Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy
… engages in politics of personal destruction, and not a peep from Hill, notes Richard Cohen at WaPo:
If there is a phrase more closely associated with both Hillary and Bill Clinton than “the politics of personal destruction,” it does not come to mind. All the others — “It’s the economy, stupid,” for instance — are linked to one or the other, but “the politics of personal destruction” is a phrase both Clintons have used repeatedly — so much so, it seems, that for Hillary it has lost all meaning. When, for instance, Gen. David Petraeus was slimed as “General Betray Us,” Hillary Clinton looked the other way. This was the politics of personal expediency.
The swipe at Petraeus was contained in a full-page ad the antiwar group MoveOn.org placed in the New York Times last week. It charged that Petraeus was “cooking the books” about conditions in Iraq and cited statements of his that have turned out to be either (1) not true, (2) no longer true, (3) possibly not true or (4) like everything else in Iraq, impossible to tell. Whatever the case, using “betray” — a word associated with treason — recalls the ugly McCarthy era, when for too many Republicans dissent corresponded with disloyalty. MoveOn.org and the late senator from Wisconsin share a certain fondness for the low blow.
Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did. “I don’t buy into that,” he said. “This is an honorable guy. He’s telling the truth.” But lonesome Joe, whose virtues have yet to come to the attention of the vast and apathetic electorate, was seconded only by Joe Lieberman, not a presidential candidate, and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.
Pretty sad when Kerry can claim a higher moral position. Even though John, like Hillary, had betrayed that ox for the sake of political expediency long before it got gored.
Topics: Iraq, pols, shameless opportunism
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:42 am on Tuesday, September 18, 2007
37 Responses to “Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:06 am
in my Mirriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition for “betray” is “to lead astray.” This is also the definition that MoveOn said it intended.
I agree, though, it’s much for fun to go by a definition that was not intended, so as to gin up some of that ol’ outrage.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:24 am
be·tray /bɪˈtreɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bi-trey] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one’s friends.
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8. to seduce and desert.
Yea corndog, that’s the ticket. Try this one on for size as well:
be·tray (bĭ-trā’) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. be·trayed, be·tray·ing, be·trays
To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one’s country.
To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one’s better nature.
To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
To reveal against one’s desire or will.
To lead astray; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive.
Merely a question of semantics. One man’s betrayer is another’s freedom fighter, after all.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
in my Mirriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition for “betray” is “to lead astray.” This is also the definition that MoveOn said it intended.
I agree, though, it’s much for fun to go by a definition that was not intended, so as to gin up some of that ol’ outrage.
Uh huh. Well, from dictionary.com:
be·tray /bɪˈtreɪ/ [bi-trey], –verb (used with object)
1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one’s friends.
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8. to seduce and desert.
From American Heritage Dictionary:
1a. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one’s country.
1b. To deliver into the hands of an enemy in violation of a trust or allegiance: betrayed Christ to the Romans.
2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one’s better nature.
3. To divulge in a breach of confidence: betray a secret.
4. To make known unintentionally: Her hollow laugh betrayed her contempt for the idea.
5. To reveal against one’s desire or will.
6. To lead astray; deceive. See Synonyms at deceive.
From WordNet:
1. reveal unintentionally; “Her smile betrayed her true feelings”
2. deliver to an enemy by treachery; “Judas sold Jesus”; “The spy betrayed his country”
3. disappoint, prove undependable to; abandon, forsake; “His sense of smell failed him this time”; “His strength finally failed him”; “His children failed him in the crisis” [syn: fail]
4. be sexually unfaithful to one’s partner in marriage; “She cheats on her husband”; “Might her husband be wandering?” [syn: cheat on]
5. give away information about somebody; “He told on his classmate who had cheated on the exam”
6. cause someone to believe an untruth; “The insurance company deceived me when they told me they were covering my house” [syn: deceive] [ant: undeceive]
From Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary:
betray [biˈtrei] verb: to act disloyally or treacherously towards (especially a person who trusts one) Example: He betrayed his own brother (to the enemy).
If we go by the “consensus” method, you and MoveOn are full of it. But, hey, who am I to point blatant cherry picking?
September 18th, 2007 at 11:27 am
and from the merriam-webster version:
Main Entry: be·tray
Pronunciation: bi-’trA, bE-
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from be- + trayen to betray, from Anglo-French trahir, from Latin tradere — more at TRAITOR
transitive verb
1 : to lead astray; especially : SEDUCE
2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery
3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need
4 a : to reveal unintentionally b : SHOW, INDICATE c : to disclose in violation of confidence
intransitive verb : to prove false
September 18th, 2007 at 11:28 am
in my Mirriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition for “betray” is “to lead astray.” This is also the definition that MoveOn said it intended.
