Screw You Biden!!!

[Breeze54]

Biden's on Faux Suxs and said Move On was WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So were you Biden, by passing the Credit Card and & Bankruptcy Bill, ASSHOLE!!!!

:grr: :grr:

[Avalux]

John Kerry said the same thing on MTP.

I don't get it either. I understand Patraeus is a decorated general, but that doesn't mean his sh*t doesn't stink.

[jobycom]

5. It was a political mess. Like all name calling, it took the focus off the message

so it was a distraction. That's why some Democrats are upset with it--it strengthened Petraeus.

[Kahuna]

9. Riiiight. Name calling come off as childish too. ..... Unless of course..

it's the repukes doing the name calling. Go figure. :grr:

[jobycom]

12. Those who control the media control the message.

It's a sad world.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. But moveon is right on

Who in their right mind expected General BetrayUs to tell the truth? Who expected any great revelation or any words that would give a reason to end this despicable war?

My only criticism of moveon's ad is that they should have waited until AFTER BetrayUs gave his report.

[Avalux]

13. They should have attacked Bush for "using" Patraeus -

he is the CIC and The Decider after all.

[jobycom]

19. Yes, they should have. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. They would have been attacked regardless of what they said

The right has been attacking moveon for months now. So it doesn't matter what they actually said. I just think they should have waited to criticize BetrayUs until after he testified.

[jobycom]

17. It has helped MoveOn's popularity, but I'm not sure it helped us.

It's get people talking about MoveOn, but not enough people talking about Petraeus's report. Imagine if instead of debating the words MoveOn used, people were talking about the content of the report.

Then again, it's the media, they wouldn't say anything worthwhile no matter what we did. :shrug:

[derby378]

68. Well, since Petraeus admitted he doesn't know if occupying Iraq makes us safer...

...I say let 'em talk about MoveOn.org all they want. They keep playing Petraeus' quote over and over on the talking heads shows that I've seen, and when you contrast that with all the times that Herr Decider said "the American people are safer" ever since Howard Dean hinted that this was not the case, I think it's just dandy.

[PatSeg]

85. And that's exactly what the republicans wanted

They made sure that the ad was brought up in the hearings over and over again. They were betting on the odds that people would pay more attention to the ad, than the actual hearings. Then the dems would fight among themselves (like here) and take their eyes off the ball. It is an old, tired republican maneuver and people STILL fall for it.

[Breeze54]

20. MSNBC asked if Petreaus was Betrayus on August 16th!!

No one named called at Move On!!

Your ignorance is showing!!

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. He was also called BetrayUs a long time ago

when his 'leadership' in Iraq was questioned.

[still_one]

35. You are right on. It is so obvious. Just like the conspirisy theories on 9/11

Let the Democrats embrace these causes, and we can kiss the 2008 election off

[cali]

43. We have a winner.

That is justs dead on right- in a nutshell.

[Breeze54]

50. How's your garden tea party going?

:shrug:

lemon?

[Cha]

88. Only if you fall into the fascist pit

and say it does. Way to start framing it.

[still_one]

27. Criticism is fine, and proper, but what does calling him a traitor do?

and don't kid yourself, saying that someone betrays this country is equivalent to calling them a traitor

You want to make that the 2008 campaign sloagan that Petraeus is a traitor, how do you think that will come across

What the Democrats should be doing is criticising this administration for using the generals for their political goals, not for what is good for the country

[Breeze54]

31. You should read the AD first before you spout!!

You are WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Asking a question is NOT a statement or name calling!!

[still_one]

38. General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us?

It doesn't matter what the ad was about, it is only the last line that will be used against us, because that is what the right wing and MSM will only report. You think we can win on that?

It doesn't matter if everything in the ad is accurate, the last line will be what will be heard.

Is it the generals who betrayed us, or THIS ADMINISTRATION? They are using the generals for their dirty work. There is a reason why those generals or officiers that speak out against Iraq, are no longer in active duty. They may not have the courage, but they also do not want to lose their career, right or wrong, that is the way it is

[Breeze54]

39. Wah!!!!!

You go ahead and boo hoo, ****!

The rest of us are fighting back!!!!

