House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: The Congressional G.O.P. Is “80 percent male, 100 percent white — and completely out of touch”

DON'T MISS ANOTHER ARTICLE: JOIN HUNDREDS OF OTHER GTL™ READERS BY SUBSCRIBING TO OUR SYNDICATED NEWSFEED OR RECEIVE A PERSONAL EMAIL EACH TIME A NEW ARTICLE IS POSTED -- CLICK ON THE APPROPRIATE IMAGE BELOW:

READERS DON'T BE SHY -- HAVE YOUR IMAGE SHOW UP ON EACH OF YOUR COMMENTS FOR FREE BY CREATING YOUR OWN GRAVITAR BY CLICKING HERE. IT JUST TAKES A COUPLE OF MINUTES AND IT WORKS ON EVERY OTHER GRAVITAR-ENABLED SITE ON THE WEB. NO AGENDA -- WE JUST WANT TO SEE YOUR SMILING (OR FROWNING) MUG...

 Click Here For A Printable Version Of This Article -

• vegofish
  3:52 am on October 7th, 2009 1

  I thought you were out in July or something Bro???? or is it next July????

  I cannot disagree, chain of command is chain of command, just another blunder in what has already been too many blunders by our leadership on the subject of Afghanistan.

  What I think is most interesting and most revealing about this latest situation is that As a military commander of the highest appointment the good general is obviously a man of extreme self discipline and a man with an extra healthy respect for the chain of command. I think you can agree that he could not have achieved his current level of command without those two attributes. Discipline, Duty, Honor and Respect. I am sure the general exemplifies all of those. So what could make a man like that fail himself on those attributes? What could possibly make a man who lives the code of discipline break the chain of command?
  I would think it would take an incredible lack of respect for his commanders. Perhaps because they say things like over half the country are bigots and racists and are represented by bigots and racists who are completely out of touch. I think the good general might strongly disagree with that attitude. I liken the good general to the mid level wall street bean counters that were taxed with impossible task of keeping the unsustainable liberal housing bubble from bursting, which they managed to do for several years longer than they should have(read derivatives). The general has been asked to fight the good war, the right war, until he gives his recommendation on what will be required, and then he gets thrown under the bus.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 4:13 am

  @vegofish, He threw himself under the bus, and you’re giving him a pass. It figures.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 10:02 am

  @Bad Dog, Hey, what do we have here? I think I maybe in solid agreement with you on that point B.D. – I haven’t caught the actual quote the general got in trouble with but if he spoke against or criticized the Commander in Chief publicly, then he threw himself under the bus. That, in and of itself, doesn’t necessarily make the general a bad person, but if you think what your boss is doing is terribly wrong, then you should resign your commission and once you are a civilian, holler away.

  @GTL- If you don’t use your real name as a personal precaution to not violate UCMJ, I can understand that, but I believe, and I’m no expert on this subject, but I believe if you are off duty and not in uniform, you can speak politically, even critically of the administration without violating UCMJ. Of course, aside from something being legal or not, the higher up you are in any organization, be it a private company, religious organization, anything, the more you have a duty to be loyal to the leadership. If you don’t like it, either get out of the organization, or stay in but at least offer to step down from your position of trust.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 10:31 am

  @Mike 300 Spartans, Actually, I agreed that he violated the chain of command, my point about him being thrown under the bus is secondary to that. I don’t think it is unreasonable For the general or the public to expect that a COC,
  with a resume of community organizer and anti war activist to heed the advise of his top general on the ground in the war zone. Obviously the General agrees, and his frustration at being helpless as his men die led to his error in judgment.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  @vegofish, What if the President was a draft-dodging National Guard deserter during the Vietnam War?

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  @Mike 300 Spartans,

  @GTL- If you don’t use your real name as a personal precaution to not violate UCMJ, I can understand that, but I believe, and I’m no expert on this subject, but I believe if you are off duty and not in uniform, you can speak politically, even critically of the administration without violating UCMJ.