I agree, though, it’s much for fun to go by a definition that was not intended, so as to gin up some of that ol’ outrage.
Uh huh. Well, I checked several different sources, corndog. I found over a dozen similar meanings……and, oddly enough, only one matches your choice. The others are similar to what Chris posted.
If we go by the “consensus” method, you and MoveOn are full of it.
But, hey, who am I to point out your usual blatant cherry picking? You want to be an apologist for an anti-American group? Go right ahead. It’s a free country.
Thanks in large part to soldiers like GEN Petraeus.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
in my Mirriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition for “betray” is “to lead astray.” This is also the definition that MoveOn said it intended.
How is calling General Petraeus a liar better than calling him a traitor? You have a very, very strange point of view, Corndog.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Mirriam-Webster’s what I use, and it’s a definitive source, Jeffy. But let’s use your argument and say we look at “several different sources” and come up with “over a dozen similar meanings.”
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, Jeffy, but the tricky thing about the English language is that one word often has a number of meanings. When that happens, you defer to the writer or the speaker as to which meaning he or she intends. In this case, MoveOn says they intended it to mean “lead astray”.
If you want to use the meaning, “betray,” then, as I say, have a lot of fun.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
You know, if we are going to be adults and use the word “betray” to describe someone, let’s have the stones to stand behind it, and leave the meaning of “is” to the lesser intellects.
Oh, and by “leading us astray”, Gen. Petraeus just lengthened his own tour in Iraq. So for the “never been deployed” types, I would have to ask, what sinister agenda would he be taking up by telling us what he told us?
If he told us all was lost and to get out immediately, he would get to come home sooner, he would be revered as a hero among the “caring and sharing types” and he would certainly be in line for some sort of fat job in the Dem party, up to and including the Presidency, with an 0-10 retirement on top of it.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
VC and Rebecca,
As to “leading astray,” or “liar,” I’d say this from the Wash Post speaks for itself:
“A week ago today, Gen. David H. Petraeus started his rounds on Capitol Hill, reporting that security in Iraq was improving to the point that a small number of troops could begin coming home by year’s end.
But 10 days ago, his commanders in Baghdad began advertising for private contractors to work in combat-supply warehouses on U.S. bases throughout Iraq because half the soldiers who had been working in the warehouses were needed for patrols, combat and protection of U.S. forces.
“With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties,” according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq.”
September 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
That doesn’t answer my question, Corn, which I’ll repeat, since you obviously didn’t understand:
How is calling General Petraeus a liar (”lead astray”) any better than calling him a traitor (”betray”)? I can’t ask it any plainer than that.
You seem to know a lot about MoveOn’s motivations. That’s kind of odd coming from someone who claims not to be a leftist. But then Blair’s Law demonstrates that the leftist lunatic fringe is practically indistinguishable from the rightist lunatic fringe, emphasis on the “lunatic”.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Ok, Rebecca, I guess I’ll have to spell it out for you, then. Petraeus is not a traitor, but, as you can see if you read the Wash Post above, he is a liar. So it’s better to call him a liar, since that’s what he is.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
So my question remains as posed: Why would he lie when he has so much to gain from “truthing”?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, Jeffy, but the tricky thing about the English language is that one word often has a number of meanings. When that happens, you defer to the writer or the speaker as to which meaning he or she intends. In this case, MoveOn says they intended it to mean “lead astray”.
Then MoveOn (and its lackeys) should be very clear in their communications, and avoid clever plays on words. Just so there’s no doubt as to what the writer intended. Especially since “betray” is such an emotionally loaded word that most people tend to associate with “treason”, for some odd reason*.
IMHO, MoveOn is just spin doctoring their supreme screw up. I’d take this more seriously if MoveOn published another full page ad in the NYT (at discount rates, of course), explaining, “Hey, we meant LIAR, not TRAITOR. Sorry about the misunderstanding!”
Instead we see a lot of MoveOn lackeys scurrying around, peeing on fires.
So I don’t buy it.
Better call your handler, corndog. MoveOn needs to not hire those temps, and spend the money on another ad.