[still_one]

44. If you think passing the blame of the Iraq war to the generals or the military

then you will be boo hooing in 2008, and so will the country for decades to come if the Democrats lose

If you want to fight back, then go after your Senators and Congressman, because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE ALLOWING THIS WAR TO CONTINUE

[Breeze54]

49. The RW will be boo-hooing in Nov. '08!!

That's a fact, jack!!

----------------

62 Democratic senators

http://thehill.com/op-eds/62-democratic-senators-2007-09-13.html

By Brent Budowsky
September 13, 2007

The resounding Democratic victory in the 2006 Senate campaign creates a historic anomaly in which the Senate Democratic Caucus could increase to more than 60 senators, with historic implications for American politics and all three branches of government.

The media are simply focusing on the 22 Senate Republican seats at stake in 2008. But the Republican senators considering whether to retire, and the smart K Street money, are homed in on the 2010 elections as well, where another 19 Republican Senate seats are at stake.

Do the math. Locked into the fate of one of America’s most unpopular presidents in history, with the national mood favoring a tidal wave of change, with Republicans plagued by endless scandals, and with a president pushing a disastrous war onto the desk of his successor, 41 Senate Republican seats are in jeopardy in 2008 and 2010.

More.......

[still_one]

51. You obviously lost the point of my thread in your emotion

It was Congress that enabled this administration to do what it is doing, not the gnerals

[Breeze54]

59. "That's a fact, Jack" is a common phrase.

In case you aren't aware of that!

-------------------

Tom Snyder's That's a Fact Jack
http://thejournal.com/articles/15268

Stripes- That's a Fact Jack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR-PFQWOJWQ

SouthernUtahBlog.com: That's a fact, Jack

[still_one]

66. Didn't realize it. Sorry, edited out my inappropriate use of the word in previous post

We really are on the same side, just have different way of acheiving the same end, getting us out of Iraq that is

[Breeze54]

71. I guess

You also got caught up in the "emotion" of the outrage of the Iraq War policies by Dems and the RW!

Yes, I agree, we probably are on the same page politically, as far as the war is concerned.

Truce excepted! :P

;)

[qazplm]

76. wow

at first I was unconvinced by your argument but then saw that you used THREE!!! exclamation points, and now, I am totally on your side.

[Breeze54]

80. What ever dude!

If you're that shallow and condescending, then you are hopeless from the get go.

BTW? I used five exclamation points! :rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. Oh, I get it --

It's OK to call the administration traitors, and not OK to call a general who was just following orders a traitor.

ARE WE ALL GOOD FUCKING GERMANS?

Besides, as noted before, nobody called him a traitor. That is a RW meme. The ad mere posited that we might not get the truth from him, rather than cover for the administration. LIKE SO MANY PREVIOUS GENERALS HAVE DONE BEFORE.

What makes Patraeus immune?

[still_one]

72. Generals don't make policy do they? Congress could end this war now if they wanted to

The generals can't

[RaleighNCDUer]

81. So it's OK for him to lie to us because he doen't make policy?

That's just...bizarre.

[Occulus]

53. No, in fact, that's NOT what saying he betrayed us does.

YOU are the one saying that. The fact is, he openly, knowingly, brazenly LIED to Congress.

That's a betrayal. While it does not rise to the level of treason, it is a betrayal nonetheless.

Or do you for some strange reason believe that lying to Congress does not equal a betrayal?

Betrayal it is- treason it is not.

[still_one]

65. Why didn't Congress put him under oath? Who is to blame for that?

Where is this going to get us?

The war would end tomorrow if Congress tied to any war funding bill, withdrawal

That is where the problem and the blame go

The war powers act was violated by EVERYONE CONGRESSPERSON who voted for the IWR

Repeal the IWR NOW.

The dirty little secret I fear is that neither Democrat or republican have any intention to remove us from Iraq

The Supreme Court, civil rights, and social issues, are the reason I am voting Democratic in 2008.

If it was the Iraq war, neither party would get my vote

Of course, there are individuals within the Democratic party who voted the right way on all the issues concerning Iraq and the war on terrorism

[blm]

32. It was over the top wording - but the underlying point it made was correct.

Kerry is a solid supporter of MoveOn and its work.

