Gonna keep calling Obama’s General “Betrayus”, Liberals?

[hortysir]

I choked on my tea when I went to moveon.org and saw this on their front page!



Stand for Democracy

It's time to rescue our government from corporations and lobbyists. Endorse the blueprint to take back our democracy.
Endorse the Stand for Democrayc Pledge »

 

[Article 15]

MoveOn.org Ad Takes Aim at Petraeus - ABC News

Well?...

Probably about as Likely as you Holding your President to his Promise to get out of Iraq and Close Gitmo...



peace...

Yes.

And I've held this weak-willed political animal warmonger to his promise to get out of Iraq, close Gitmo, and stick to his promised withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2011.

I'm not holding my breath, mind, but I've held him to it and hold him accountable for breaking it.

Believe it or not, not all liberals worship at the alter of, or even support, the spineless Democratic party and its leaders. Some of us have principles.

He said troops out of Iraq in the summer of this year. It's almost July and nothing.

 

[Article 15]

The ad was still up on the website until this morning.

Wonder why they took it down.

Rhetorical question.

It wasn't a question, rhetorical or otherwise.

So I guess the OP has his answer then ... moveon.org will not be calling him Betrayus anymore. Glad that's cleared up.

 

[Jeremy]

I guess they finally moved on...

 

[HUGGY]

Im laughing at all the revisionist history from the k00ks on thus thread.....................

Make no mistake...........every fcukking single solitary lefty k00k on this board was openly rooting for defeat in Iraq. They'll fall all over themseves on the sematics piece of Betrayus/Petraeus.............whatever.

They were ROOTING for defeat!!!








fcukking limpwristers.

Oh stuff it ya little tramp. If somebody punched ya in the beak you would straight up pee on yourself. You chicken hawks don't want to pass up a fight no matter how senseless as long as somebody else gets the bloody nose.

We had no damn business going into Iraq...first time or second.

We did have reason to go into Afgahnistan only for the purpose of surrounding Ossama and turning him into a bloody spot in some far off mountain pass. Then mission accomplished.... we should have gotten the fuck out of there with a warning that if "You fuckin idiots can't keep these monsters in check we will send in tactical nukes.. end of story." And stick to it. One or two tac nukes and mini mushroom clouds out there in the middle of fucking nowhere and I think they ..no matter what god they stroke their dicks to...would fucking understand we mean bidnezz.

 

[hortysir]

MoveOn.org Ad Takes Aim at Petraeus - ABC News

Well?...

Probably about as Likely as you Holding your President to his Promise to get out of Iraq and Close Gitmo...



peace...

Yes.

And I've held this weak-willed political animal warmonger to his promise to get out of Iraq, close Gitmo, and stick to his promised withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2011.

I'm not holding my breath, mind, but I've held him to it and hold him accountable for breaking it.

Believe it or not, not all liberals worship at the alter of, or even support, the spineless Democratic party and its leaders. Some of us have principles.

He said troops out of Iraq in the summer of this year. It's almost July and nothing.

Actually the plan is July 2011, following this summer's surge

 

[jeffrockit]

MoveOn.org Ad Takes Aim at Petraeus - ABC News

Well?...

Probably about as Likely as you Holding your President to his Promise to get out of Iraq and Close Gitmo...



peace...

Why didn't Obama use Petrayeous in the first place? He was successful in Iraq. Oh that's right--I forgot--because McCrystal voted for Obama--and Petrayeous didn't---

It always comes down to politics which is an asinine way to run a military operation or to that point, to make may decisions this administration has made.

 

[HUGGY]

MoveOn.org Ad Takes Aim at Petraeus - ABC News

Well?...

Probably about as Likely as you Holding your President to his Promise to get out of Iraq and Close Gitmo...



peace...

Why didn't Obama use Petrayeous in the first place? He was successful in Iraq. Oh that's right--I forgot--because McCrystal voted for Obama--and Petrayeous didn't---

It always comes down to politics which is an asinine way to run a military operation or to that point, to make may decisions this administration has made.

And what was the "good" reason to be in Afgahnistan 8 years after we let Ossama escape to Pakistan? It sure was convenient to have a boogy man for the last decade.

 

[maineman]

Oh now the Liberal Wankers like Petraeus? My God,these people are such dishonest frauds. Suddenly he's no longer a "Traitor." Why the sudden change of heart on the guy? Hmm?

Again, go take a walk over to moveon.org and run your mouth. I've never had a problem with Petraeus. Not one bit.

You know what? This site's archives go back a LONG way ... I challenge you pull up some posts from the time of those hearings where liberals here referred to him as General "Betrayus" or called him a traitor.

So you are saying that liberals in general did not jump on the "Patreus sucks ass" bandwagon?

Be careful. You dont want to be proven wrong.....do you?

I speak for myself alone... I have always thought he was a brilliant general.

 

[maineman]

AQ was not in Iraq before we went in? LOL

it certainly wasn't "in" Iraq with any sort of blessing from Saddam, that's for sure. The overarching goal of Al Qaeda was and is the destruction of the secular arab states like Iraq. Saddam and his secular pan-arab baathist philosophy stood squarely in AQ's path to accomplishing that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Petraeus has admitted that the troop surge in Iraq may not have been necessary.