  That’s what they say, Mike — but that’s not necessarily how it always works as this formerly Honorably Discharged (IRR) Marine can attest…

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am

  @Bad Dog, He made a mistake when confronted with the media, his only avenue to the COC apparently,
  and you want the firing squad…..Figures

  

  Mike 300 spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

  @vegofish, Actually I’m for the firing squad too. All economic policies aside, the COC has got to be the ultimate authority in military decisions. As I said earlier, if the general was that opposed to something, the public outcry should have come hand in hand with his resignation. Now the President of the United States should fire him. I don’t put much weight in the opinions of other countries, but can you imagine our enemies hearing a general dissed our President and got away with it? That would be a literal death sentence in many countries, only gotten away with in Banana republics where the general(s) are the actual leaders and the president just a puppet.

  

  Kaye Harris Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  @Mike 300 spartans, Applauding your analysis… I’m sure my retired U. S. Marine Corps Officer dad, rolled over in his grave upon hearing the General speak out against President Obama. I remember as a kid, after my father, returned home from his 3rd tour in Vietnam, listening to him complain about how the politicians would not allow the military to win that war. My father hated Richard Nixon, but he loved the Marine Corps, and he always, always said (even when I hated him for it),
  “…a good solider follows orders without question…”

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

  @Kaye Harris, Thanks for the applause! I like applauds from almost anybody but to get them from perhaps the most admired by both sides on this site. I’m starting to get in the habit of when the arguments turn to foul language, I break out the “W.W.Kaye Harris D?” in attempts to settle some down. It doesn’t always work, but hey, one does what one can. Thanks again.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

  @vegofish, I think he should apologize for his indiscretion, retire with discrete professionalism, and return to private life, and if not, then the President should fire him. I didn’t make the rules, Vego. You saw this during the Bush years. The generals did not publicly disagree with the commander in chief. Retired generals did, though (in large numbers).

  Or maybe you agree with Newsmax that civilian control of the military is unnecessary in this country, just as you think it should be okay for the government to establish a state religion? Or it is simpler than that? You think it’s okay for generals to disagree with a Democratic commander in chief but not a Republican commander in chief? If so, allow me to repeat: “That figures.”

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

  @vegofish,

  I thought you were out in July or something Bro???? or is it next July????

  Unfortunately, that was when my IRR ID expired and I had had it in my pea brain that would be the end of my duty. I went to the local base to turn it in and was promptly issued a new one with an expiration date of June 1, 2011. Oh well, two more years of cheap cigarettes and beer and fear and loathing of being informed of a new (2nd) tour in the lovely “Desert”

• SJ
  6:33 am on October 7th, 2009 2

  GTL,
  Good point about COC.

  If my knowledge of the 20th century hasn’t escaped me, McChrystal wouldn’t be the first general to get his pee-pee wacked for speaking out of turn, would he? More famous ones than him have put foot in mouth, that’s for sure.

  Now that I have broadband internet (finally), I can’t help but wonder how much the 24hr media has amplified this issue. McChrystal (and Petraeus for that matter) seem to be pretty competent, and I sort of hope the President keeps them in place when all this all dies down.

  Steve

• GawdDayumAmerica
  8:48 am on October 7th, 2009 3

  This is the democrats active attempt to deflect America and the GOP away from health care reform. The eyes of America must remain fixed on health care reform.

  Don’t let the Democratic party pull a bait and switch on you Conservatives. I know its redundant but the tactic now by the democrats is trying to change the subject away from health care reform so they can just pass it without scrutiny.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am

  @GawdDayumAmerica, VERY good point GDA,
  thank you, keep us focused!!!!!

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, Yeah, the Democrats transmitted signals into McChrystal’s brain, making him violate military rules of conduct and tradition by publicly criticizing the commander in chief during WWIII, then their evil minions told the media to embarrass him and Obama both by running breathless stories about it 24/7—all to postpone further endless coverage of town hall whiners screaming at their elected officials over things they fear and don’t understand.