NO statesman, not JFK, not MLK, not Paul Wellstone would have agreed with MoveOn's wording.

[Avalux]

33. Agree - the wording took the focus off the point. n/t

[still_one]

54. The sad fact is the underlying point will be lost because of the wording

and that is what so many don't get.

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Sometimes we need statesmen

and sometimes we need idiots who stand on the rooftops and scream the truth at the crowds below.

[blm]

91. I agree with that. But the controversy ended up stepping all over the point

as it always will until the left gains SOME foothold in the media.

The Repubs can ignite any comment from the left because they control the fuel - the airwaves.

[karynnj]

58. I didn't hear Kerry speak of Move on at all

He completed ate McCain's lunch. He did when the ad first came out praise all the Move on has done and then, criticized the personal naming calling on Petraeus. Kerry has consistently called people on this type of thing since he was first in public life.

Oddly, if he were running, it could have immunized him to the type of slime Guilliani put out.

[Avalux]

60. Russert asked him about the ad and he said it was the wrong thing to do.

He did not like it that Patraeus was attacked.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. What did he say was wrong?

The content of the message, or the childish name-calling?

[still_one]

21. If the Democrats approved calling petraeus a traitor, what would that do to us in 2008?

The way things should be done, is not by name calling, but by action, which includes repealing the IWR and rufusing to supply anymore funding until troops begin to withdraw.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. What name calling?

Are you buying into the Republican meme that a juxtoposition of "General Patraeus? Or General Betrayus?" is name calling?

There is no name calling there. There is a play on words, posing the question if we can trust the general to give an honest appraisal of the situation - a suggestion that is no less valid than questioning the testimony of a certain former general and secretary of state.

High office and long service does not make anyone immune to criticism. Had a few more people suggested that Powell was lying five years ago we might not be in this mess today.

Nobody called Patraeus a traitor - only suggested that he was put in place to further the administration's agenda, after several other ranking generals reportedly refused that duty knowing it was a no-win assignment.

We are not good germans, and we have a duty to question the actions and motives of our leaders.

[MonkeyFunk]

77. of course it's name-calling

And nobody's answered the question - what did Biden condemn?

[jobycom]

2. Oh, it's just Biden. Not like anyone cares what he says or does. Once he drops out of the primaries

he'll disappear until the next election.

[Breeze54]

73. lol! I know

but I so wanted him to be an upstanding elective but *sigh*, my disapointment grows daily. :(

Thanks! ;)

[Telly Savalas]

89. Disappear? No way.

That guy will be on the Sunday morning news show every week like he did before his bid for the presidency.

[rodeodance]

3. he said they went overboard. Wallace kept pushing him. i do think they

went farther than they had to and now the Repugs have the fodder they were looking for. That is the end result.

[tekisui]

7. The end result is no one, pukes or pundits, can mention Petrayus

without questioning his credibility, even a week later. everyone sees right through him. without the "childish name-calling", pukes wouldn't have paid it any attention.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Well said, Rodeodance. nt

[TomInTib]

4. Joe Biden (D-MBNA) nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. I Think He Was Being Reasonable About It. I May Not Totally Agree With Him But I Don't Think It

warrants a "screw you biden" either.

I like Joe. I'm hoping by some miracle his poll numbers climb. I've come to think of him as the best candidate of the whole group.

[Breeze54]

10. You have a slanted view of life and politics, so?

Your opinion doesn't count, in my book.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Better To Be Slanted Then To Have Completely Plunged Off The Cliffs Breeze.

And I'd put my view of life and politics up against yours any day. :hi:

[Breeze54]

22. And you'd lose.

I live in a reality based community.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. I'd Wager I'd Run Circles Around Ya.

And I live in actual reality. Not something 'based' on it. Pretty loosely based at that.

:rofl:

[Breeze54]

34. You are irrelevant.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. We All Are Irrelevant.

[Breeze54]

37. Not in my view.

RW bush ass kissers are though!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Of Course They Are. But They Can Be Quite Cute With Their Monumental Ignorance.

At least we see eye to eye on that. But regardless of your view the majority of our posts here, yours included, carry little to no relevance whatsoever to just about anything, other than killing time by getting shit off our chests.

