Just Another Cultist
Tweet
Jeff Goldstein, he of the neverending insult, has decided that all those generals calling for Rumsfeld are clearly secret terrorist-loving liberals in disguise. If you’re not in the cult, you’re clearly against the cult.
22 Responses to “Just Another Cultist”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Even retired generals oppose the war
Now where have I heard that before?
Wow, another right-winger doesn’t agree with Zinni? Shocking. Clearly, the generals need to join the cult and get with the program.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5415
Strange how those generals couldn’t quite make an argument agaisnt invading Iraq when they were on active duty, just after retiring . Funny how they also find their way to lucrative board positions supporting pakistani communications companies, etc.
People like this are a whole lot more believable when they raise the objection before the fact….not three years later
Dr P: It’s obvious — guilt by association, and conspiratorial thinking, are right wing attributes.
Liberals never do anything wrong, so how can they be guilty of conspiracy?
did you read the comment Oliver? I mean zinni was saying all the same things that bush said, and was a supporter. Then after he retires he is on a board that is pushing communications equipment in Pakistan….
Why are you so convinced of all these other conspiracy theories, but so skeptical when there a straight line defining the reasons that these guys flip-flopped?
And of course all those liberal conspiracy theories are totally off-the-wall bat-sh*t crazy, while your conservative conspiracy theories are completely plausible.
And of course if Zinni had made public statements against the war while still on active duty you losers would have called him a traitor. Now you’re using the fact that he didn’t against him.
Typical. Pathetic.
Unfortunately for you keyboard warriors, it’s a lot harder for the American people to believe that highly honored retired generals are venal and corrupt than it is to believe that lifetime pig-fat chickenhawk politicos like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are.
He might have been called a “traitor”…but since he didn’t, now he can be called disingenous and self serving instead.
…he can be called disingenous and self serving instead.
So can you, drpedro. Difference is, with you the shoe fits.
How is it that when a small minority of military or ex-military support a progressive position, their military experience precludes all debate, all argument. Their experience trumps everything. Yet a majority of military feel the other way. Many, many generals support Bush and the war and yet their experience, in the magical progressive world, counts for zilch. If military resumes and heroism and degrees of combat experience are the standards, we should forget Murtha, forget the small cadre of politicized anti-Bush generals, and go with Ollie North.
Of course progressives would have a litter of kittens at that thought. Military experience only counts when it agrees with their prejudices.
Dugger
“Up” is thataway, Dugger.
Who’s trying to “preclude all debate”?
What’s happening here is that the previously respected generals have suddenly become suspect because they publicly question the Bush agenda.
Hey, if you pulled up Shinseki, I would have a hard time arguing. He called the post war need for more troops, so his complaints now would carry a great deal more weight than guys that were all in agreement when they wore the uniform, and started having all sorts of second thoughts as they sat on varioius boards….
However, IF we were to have put more post war troops on the ground, we also draw in other potential problems. We become a true “occupying force” with all the political and military problems that brings with it.
Better than what we have today? Maybe, but not a guarantee by any means.
Wait. We were talking about the generals, right? Now all of a sudden you’ve dragged people’s feelings about Lieberman into it. That’s a different subject.
These progressives who you say are trying to “preclude debate” by relying on the military experience of the dissenting generals–any of them have names?
Who s trying to preclude all debate ?
Most progressives. Hence, the intolerance for dissenting voices like Lieberman etc. Hence, the tactic of not questioning logic or interpretations but vis a vis Bush, questioning his motives. Etc
Dugger
Wow, what a weak argument Dugger. The fact is, if you want to debate then do so. I have yet to see on this thread any facts presented in support of Rumsfeld. Without exception it’s been folks like you, Pedro and Frank complaining about, attacking and sliming the generals who want Rumsfeld fired. But nothing presented on Rumsfeld’s behalf that in any way adds to or furthers the “debate”.
Dave M
So you want me to argue back against a position that one has established. I will go this far. Yes some -no, a few- ex generals have indeed criticized Rummy. Beyond that I’m not aware of ANY factual basis for criticism of Rummy other than policy disagreement – which goes on all the time anyway.
And if you’re mind is open, Dave, just who would these Generals or you have Bush appoint that Bush, as electd President, would want to serve in that position? You do understand the function of a cabinet position in support of the CINC – right? They-you, then, know someone Bush would like as well or better, right??? Or in your world, does Pres Bush have the ‘right’ to have cabinet officers that support his policies – policies upon which the American people selected him over the very best Progressive candidate.
See, I kinda think this whole lynch-Rummy thing is at its core, nothing more than Bush hate. If you get Rummy, you get Bush a little. But then a better SecDef alternative that Bush would like would prove me wrong, wouldn’t it? Have at it.
Dugger
What planet do you live on DrDoper. We failed to get UN support, meaningful support from the international community (diplomacy is hard werk), Abu Ghraib, mass looting, auctioning off Iraqi assets, and of course disbanding the entire army. The Iraqis look at us now as an occupying force.
Dugger, Re-read my post. I haven’t expressed a position or opinion one way or the other (to my thinking if Rumsfeld is replaced in this administration it would only mean someone just as bad would replace him). But YOU have expressed criticism of the generals for their opinion and of “progressives” in general for closing off debate. And you have yet to counter any of the arguments the generals have made for replacing Rumsfeld (except the vague “Bush hate” argument the right trots out every time Bush or his administration is criticized) and you haven’t come up with any evidence that the debate is closed. Since YOU made the statement that debate is closed and since you have critized the generals I assumed you had some arguments to make on Rumsfeld behalf that I would like to see. But I see I was wrong. You got nothin’ except hatred of liberals and hatred of anyone who speaks contrary to the administration line.
piddgy-widdgy…do you really want to hold the UN up as the standard?
the same UN who stood around with their dicks in their hands watching the bosnians attempt genocide right in front of them?
So you think the Iraqis would be happier if there were 300K americans there instead?
Dave M: The truth will set you free… Show me where I “slimed” or “attacked” generals.
dave,
“But YOU have expressed criticism of the generals for their opinion and of progressives in general for closing off debate. ”
Yes to part two, no to part one. Have not actually criticized the generals.
But again you are asking me to defend Rummy against unproven, undocumented charges. But, hell, this blog is dominated by leftists and I have to go the extra mile. A common criticism of Rummy from his detractors is that we didn’t put enough troops on the ground in Iraq. But against that I heard the Commander in Iraq state uncategorically that he was concerned about the ‘size of the footprint’ in Iraq and he thought additional troops would be counterproductive. I agree. More troops, many more troops could not come close to covering all ‘uncovered’ territory. Same is true in Afghan. Way too much land to cover with bodies.
There, since you couldn’t put up an argument re Rummy, I did. And shot it down.
Dugger, Your One Stop Shopping Source for Rummy Debates
Rummy listens to and does what Bush wants him to do. Not what a bunch of know nothing Generals try to advise him to do. Bush is the boss. And Bush does what Cheney tells him to do. So that makes Cheney the real boss. So who do you trust to be advising Rummy on how to fight this war on terrorism. Bush or the know nothing Generals.