  Did you know watching Glenn Beck is bad for you?

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  @Bad Dog, Wait! You’re onto something BD — but you’re missing the REAL conspiracy here — a conspiracy you helped me to figure out with this blog:

  McChrystal is a “blue as they come” Dem who is so in favor of the public option, he was willing to speak out against the laws and customs of the UCMJ, risk his entire career to deflect attention from ObamaCare!

  I knew we’d figure this one out eventually. Now it makes complete sense, bro!

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  @The GTL™, Stop the presses! Call Glenn Beck!

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

  @Bad Dog, Nice one.

  However as Emmanuel said “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

  The democrats are using this to deflect the debate off of the health care issue.

  Why?

  Glad you asked.

  Senate Democrats desperate to find a way to pass a health care bill that includes a federal insurance plan may have come up with a way to do it without putting moderate members who oppose it in political jeopardy.

  Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is weighing a plan to bring the final health care bill to the floor without a public option — making it much easier to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster — and then adding the provision later as an amendment.

  The public option amendment would be there waiting, but the 60-vote test would technically be on a bill without the government plan. Then moderate Democrats could drop out for the vote on the public option, which requires just 51 votes for passage.

  “It’s brilliant,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “It gets you your votes on cloture for a package that does not include a public option.”

  Reid has not revealed whether he will use this tactic, but he’s considering it.

  “We haven’t made any decisions yet,” his spokesman, Jim Manley, said. “We have different options — that is one.”

  

  GawdDayumAmerica Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, Remember Harry Reid said last week that any bill that goes to the presidents desk for signature will have a public option.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 9:23 pm

  @GawdDayumAmerica, I didn’t ask, because it’s a ridiculous claim. Just go buy the goddam tin foil hat already.

• Pug
  8:57 am on October 7th, 2009 4

  …a party that’s 80 percent male and 100 percent white,” she added, referring to the composition of the House GOP conference.

  Well now, she’s got a point. It’s a problem for the red guys and I don’t know if they even realize it yet. The red guys are shrinking as a percentage of the population so they must get a higher and higher proportion of the whites. Maybe they can do it but it’s a tough job. It’s hard work.

• vegofish
  10:45 am on October 7th, 2009 5

  The Congressional Black Caucus is 90 percent male, 100 percent black and completely out of touch.

  Go ahead, call me a racist, but be sure and defend Pelosi.

  

  cld Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 11:27 am

  @vegofish, Excellent VG…what does the ADD Dog call that, “Pot, meet kettle”, ever time a liberal is accussed of something…

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  @vegofish, LMAO, I don’t think you’re a racist, I just think you’re being willfully stupid about this.

  Dude, it’s called the Congressional BLACK Caucus, a group within Congress that unites in common interest behind advocacy for race. There is no White Caucus because whites are a majority in this country and dominate all the levers of power already. In fact, based on its makeup, the GOP is already the White Caucus in everything but name. The point was that if the GOP wants to be a “big tent,” then it had better start becoming interested in policies that appeal to minorities instead of intentionally disenfranchising them.

  Get over yourself.

• Joe Lovell
  12:11 pm on October 7th, 2009 6

  Gee…according to the pelosi-ites no black conservative, especially a female black conservative is black enough (and in the case of the women, certainly not woman enough). They get dismissed by the strident left as race traitors, oreos, or Uncle Toms. And, what the hell does, or WHY the hell does the left care so much about race? Why can’t the pelsoi-ites see us all as AMERICANS? Guns, your tongue in cheek paraphrase is pretty damned close to the way Nancy really thinks. As and aside – why are the racist and sexist epithets you chose acceptable, but epithets about women or blacks considered hate speech? Again – the lefts double standard.