Despite Gains, Petraeus Cautious About Iraq - Newsweek

 

[Coyote]

Im laughing at all the revisionist history from the k00ks on thus thread.....................

Make no mistake...........every fcukking single solitary lefty k00k on this board was openly rooting for defeat in Iraq. They'll fall all over themseves on the sematics piece of Betrayus/Petraeus.............whatever.

They were ROOTING for defeat!!!

fcukking limpwristers.

Really? Got any evidence to support the claim or is this just another homophobic hamster rant?

Wheel's still turning....hamster...decomposing rapidly in the sunlight.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AQ was not in Iraq before we went in? LOL

it certainly wasn't "in" Iraq with any sort of blessing from Saddam, that's for sure. The overarching goal of Al Qaeda was and is the destruction of the secular arab states like Iraq. Saddam and his secular pan-arab baathist philosophy stood squarely in AQ's path to accomplishing that.

So AQ decided to settle in Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Libya, Malaysia, Southeast Asia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Spain, France, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, India, and 80 other place including the USA...

but they avoided Iraq.

Hmmkay.

Were they really a-scared of Saddam?

 

[maineman]

AQ was not in Iraq before we went in? LOL

it certainly wasn't "in" Iraq with any sort of blessing from Saddam, that's for sure. The overarching goal of Al Qaeda was and is the destruction of the secular arab states like Iraq. Saddam and his secular pan-arab baathist philosophy stood squarely in AQ's path to accomplishing that.

So AQ decided to settle in Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Libya, Malaysia, Southeast Asia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Spain, France, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, India, and 80 other place including the USA...

but they avoided Iraq.

Hmmkay.

Were they really a-scared of Saddam?

having some reading difficulties, are we?

I said that AQ was not in Iraq WITH ANY SORT OF BLESSING FROM SADDAM.... anymore than they were "IN" the USA learning how to fly commercial jets into skyscrapers with the blessing from Dubya.

My biggest objection to Bush's sales pitch for his invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq was Team Bush's constant attempt to imply an operational connection between Saddam and OBL when NO such connection ever existed. My second biggest objection was his statements of absolute certainty as to the existence of stockpiles of WMD's and the incessant suggestion that, if left to his own devices, Saddam would give those WMD's to Al Qaeda who would cause the proverbial mushroom cloud over an American city. There were no stockpiles... they were NO intelligence agencies who were claiming the absolute certainty of their existence, and they was ZERO chance of Saddam giving a WMD to AQ even if he DID have any.

 

[kwc57]

mal, you should post this at moveon.org if the site still exists because you are barking up the wrong tree directing this towards "liberals." They are the ones who called him that and they speak for just themselves.

Besides, he's been the CENTCOM Commander (a premier job) for Obama's entire term so far and there hasn't been a "Betrayus" peep since those hearings those a couple of years ago. So why would that change now that he's taking command in A-Stan?

It's funny that you posted the strawman pic at Dante considering your OP is kinda strawman-y itself.

Troll harder next time.

Think I can find some Threads in the Archives here about Betrayus?...



peace...

Have at it, Mal.

Guess he got side tracked.

 

[blastoff]

Gonna be interesting to see how the Dimocrats treat him this time compared to the days when Hillary needed "a willing suspension of disbelief" when the general spoke.

 

[NYcarbineer]

AQ was not in Iraq before we went in? LOL

it certainly wasn't "in" Iraq with any sort of blessing from Saddam, that's for sure. The overarching goal of Al Qaeda was and is the destruction of the secular arab states like Iraq. Saddam and his secular pan-arab baathist philosophy stood squarely in AQ's path to accomplishing that.

So AQ decided to settle in Sudan, Cuba, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Libya, Malaysia, Southeast Asia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Spain, France, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, India, and 80 other place including the USA...

but they avoided Iraq.

Hmmkay.

Were they really a-scared of Saddam?

So we should have invaded 79 other places as well?

 

[Jeremy]

I still think it's hillarious how the General was lambasted by the press under Bush and now I've heared the phrase "brilliant choice" by all of the same people.

 

[Article 15]

I still think it's hillarious how the General was lambasted by the press under Bush and now I've heared the phrase "brilliant choice" by all of the same people.

So let me get this straight ...

People hammered Petraeus back during the surge days ... Petraeus wound up proving them wrong and you now expect these people who were proven wrong by this man before to say the very same things they said the first time around?

You must be one of those people who think the same thing is true today as it was two days ago ... no matter what happened yesterday ...

 

[Modbert]

I wonder where Mal is with those threads about Liberals here supposedly calling him "Betrayus." After all, Mal never passes up a chance to feed that ego of his more.

Goodness knows this "Liberal" has created several threads about Petraeus: (The first two)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/106447-gen-david-petraeus-takes-on-cheneyism.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/58131-mission-impossible-victory-in-iraq.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/93727-order-of-australia-for-gen-petraeus.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...upports-closing-gitmo-and-ending-torture.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/50993-general-petraeuss-counterinsurgency-manual.html

Odd, no "Betrayus" threads there Mal. Time to put up or shut up.