=======================
*: This is circumstantial evidence that MoveOn.org (and its lackeys) are out of touch with many (if not most) Americans. If true, they expected everyone to think “liar”, and not “traitor” with that oh-so-clever ad……and the reactions demonstrate exactly the opposite. Either way, MoveOn (and its lackeys) lose.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Well said, Jeff. I agree that MoveOn is trying to backtrack now because they didn’t expect the reaction they got to be as angry as it is. Calling General Petraeus a liar is equally as insulting as calling him a traitor, and the fact that the American public hates it when you insult the military seems lost on Corndog et al.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
In this case, MoveOn says they intended it to mean “lead astray”.
And of course they’re sooooo trustworthy we should all take that statement at face value, right?
September 18th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Shipmates,
“They also serve, who stand and wait”. Those who complain about the good General’s lack of combat experience do a discredit to millions who also served long and honourably without hearing a shot fired in anger.
The greatest courage is that of the common citizen wno, looking about and seeing that there is, in fact, something in this great nation worth risking his life for, steps up, raises his hand, and takes the oath that binds him to his nation in a manner greater than that of native birth.
The only standard by which warriors judge each other is the willingness to serve, to take their place in the line. Everything else, ribbons, wings, medals and commendations, is parsings and nuances.
Moveon is a cancer on the body politic of these United States. It requires an immediate and forceful response, yet the Democrats remain in denial as to it’s deadly spreading. They refuse to understand the danger to our constitution and our very existence as a nation. Moveon is as anathema to freedom as is Al Qaida. Where one uses guns and bombs, the other has yet to reach that stage, but is as insidious and nefarious in it’s means, intent, and spread.
Moveon plays a dangerous game with America. It continues to escalate it’s actions at it’s own peril.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
If Republicans can capitalize on America’s reaction, the MoveOners will have made a mistake that costs the Democrats the White House.
The day after the ad appeared, Senate Armed Services Committee member Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), listening to Petraeus’ testimony, told Gen. Petraeus that his report requires, “…a willing suspension of disbelief.” In plain language, Clinton told Petraeus he is a liar.
In that moment, Clinton displayed not only her allegiance to MoveOn.org and the hyperliberal left, but also her utter contempt for the military.
The military functions on two basic principles: discipline and honor. Soldiers don’t follow their commanders only because of their rank. To be a military leader, from sergeant to general, means that you have to earn the trust of those you command. If they don’t believe you — if they cannot take you at your word regardless of whether they like what you’re saying — you cannot lead. Clinton’s over-the-top accusation — were it true — would have proven Petraeus unfit for command. But because the accusation was false, it proved that of Clinton.
Clinton and Obama on the Same Page as MoveOn.org
by Jed Babbin
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22414&page=1#c1
September 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Jeffy,
Well, that’s a decent point. For instance, I never, ever use the phrase “the point is moot” because, if you look it up, you see that it has two meanings that contradict each other, so you never know if someone is going to take it the opposite way you mean it.
And as a pun, their thing was pretty stupid. But given the millions and millions in free viral publicity they’ve gotten, and the fact that whenever I hear the general’s name spoken any more, the stupid pun pops into my head, no matter how much I don’t want it to, they probably feel they did pretty well for their $60,000.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Odd. That “stupid pun” doesn’t pop into my head whenever I hear or read the general’s name. Of course, I never gave it any credence in the first place, under any definition. I considered the source and dismissed it as one more outrage by an outrageous group.
I don’t consider him a liar either, nor is that what your example shows. It was a slick equivocation on your part, I’ll give you that.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
The only way to make the trolls go away is to stop talking to them.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
corndog:
You are pathetic. Really. Self serving and desperate too.
Hey, cheer up, maybe there will be another big car bomb or something and a bunch of people will get killed. You and your friends can feed off something like that for some time.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
But given the millions and millions in free viral publicity they’ve gotten, and the fact that whenever I hear the general’s name spoken any more, the stupid pun pops into my head, no matter how much I don’t want it to, they probably feel they did pretty well for their $60,000.
I dunno, corndog, Judas was cool with thirty pieces of silver to “betray” Jesus, so maybe MoveOn was snookered by the NYT.
Of course, Judas ended up hanging himself in remorse. One can always hope MoveOn might do the same. If they can recover their souls.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Jeffy,
And lookit - we’re still talking about Judas 2,000 years later!
September 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Unbelievable. Now, that’s what I call the “Britney-Spears-Any-Publicity-Is-Good” school of politics.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Corndog,
But 10 days ago, his commanders in Baghdad began advertising for private contractors to work in combat-supply warehouses on U.S. bases throughout Iraq
“SEC. GATES: Let me give you — let me give you a couple of examples. The truth of the matter is it has been difficult for the — particularly for the Army to meet my policy decision with respect to 12 months at home for the active force and a maximum of 12 months mobilized for the National Guard. And they spend a lot of time. I can’t tell you how many hundreds of options they look at.