  Seems that Gen. McChrystal is following in the steps of Dugout Doug. If the former junior senator from IL doesn’t like it, he can relieve him. REAL simple. But no, he needs to distract us from his other bad policies. I think this is what really irked the former junior senator: “An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.” Note that – speaking his mind too plainly. He sees that EXPERT on foreign affairs and matters military – Joe Biden – proposing the SAME strategy that LBJ and RMH found DID NOT work in Viet Nam (allowing for differences in technology), can’t get a meeting with the President of the World, gets frustrated and answers some questions honestly. Maybe it is that he had the AUDACITY to be honest that got him in hot water.

  “In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 NATO forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and Special Forces operations against al-Qaeda.

  He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.

  When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”

  He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support.”

  The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House. ”

  And now the man who promised full access to everything, no more secrecy, total openness in his administration, and said himself that the war in Afghanistan is necessary and that it is imperative that we have a victory there throws a fit when someone dares to be open and honest about a policy that will cost more civilian lives (those drones seem to hit a lot of hospitals, schools, wedding parties, and other non-combatants) in the short and long run and more American soldiers in the long run. Seems that the General CARES about his troops and his mission. Shame that the same can’t be said about the guy in the White House and Queen Nancy.

  The former community organizer, I think, is finding that life behind the desk in the Oval Office is a hell of a lot different from passing out pamphlets, or sitting back, waving his hand and saying “Yeah, I’m here” in the IL legislature, or shuffleing papers and pontificationg in the US Senate. He is finding out how little he knows, how his charisma and charm don’t mean squat, and it scares the hell out of him. He is out of his depth. And also shocked that, gee, lots of people DON’T like his policies no matter how charming he is or how folksy he tries to be. About time someone told him that he has his underwear on over his pants and that it isn’t a valid fashion statement.

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

  @Joe Lovell, I understand many of your points, bro. However, directly above the “bad” general in his Chain-Of-Command — between himself and his C-I-C, is General Robert Gates. In the U.S. Military, it is up to General Gates (Sect’y of Defense) to make the determination of whether or not General McChrystal’s points of view should be spoken directly to the C-I-C or if Gates himself has enough information from McChrystal to sit down on a one-on-one with a bunch of notes with the C-I-C without McChrystal’s presence being necessary.

  That’s how it works and that’s how the Uniform Code Of Military Justice spells it out

  

  Joe Lovell Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  @The GTL™, Then fire the SOB. Pretty simple. Do what Harry S did and kick him out. Don’t whine about it. Do something.

  Or, does the former ACORN worker need the distraction this provides?

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

  @Joe Lovell, Brother, to a military guy like myself, I really don’t see this as a distraction but a very, VERY important issue because I have great respect for the Chain-of-Command and this General should have, too. It’s a tool and it’s beaten into our brains from boot camp and throughout one’s career. To me, this is NOT in the least a political issue but a very serious issue, which conveys a horrible message to all military personnel.

  If McChrystal wanted a “sit-down” with the C-I-C, it was his job to request it from Gates and not only his job, but his RIGHT to do so. It’s up to the C-I-C to arrange a time for this sit-down AT HIS OWN CONVENIENCE (again — just UCMJ stuff) and if it’s not quick enough for the general, TOUGH — keep your mouth shut and wait.

  Many don’t know this but even an E-1 entry-level has the same right to demand a sit-down with the C-I-C as long as the C-O-C has been obeyed to a “T”. Obviously, this process could take quite awhile but it can legally and RESPECTFULLY be done by any member of the U.S. military…

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  @The GTL™, P.S.: I, myself, when in the Desert, felt a tremendous need to have a sit-down with our commander (a Colonel). Therefore, I started with my 1st Sgt (since I had no NCOIC — I WAS an NCOIC). Respectfully, I informed the First Shirt I respectfully disagreed with his point of view and informed him with all due respect (a quote), I would be seeking to speak with the Captain at her convenience and invited him to attend with me. He told me that wouldn’t be necessary and reminded me this was my right, we shook hands and off to the Captain’s office I went, where I was given an appointment a few days in the future.

