that he's a traitor. Big difference.
|9.21.07 @ 9:55AM|#
bigbibslacker,
The only conflation going on here is your effort to pretend that
the accusation made about Patreaus including calling him a traitor
and comparing him to the Rosenbergs.
|9.21.07 @ 9:55AM|#
Yeah, did anyone who's complaining about the poster actually
read it? It's actually a very restrained statement.
Also:
Betray (v.t.)
- 3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need
I'd say that's an accurate description of what just happened in his
testimony to congress.
|9.21.07 @ 9:59AM|#
They're saying he's lying his ass off for political reasons.
Not that he's a traitor. Big difference.
That's the point. Dissent against the war up until now has been
frowned upon by the GOP. As of this ruling, the frowning has become
law.
Not that I support the ad
I, on the other hand, support it fully. I don't necessarily
agree with the ad, but not agreeing with it
doesn't give anyone the right to legislate against it.
That's called a dictatorship...
|9.21.07 @ 10:22AM|#
"2/3 of the public agree with Hillary."
Make that Hillary agrees or pretends to agree with 2/3 of the
public in order to get votes.
|9.21.07 @ 10:22AM|#
From Petraeus' confirmation hearing:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."
Fuck Lieberman and fuck Petraeus.
|9.21.07 @ 10:43AM|#
The headline would have been better as "General Patraeus, Don't
Betray Us!"
Rattlesnake Jake,
Touche. I amend my remarks to "2/3 of the public agrees with
Hillary's statement."
|9.21.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I completely support Gen. Petraeus and oppose anyone who does
not give him 100% faith and trust.
However, like most Americans, I don't read the newspaper nor know
any history. Could someone remind of his actions that have made him
a paragon of martial virtue beyond any reproach? I did read the
Wikipedia entry on him...none of it read much like Audie Murphy,
Sergeant York, or Mother Teresa.
|9.21.07 @ 12:54PM|#
A person in the military who "betrays us" is a traitor, no? Is it possible to betray your country and not be a traitor? I see nothing wrong with questioning his patriotism, IF that's what you want to do. The way some would have it, there isn't anybody in the whole country who is unpatriotic. I question the patriotism of every pol who steps on the bill of rights. How DAAAARE me question their patriotism? Well, I just did. How jingoistic of me.
|9.21.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Taktix® : I, on the other hand, support it fully. I don't
necessarily agree with the ad, but not agreeing with it doesn't
give anyone the right to legislate against it.
That's called a dictatorship...
I agree with you fully. Just wasn't using the right word when I
said "support".
|9.21.07 @ 3:41PM|#
General betraying people of his country during war != "batrayal
of trust"
= treason
Gary|9.21.07 @ 7:06PM|#
< I thought conservative right-wingers were supposed to be
against "political correctness", and therefore shouldn't have any
problem with people attacking a general? >
Latitude in defying 'political correctness' only applies if it's
supporting the military bureaucracy and conservative (real
American) views. Otherwise, SHUT UP.
bill|9.22.07 @ 2:20AM|#
I just thought of something. Does this mean the military is not going to give anymore dishonorable discharges?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245