Just to give you an example, I was signing the orders, going through the orders, two or three weeks ago. We were going to have to bring up a postal unit. There was no replacement. So they wanted to extend this postal unit for, I don’t know, two months, a month, something like that.”
Transcript here -
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4037
The truth is that most Combat Support Services are from the reserves……so the CSS guys are stretched by the “Surge” because one can’t get the Reserve Combat Support Units “Deployment Ready” fast enough. They increased 20K Combat troops but only 8K CSS troops….the Normal ratio is 1-1.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Daddy,
I would just point you again to the statement:
“With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties,” according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq.”
———————————————-
Rebecca,
Some day, when you have time, you should learn the difference between “I think it’s a great idea” and “MoveOn probably thinks it’s a great.”
September 18th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
And lookit - we’re still talking about Judas 2,000 years later!
With the name of Judas Iscariot synonymous to traitor.
Not exactly a recommendation, now, is it?
September 18th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
PS: Apparently you’ve never heard of a Judas Goat, have you, corndog?
Pity. It’s so…..appropriate……for this thread.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
corndog, The_Real_JeffS, and missred:
If you’re going to give special importance to the first meaning given for a word in a dictionary, you need to check the preface first to see what they put first. Some dictionaries put the most common meaning of the word in contemporary English first. Others are arranged on historical principles, and put the oldest attested meaning of the word first. Very often, the oldest meaning is no longer used in contemporary English, or not used much. The Oxford English Dictionary is arranged historically. I don’t know about Merriam-Webster and American Heritage, but if the latter puts “to lead astray: SEDUCE” first, that looks historical to me. If someone says that a man “betrays” a woman by taking her virginity (and possibly getting her pregnant) without marrying her first, that is NOT a common contemporary meaning of the word. If you quote a dictionary that is arranged on historical principles, you cannot give special importance to whichever meaning is listed first, because being listed first just shows that it is the oldest meaning, not the most important one.
September 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“recalls the ugly McCarthy era, when for too many Republicans dissent corresponded with disloyalty. MoveOn.org and the late senator from Wisconsin share a certain fondness for the low blow.”
Bullshit. Senator McCarthy was right, and the Left and the Democrat Party were just as big of scumbags then as they are now.
The ugly thing about that era was was that the leftists won, and because they won, working on behalf of our enemies, up to and including overt acts of treason in time of war is not even prosecuted as a crime (Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, Les Roberts, just to give three examples of overt traitors).
September 18th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Corndog,
Someday, when you have time, you should learn not to make stupid remarks and then try to pretend they’re not your own opinion.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
“The swipe at Petraeus was contained in a full-page ad the antiwar group MoveOn.org placed in the New York Times…”
So? Who cares what the maggots at MoveOn.Org say? I’d only start worrying if they said something good about me.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I took a quick read at Cohen’s column in the New York Daily News.
Hillary’s only alliance is to Hillary. She can either use the MoveOn as a cudgel to obliterate her enemies, and then dispose of them later when it suits her, or she can ally herself with MoveOn, accept all sorts of cash, and then set them up for Sister Souldja moment. The other Dems are fully blackmailed and bankrolled by the MoveOn crowd, so their power is moot.
One wrong step from the MoveOn bunch, and all she has to do is send her attack dogs out to julienne them into fine bits - a leak of inappropriate political donations here, an arrest for inappropriate behavior there, and all she has to do is say, “Isn’t it a shame that members of MoveOn are serving multi-year sentences for tax evasion/violating federal election laws/painting Bozo naked on the side of George Bush’s ranch in Crawford.” Hillary can then fulfill her manifest destiny without those rich white suburbanites in the way.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“Hillary’s only alliance is to Hillary.”
I think her alleged husband taught her that one.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Speaking of souless monsters, scumbags, sexual deviants (like Slick Willy, only way worse)…check this shit out
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070917/NEWS04/70917039/-1/PRINT
Man, what a piece of crap this guy is.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
…you need to check the preface first to see what they put first.
Touche’, Dr. Weevil. I’d forgotten about that.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Joe Biden has 2 things lately I admire.
First, he didn’t attend the Daily Kos gab fest (”convention”) last month in Chicago.
I think all the other main would be democrat contenders did attend.
Hillary did, despite having been herself excoriated in Kos’ online pages.
Second, Joe Biden had the courage to rag on the hateful and stupid Petraeus’ ad.