  To make a long story short, eventually I got to have my one-on-one with the Colonel and I left no enemies behind in my C-I-C because I respectfully obeyed the C-I-C rights I had and all subsequent meetings were respectful “agree to disagree” meetings. Technically, I had to right to go beyond my Colonel to the Base Commander and eventually to President Bush himself but the Colonel and myself were able to solve the challenge in our direct meeting so there was no further need to escalate.

  That’s how it works. That’s how it’s DESIGNED to work. That’s how military LAW says it works.

  The general needs to get himself a day job now and resign that commission of his after issuing an apology to the president, the Secretary of Defense and all military troops and fade off into the sunset.

  There was no excuse for him to do what he did and there is no military precedence or law to protect him from his ill-advised actions

  

  Joe Lovell Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

  @The GTL™, I fully understand COC, and know that it is there for a reason and USUALLY works well. If used properly in can call attention to problems that can be taken care of at company or battalion level and Regiment never needs to know (although it usually does).

  But from what I have been able to find on this he was talking about a suggestion by the VP – who is NOT in the COC (at least per the Constitution, don’t know about the UCMJ), that would end up getting getting more civilians AND HIS OWN TROOPS killed. Gates did not seem inclined to listen to him or pass on his suggestions. Patton damn near got fired for running off at the mouth. Dugout Doug DID get fired for it. I see no reason why the CiC can’t fire this guy. In fact, it might be a good idea pour encourager les autres.

  

  The GTL™ Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  @Joe Lovell, To encourage others or DIScourage others? I’m guessing you meant the latter (the French comment, I mean)?

  Yeah, the COC works well as long as the disgruntled troop is respectful and is lucky enough to deal with professionals all the way up the chain until he/she gets the audience he/she needs to reach with his/her issue.

  AFAIK, THIS is McChrystal’s C-I-C — quite a short one as a matter of fact:

  Secretary of Defense General Robert Gates –

  President Barack Hussein Obama –

  End of McChrystal’s C-I-C — again, AFAIK

  

  Joe Lovell Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

  @The GTL™, to encourage the others to keep their mouths shut. Or maybe to DIScourage them from talking to the press.

  And, yes, it IS a very short COC list – him to SecDef to CiC. And when he gets mission orders that are impossable to carry out, he is the one who gets to hold the turd by the clean end.

  Hey, if the VP isn’t in the COC, then what is he doing trying to set policy and orders?

  

  Joe Lovell Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  @Joe Lovell, Here is a bit more on it, from the WSJ:

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574428961222276106.html

  “Recall that in March Mr. Obama unveiled his “comprehensive new strategy . . . to reverse the Taliban’s gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.” The Commander in Chief pledged to properly resource this “war of necessity,” which he also called during the 2008 campaign “the central front on terror.” The President then sacked his war commander, who had been chosen by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in favor of Gen. McChrystal, an expert in counterinsurgency.

  Upon arriving in June, Gen. McChrystal launched his assessment of the forces required to execute the Obama strategy. His confidential study was completed in August and sent to the Pentagon. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Michael Mullen told Congress that more troops would be needed, and a figure of 30,000-40,000 was bandied about.

  The figure has clearly spooked the Administration. Soon after, Gen. McChrystal’s confidential report was leaked to the Washington Post by, well, you’ll have to ask Bob Woodward. The report said that the U.S. urgently needs to reverse a “deteriorating” security situation. Soon the full retreat began in Washington, led by a vocal group within the Administration that wants to scale back the mission. The White House told the Pentagon to hold off asking for troops and Gen. McChrystal not to testify to Congress. Remarkably, President Obama mused on the Sunday talks shows, “Are we doing the right thing?”

  Then Gen. McChrystal gave a speech last Thursday before the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. It was scheduled and approved by the Pentagon weeks before the Afghan political jitters seized official Washington. The General was hardly incendiary.

  “We need to reverse the current trends, and time does matter,” he said. Asked vaguely about taking a narrower approach that leaves Afghanistan to its own devices and strikes at terrorists from afar, Gen. McChrystal offered that “a strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted one.” He warned the country would descend into “Chaos-istan.”

