General Petraeus? Or General Malaise?

Has anyone ever considered the fact that Dave Petraeus just might be an a**hole? I can't say for sure, because I've never met the man. He could, conversely, be an absolute saint. The thing is - I'm really sick and tired of all the right-wing blowhards being fake outraged anytime there's even a possibility that someone might be saying something negative about the troops. Considering how many dipsh*ts I encounter in everyday life, I figure there must be a similar percentage of dipsh*ts in the military. In fact, I went to school with a total jacka** who's serving in Iraq, and he can go to hell for all I care... oh wait, he's already there... and NOW I'm happy.

So go ahead, and trash the troops. Some of them probably deserve it.

The reason I bring this up is because of that stupid MoveOn ad about General Petraeus. What's even stupider is the people attacking MoveOn for the ad, and then attacking public officials for NOT attacking the ad. And now the stupidest of ALL is FireDogLake attacking someone who attacked the ad that attacked Petreaus. In a letter to Elizabeth Edwards:

So I was really disappointed today to read at Taylor Marsh’s place that you had joined with Diaper Dave Vitter and John “McCarthy” McCain to attack MoveOn. We (and by that I mean the netroots) defend you when the MSM try to make your campaign a pinata over stupid, insignificant stuff. When they try to say your race should end because of your illness, but don’t say squat about Fred Thompson’s lymphoma. We’re your first line of defense, the only messaging machine that progressives have.

So here’s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It.

Here's the short version: stop thinking for yourself.

Jesus, it gets tiring reading these idiot blogs. Especially when it's supposedly a "Democratic" blog, the party of "tolerance" and "liberalism" and "open-mindedness". Oh well, I guess THAT got tossed out the window.

Of course, the stupidity couldn't stop THERE. Then Bill O'Reilly had to throw his two pesos in, and destroys any credibility his point may have made by tossing out the N-word..."nazi". I think someone needs to slap O'Reilly upside the head, because he's like a broken record.

Bloggers love contradictions. Also, they hate them. Whaaa?

I was reading the waste-o-bandwidth blog, otherwise known as Atrios's Eschaton, and came across a post from this rocket scientist:

They were discussing the Iraq war. O’Reilly in his usual abrasive way asked Letterman “do you want the United States to win in Iraq?” To my surprise (and dismay), Letterman appeared totally unable to answer the question and paused, as if really having to ponder the options. O’Reilly then added that “it’s an easy question.” Letterman, in what may have seemed like a good response to daily Kossacks but in my mind was rather pathetic, replied “it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.”

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to win in Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody.

I think Jonny McDumbass, who wrote the post, doesn't completely comprehend English. Letterman pondered O'Reilly's questions, didn't answer immediately, then said it was difficult to answer because he's "thoughtful". And how does Sammy VonRetard describe Letterman's response? "reactionary, simple-minded..."

Quick vocabulary lesson: A reactionary and simple-minded answer would've been an immediate "yes". In other words, what YOU think he should've done.

The fact is, you CAN NOT WIN IN IRAQ. There is NO winning. Sure, one side could come out with more points, but it won't end the game. The only way the US could truly "win", is if Iraq becomes a full democracy, Islam completely changes its beliefs so that they no longer resent our presence in the Middle East, and Osama bin Laden starts farting daisies.

O'Reilly and the Daily Kos really need to get a room.

Actually, this post is about John Aravosis at AmericaBlog, so maybe they should ALL get a room and have their gay threeway behind closed-doors.

In the latest chapter of Dumb vs. Dumber, Aravosis takes an isolated statement from O'Reilly's forum and uses it out of context:

"Maybe it's time to burn down the capitol building like Hitler did with the Reichstag building."

And how do jetBlue and Home Depot, big supporters of O'Reilly, feel about launching a terrorist attack against the US Capitol that would assassinate all 535 members of the US Congress?

The full quote is in response to that whole Keith Ellison thing where he compared Bush to Hitler. And the statement was meant to show how absurd the notion of comparing anyone to Hitler is. It's quite possible Aravosis realizes this, and is just playing a stupid, stupid game... but I'm not yet ready to give him too much credit.

Oh Really? O'Reilly.

Should I feel ashamed for laughing at simple-minded people acting like total a**holes? No? Well then, I don't feel guilty watching Bill O'Reilly and Daily Kossians bitch-slap each other like anorexic supermodels in a catfight over the last bit of crank. It's almost funnier than the last Larry The Cable Guy movie... which was about as funny as cancer.

First, we see that Bill O'Reilly doesn't like the Daily Kos, and calls it a "hate site", and yada yada I'm bored just typing this:

Earlier this week, we confronted JetBlue CEO Dave Barger about his airline sponsoring a conference held by the hate-filled website the Daily Kos. That far-left concern routinely posts vile thoughts such as [White house press secretary] Tony Snow should die from cancer, the pope is a primate, and Israel deserves to be attacked.

The hate this website traffics in rivals the KKK and Nazi websites.

I think most people agree that O'Reilly is a blowhard. Also, he's either a straight-up liar (and obfuscates the truth intentionally) or just really, really stupid and misinformed. As far as I'm concerned that's where the discussion of O'Reilly ends. Of course, the 12-year-olds at the Daily Kos aren't able to let things be...

So Kos Front Pagers are going after Bill O'Reilley's web site (over, and over, and over) in a grand cyber-gesture of "nyah, nyah, nyah":

Shocking, but true. Bill O'Reilly advocates the violent overthrow of our government, believes that a former President of the United States is planning a murder, feels that a sitting Senator is unfit for any office because he is a fake Christian, and that millions of Americans are members of a party of death. It must be true, because after all, it was posted at his website.

Ok buddy, put down the Red Bull and whatever Noam Chomsky book you're pretending to read, and listen closely: O'Reilly NEVER said that Kos himself actually HOLDS the beliefs of the people on the website.

Plus, any sane person can look at the Daily Kos for 5 seconds and find some very unhinged Lefties. If O'Reilly were smart enough to make a point, I think it would be that the Daily Kos site attracts crazy pinkos in greater numbers than most websites. No, not EVERYONE on the site is a nut... but it's not too difficult to find them. Just look at the response to O'Reilly.

And now, this "grasping for 15 more minutes of fame" blogger takes a silly comment and wastes my tax dollars having the Secret Service investigate it:

Here is the comment on O'Reilly's blog that crossed the line:

If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list.


So, I did what a responsible person should do when they see something like this on a blog. I called the Secret Service to report it. This comment isn't about politics or defaming Senator Clinton. It outright states a threat to her life. It is unacceptable.

I think English must be this guy's second language, because he really doesn't know what "outright states" means. Using a fictional example, if I were to post "I want to kill Tony Soprano" that would be outright stating a threat to his life. However, if I post "I will respectfully follow all of Tony Sopranos orders, but if you could read my mind I'd be wearing cement shoes"... that's NOT an outright threat on his life.

In the Clinton case, how do you know that he's not thinking of sitting outside her window and watching her change clothes? I'm sure THAT would put him on the Secret Service watch list as well. Or maybe he's thinking of buying lots of pinapple-flavored snowcones and wants to throw them at her. I'm sure that TOO would get him on the list. So please, stop wasting my taxes on your petty bitchfest, and go back to Starbucks to discuss the latest Wilco CD.