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!")

Comments

[JLM]

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]

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.

[Tacos mmm...]

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.

[Cesar]

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?

[Cesar]

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.

[J sub D]

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]

Oxycotin with a shot of Fighting Cock Bourbon? Just a wild guess.

Oxy and the Kick'n Chick'n are a nice combo.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

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]

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.

[Taktix? (L-FL)]

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?

.......

[Brian Courts]

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.

[Brian Courts]

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.

[jn]

mmmmmmm.... arrogant bastard. Hops.. delicious hops..

[Douglas Gray]

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.

[Taktix? (L-FL)]

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.

[Mike Huckabee]

Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor.

[Taktix? (L-FL)]

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.

[Cesar]

Oxy and the Kick'n Chick'n are a nice combo.

A-MEN!

[Edward]

Given the mess, maybe not getting elected is having the last laugh.

[bill]

I wonder if most people have even read the ad. Except for the headline it's really not that scathing.

[highnumber]

Edward,

Zing!

[Lamar]

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"?

[Brian Courts]

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.

[Cesar]

Screw Arrogant Bastard. If you're looking to get messed up, try some Ojo Malo!.

[Lamar]

"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]

Buncha fargin' hop heads. {Shakes head}

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Arrogant Bastard has a nice brewery and serves a decent lunch. As beer goes, it's pretty good.

[sixstring]

Jesus didn't turn water into beer!

[teh]

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]

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?

[Cesar]

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]

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?

[madpad]

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.

[Warren]

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]

Gawd, Warren, if you weren't on a sled to hell with greased runners before, you sure are now. 🙂

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Jesus didn't turn water into beer!

I believe that, ladies and gentlemen, is a fargin' THREAD WINNER!

[jkp]

Weigel:

Nice find on the Purple Heart bandages!

[RonPaul2008]

I love Arrogant Bastard and drink it often. But if you like hops, The Maharaja is delicious hop-juice!

[SugarFree]

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

[joe]

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.

[JasonL]

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.

[Reinmoose]

I can't believe we have at least another year of electioneering.

Who do you think will run in 2012? 😉

[Taktix?]

Who do you think will run in 2012?

The way things are going, we likely won't even have elections by 2012.

[bigbigslacker]

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...

[de stijl]

Wait! This passed? What happened to the First Amendment? Idiots! Argh!!!!

[wayne]

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...

[Andrew]

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.

[joe]

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.

[Reinmoose]

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.

[Reinmoose]

hold up.
Maybe not "accurate," but certainly not that far off.

[Taktix?]

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...

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"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.

[de stijl]

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.

[joe]

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."

[jimmy smith]

"Free speech for me but not for thee". We must have some standards, after all.

[Slugger]

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.

[bigbigslacker]

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.

[joe]

Betrayal of trust != traitor to one's country

[Andrew]

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".

[bigbigslacker]

General betraying people of his country during war != "batrayal of trust"

= treason

[Gary]

< 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]

I just thought of something. Does this mean the military is not going to give anymore dishonorable discharges?