  DID YOU CATCH THIS: “Then Gen. McChrystal gave a speech last Thursday before the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. It was scheduled and approved by the Pentagon weeks before the Afghan political jitters seized official Washington.”

  So, maybe, just MAYBE he did NOT break COC, that he gave an approved talk to a high power study group. Seems like the either of the two guys up the line from him could have told him to NOT give that talk, but they allowed him to. Makes you go Hmmmm….. doesn’t it?

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 1:11 am

  @Joe Lovell, I agree Joe, I am just not seeing where the COC has been compromised. Just another manufactured crises by Pelosi, and crowd, to bring about a situation that forces this commander out for one that has a strategy that the left accepts. And also as GDA asserts, to draw fire away from health care.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  @Joe Lovell, I found your comments interesting, Joe, but two things. First of all, President Obama never worked for ACORN, so when you say “former ACORN worker,” you are lying. Is that simple enough? Second, black conservatives aren’t the object of loathing so much as puzzlement. It’s like the log cabin Republicans. Why anybody black or gay would want to be a member of a party dominated by people who hate them viscerally is beyond me.

  

  Kaye Harris Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

  @Bad Dog, Applauding your analysis… I’m sure my retired U. S. Marine Corps Officer dad, rolled over in his grave upon hearing the General speak out against President Obama. I remember as a kid, after my father, returned home from his 3rd tour in Vietnam, listening to him complain about how the politicians would not allow the military to win that war. My father hated Richard Nixon, but he loved the Marine Corps, and he always, always said (even when I hated him for it),
  “…a good solider follows orders without question…”

  

  Kaye Harris Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  @Kaye Harris, sorry bd… above comment was meant for Mike…

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  @Kaye Harris, NP—thought so!

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

  @Bad Dog, Perhaps the membership of gays and blacks in the republican party indicates your premise is wrong about it being dominated by people that viserally hate them.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

  @Mike 300 Spartans, Not at all, Mike. Think about it. If you still have a question, let me know.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

  @Bad Dog, I don’t have any questions in my mind that your premise is wrong.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm

  @Mike 300 Spartans, Sometimes I wonder if you actually know any Republicans, Mike.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

  @Bad Dog,

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 1:15 am

  @Bad Dog, He represented them as legal council Dog, when I hire a lawyer, He is working for me.
  So when you say Obama doesn’t have any connection to acorn or has never worked for them, you are lying. Is that simple enough?

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

  @vegofish, No, Vego, this is you overreaching to avoid being humiliated yet again.

  Just admit you’re wrong, and move on. It’s okay. Treat it as a learning experience. Make pain your friend.

  Plus even now you’re lying. He wasn’t ACORN’s lawyer, he worked for a law firm that represented a coalition of organizations on one case.

  Man, you’re desperate. You can lie all you want, but do it to the mirror. I don’t need to have my time wasted with your weak, pathetic attempts at twisting the truth.

• Fandb
  3:02 pm on October 7th, 2009 7

  “Former ACORN worker” may not be an entirely accurate description of Obama, but “Former ACORN adviser” would be accurate, as would “Former ACORN trainer”, and “Former ACORN supporter”, and probably many others.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

  @Fandb, He was never an ACORN trainer or adviser. He might be a supporter. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was, as it’s a great organization. The main connection is that his law firm worked on a case against Illinois to make it easier for poor people to vote, representing a coalition of organizations of which ACORN was one.

  Close, but no cigar.

  President Obama is not above criticism, but lying is lying.

• Fandb
  3:06 pm on October 7th, 2009 8

  Oh, yes, and also “the guy who threw his old pals at ACORN under the bus when they got caught in their criminal activities and he needed to distance himself from them.”

  But that’s what he has done to all his old pals and mentors; Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc.

  Yeah, that’s what we need in a Commander in Chief – Loyalty.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  @Fandb, What you are seeing is Obama distancing himself from people he barely had a relationship with but the right wingers in the media try to make sound like they’re all in the same terrorist cell.