And try not to be so bitter. My response to the OP wasn't anything to get this huffy puffy about. I think Biden would make a terrific president, and think his comments were quite reasonable. You disagree. Oh noes! Better whip out the daggers! :rofl:

[Breeze54]

45. Posted on YouTube: August 16, 2007

Posted on YouTube: August 16, 2007

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x54625

WILL GENERAL PETRAEUS BETRAY US? ~OLBERMANN

Posted on YouTube: August 16, 2007

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Ummmm Yeah, And? I Agree With It.

Not sure what your point was supposed to be. :shrug:

[still_one]

15. What do you expect him to say?

So moveon.org suggested that Petraeus betrayed his country. Very close to calling petraeus a traitor

How do you think that will help the Democrats get into the whitehouse in 2008?

What move.org SHOULD have done was bash this administration for using Petraeus to spread their lies.

Wes Clark endorsed Hillary the other day, is Clark and Hillary traitors? They both have said we cannot completely leave Iraq? I disagree very much with that, but what will saying that Hillary and Clark are betraying our country get us?

We are still a very divided country

The reality is, unless the Democrats take back the white house, and Congress, it doesn't matter, and we have only one last chance to do it, and that s 2008, otherwise we will have lost the supreme court completely, and probably the country for decades.

That does not mean that the Democrats in Congress should not do their job which includes repealing the IWR, and stop funding this war. Yes, bush could veto any bill that calls for withdrawal, but Congress does NOT have to give in either. In other words, even if they cannot over-ride the veto, they can continue to send the same bill to bush, until either he signs it, or he is out of office

That is how you deal with this problem, not by name calling, but action

[Breeze54]

23. Stop pandering for the RW and stand up and fight!!

[still_one]

40. It is the politicians, especially Congress who betrayed us. Not the generals

They didn't vote for the IWR, the Patriot Act, or the refunding of this war

Maybe you should get your priorities straight who should be critisised

[NJCher]

16. actually, Biden was way better than Levin

Levin just denounced the ad on Face the Nation. Up until that, he was scoring points with me because he was making it sound like getting out of Iraq wasn't an impossibility.

Let's face it: we really don't have any representation of our POV, save Dennis Kucinich. These guys are way out of touch with how many Americans feel. And they don't care about that fact, either.

With its usual incompetence, the news media isn't even posing the question accurately. The ad did not call Petraeus a sell-out to bush; it merely questioned whether he was.



Cher

[Breeze54]

25. Actually, MSNBC used the phrase first!

"The ad did not call Petraeus a sell-out to bush; it merely questioned whether he was."

I agree but even, supposedly educated DU'ers are blind to what the AD said. Dummies!!

[NJCher]

86. really!?

I never even saw that in print. Funny.

(I didn't plagiarize, honest!)



Cher

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Biden is adept at hair combing and being politically correct.

God forbid that our tinware and ribbon bedecked generals should get their tender feelings hurt.

[Breeze54]

28. Good point!

;)

[Nimrod2005]

41. And he voted for this god damn war - Don't ever forget that!!!

[Breeze54]

46. Thanks for the update/refresher!

:hi:

[VP505]

48. Why should

people that support torture, death and theft be entitled to ANY common courtesy that we so happily extend to them? Petraeus was well described by his boss Adm Fallon, he brought all the Move On Criticism on himself when he put Bu$h and the RePuke Party ahead of the Constitution and "WE The People".

[treestar]

52. The BK bill shouldn't mean he can't have an opinion on anything else

We can't expect 100% agreement with anyone.

The credit card industry brought a lot of jobs to Delaware at one time. Every Congressperson has at some point had to put the local interests ahead of the nation's - that's all part of the separation of powers between state and federal.

[Mass]

55. General message of ALL dems on the media today: Reed, levin...

Those two did not even bother to say that Moveon was right, even if the ad was wrong, as Biden and Kerry did. So, please, direct your anger where it should be.

BTW, Elizabeth Edwards said the same thing as well, as did Pelosi.

[Breeze54]

61. My anger and disgust is with

the correct people!

The turncoats!! :grr:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gulliver]

57. MoveOn.org was so close to an effective rhyme, then blew it.

If they had made the rhyme "General Petraeus, Don't Betray Us," it would have worked. MoveOn phrased it "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" It was bound to fail. It was just dumb on so many levels it is hard to even pick which one was the dumbest. It is a shame, because MoveOn's heart was in the right place, and even the idea of attacking Petraeus was good. The rhyme itself was inspired. Now it's dead.

First, overtly accusing someone of "betraying us" is for Republicans. Nuff said.

Second, you don't ask an incendiary question you can't get the reader to answer your way. MoveOn took a perfectly good rhyme meme and threw it into a hackneyed, stupid rhetorical framework. They were asking people to join them in a silly name calling, silly "which is it really" decision. I can't stand Petraeus lending his uniform to Bush, but anyone should have know the ad had backfire written all over it.

I won't be contributing to MoveOn or working for them in elections until they delegate their message production to someone with an IQ above room temperature. I don't trust them with our message any more. Boneheads.

[Breeze54]

64. They didn't "blow it"!

:rofl:

The bush agenda is FINALLY being discussed, far and wide!!

Jokes on you!! :P

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

67. You Are Right, And It's A Shame. The Rest Of The Ad Was Really Good.

I agree with you though that the way the phrased the header was a bit over the top and an ineffective way to go, for the reasons you mentioned. It kinda made the ad start off with a childish tone rather than a serious one. I can understand why people took issue with it. I happen to agree with them theoretically, but strategically they should've definitely gone the route you mentioned. Then the entire ad may have been taken more seriously and given people more reason to ponder what it contained.

[PatSeg]

84. Well said

They played right into the republicans' hands and allowed them to divert the message from the War and Bush to MoveOn.

That ad would have gotten little notice nationwide if the republicans hadn't brought it up repeatedly during the hearings. The way for them to divert the spotlight from their own failures was to start arguments like this one on the left.

[napi21]

69. We can debate wether MoveOn was right or wrong, but I have to give

them credit for wording that has gotten them a WHOLE LOT more media coverage than they paid for! It's akin to the coverage the first $50,000 ad by the Swift Boaters got in the 2004 election campaign. The hours of coverage MoveOn has received for the cost of $68,000 far exceeds millions!

[Breeze54]

75. The objective was to call out the lies of * and his phonies

not to give MoveOn attention. But I think the issue that MoveOn
raised has been given lighting because of that advertisement!

And that's a good thing! Objective achieved!

Americans are talking about the war and the lies!
Not if invading Iraq was a good idea or not!! ;)

:thumbsup:

[PatSeg]

83. They certainly got their money's worth

thanks to the republicans making it this weeks talking point. They knew they were in a "no win" situation, so they divert attention from the war and the incriminating hearings, to MoveOn.org. You know they got their usual memo saying to be sure to denounce an ad that the vast majority of American people were barely aware of.

"Throw that bone out there and let the Dems fight over it." Do you hear that wicked cackle in the background? Now the candidates have to decide whether to alienate some of their base, or offend the moderates. They also diverted attention from Bush and his war.

Personally I don't have a strong opinion of the ad one way or the other. I would have preferred that it be directed toward the administration, not anyone in the military, but maybe it wouldn't have gotten that much media attention if they had gone that direction.

As for Biden's response, I thought he handled it well. He did acknowledge that emotions were high with the MoveOn members, but did not endorse the way they expressed their views.

I normally wouldn't respond to a post that directs "screw you" and "asshole" towards a Democratic candidate. Though the criticism may have validity, the tone is inappropriate.

[OHdem10]

74. I like Joe Biden, but he will never distance himself from

Bush Policy. Yes, he does offer the Plan for
resolving the Iraq situation. But if directly
asked questions, he does the typical Democratic
Two Step.

[TwilightGardener]

78. It was a stupid fucking ad.

[Breeze54]

79. The ad was brilliant!!!

Go MoveOn.Org!!!

[BlooInBloo]

87. Doesn't matter. DUers still love Joe "More War Screw The Poor" Biden.

[KG]

90. why the outrage? the dem party leadership is not anti-war.

they are morally corrupt political cowards. get over them.

[Macchendra]

92. He is an isle crosser..

...who is always the lone voter out with Ben and Bill Nelson. Screw you and the elephant you rode in on.