  It’s not like he was good friends with them, like Bush was with Enron’s Key Lay before pretending he never even met the guy. I doubt Obama and ACORN ever exchanged Christmas cards.

  Oh man, you do not want to get into this. I’ve got 8 years of material, easily accessible via the Internet, on Bush throwing his old pals under the bus. Bush demanding loyalty and gave none.

  But I will admit he threw ACORN under the bus, which he shouldn’t have, and neither should the Democrats in Congress, as they are a criminal organization only in the imagination of extremist far-right wingnuts like you.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

  @Bad Dog, It’s not a comparison game. Anything Bush did has zero bearing on what Obama is doing. Just because you say Bush did something, you left-wing wackos think its OK for Obama to do something that you see as equivalent somehow.

  “…Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.” — National Review

  Just one example of many in the linked article detailing Obama’s close ties and involvement with ACORN. There you go, now you can have a little TRUTH to go along with your Obama-ACORN lies.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  @Fandb, who says, “Just because you say Bush did something, you left-wing wackos think its OK for Obama to do something that you see as equivalent somehow.”

  I’m impressed at the way you can say this without any sense of self irony. All I hear is since a few liberals put a swastika on protest signs at the anti-war protests, now it’s okay for right wingers at town halls to continuously compare Obama to Hitler and say he’s the Antichrist (as you have done). You can always be sure that whatever right wingers complain about most stridently in others are actually their own worst faults. This is why red staters denounce divorce, teenage pregnancy and porn as a liberal disease so much, since the right wingers engage in much higher rates of divorce, teen pregnancy and porn.

  For the record, I don’t think it’s okay for Obama to do anything bad that Bush has done. If you have read ANY of my posts without a wingnut filter, you might know this. In fact you just saw me say I was disappointed in Obama throwing ACORN under the bus because they are not the criminal organization you desperate need them to be. But as for Wright, etc., there was no throwing under the bus as they weren’t friends. Therefore, your statement about Obama throwing his friends under the bus was complete and utter BS, whereas with Bush did it all the time.

  Yes, it IS a comparison game. I find it incredibly entertaining to see how the Titanic of your principles turns on a dime when a Democrat is President. I mean, for a “slightly conservative” guy you present yourself as a rigid ideologue.

  “Saul Alinsky!” Ha! Beat you to it.

  P.S. Thanks for your entertaining National Review quote. Sadly for you, the fact remains Obama never trained any ACORN staff. His connection with ACORN is indirect at best. Not that I would care if he worked for them or even created the organization himself. That would actually raise my opinion of him. It’s a great organization.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

  @Bad Dog, So you didn’t read the article which proves many connections between ACORN and Obama, including ACORN’s own people stating that Obama trained ACORN workers, therefore your opinion on Obama’s involvement with ACORN is rubbish.

  Or if you are afraid to admit you are wrong, then prove Obama was not affiliated with ACORN as a trainer, among other roles, as you claim.

  Otherwise, your little house of cards just collapsed, “Bad Dog”.

  

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

  @Fandb, No, sorry, when you repeat lies you’ve been told by one of the most right wing propaganda mouthpieces in the country, it is not up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove you right.

  So far you haven’t.

  But I like your overly dramatic language about a “house of cards.” Yes, my simple assertion that Obama did not work for ACORN in any capacity except as a lawyer for the coalition I told you about is a fragile “house of cards.” [snorts with derision]

  The funny thing you do not seem to understand is I could care less if I actually was wrong. Obama could have founded the organization for all I care. ACORN does good work, is a great organization that helps the poor, and any politician affiliated with it has bragging rights.

  So yes, please, prove me wrong.

  Until that happens, which I doubt it will, you try to get your facts straight, and I will give ACORN another $20.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

  @Bad Dog, Read the article, you have your facts wrong, as usual “Bad Dog”.

  The article cites a large number of sources for its information including; Los Angeles Times (yeah, a bastion of right wing ideology there), New York Times (ditto), New York Post, Chicago Daily Herald, and others. The author doesn’t cite any sources that would be considered right leaning.

  And, as long as you resort to supporting your ridiculous positions with links to the Daily Kos, HuffPo, etc., any right wing publication is fair game.

  Based on your assertion, Obama certainly has “bragging rights” . . . for his extensive affiliation with the Criminal organization known as ACORN.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 12:11 am

  @Fandb, Oh jeez, now you forced me to read the crappy four-page article that basically sounded like a snooty rewrite of the Glenn Beck show, complete with chalkboard.

  The article cited publications like the LA Times and the New York Times—newspapers that supported the Iraq War, among other of Bush’s more stupid moves, so don’t go peddling your lie that these papers are “liberal” in any sense of the word. But the citations only prove basic facts. Obama was a community organizer. He worked mostly in black neighborhoods. He served on several boards of various foundations.

  In short, no smoking gun.

  No proof.

  Just the usual breathless BS from one of a right wing propaganda mouthpiece that has gotten so ludicrous that even its founder’s son, Christopher Buckley, doesn’t want to have anything to do with it.

  BTW, when I cite Huffington Post, I’m not citing Huffington Post. I’m citing video from a different source that happens to reside on Huffington Post. I’ve explained this distinction before, but you don’t seem to get it. It’s not a complicated concept. Or are you really that stupid?

  Maybe you are that stupid.

  P.S. I’m bragging now that thanks to this site I’ve given $220 to ACORN so far this year. They are a great organization, unlike your criminal friends the Republican Party, which you freely associate with (which makes you a criminal via guilt by association).

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 12:15 am

  @Fandb, Now let’s wrap this up.

  Obama was never an adviser or employee of ACORN.

  You can keep saying he was, but if you do, then you are lying.

  But please keep trying. Please. I really want to believe Obama is affiliated with ACORN, which is a great organization that has done fantastic work helping the poor—and we all know that that is the real reason you hate them.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  @Bad Dog, No. Wrong as usual “Bad Dog”.

  My problem with ACORN is that they steal money that was supposed to go to the poor and they give it to themselves.

  Then they convince gullible idiots to keep sending them donations.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  @Fandb, Oh, so you couldn’t prove your first allegations, which are lies, so now you make new allegations, supported by a laughable interest in what happens to poor people.

  It’s horrible to watch this. Just drown already and get it over with.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  October 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am

  @Bad Dog, The left-wing moonbats, such as yourself, don’t have a monopoly on caring about poor people. In fact, the Party of Hate (aka the democrat party) just manipulates and uses poor people for their own gains. Everything liberals do is designed to keep poor people poor.

  On the other hand, the republican party believes that “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life.” The republicans believe in teaching people “how to fish”.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

  @Bad Dog, The truly sad part is that you seem to be the only one who hasn’t figured that out yet, “Bad Dog”.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

  @Fandb, No, what’s truly sad is that even when confronted by facts, you cling to repeating the same old lies because truth means nothing to you, only winning.

  Not sad, actually, so much as pathetic.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

  @Bad Dog, You have 8 years of material? I once heard it said that you can’t always stop people from throwing trash at you but you don’t have to pick it up and carry it with you.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

  @Mike 300 Spartans, That’s why they invented this thing called the Internet.

  

  Fandb Reply:
  October 9th, 2009 at 9:38 am

  @Mike 300 Spartans, I don’t think he “got it”.

• GawdDayumAmerica
  9:33 pm on October 7th, 2009 9

  http://www.lonelyconservative.com/2009/10/06/video-the-day-obamacare-died/#comments

  This is funny.

• vegofish
  10:28 pm on October 7th, 2009 10

  @Bad Dog I think I need to back up a little on this, How exactly was COC broken by the general speaking about a plan he has already presented to his superiors, and his superiors have already made public? Were his superiors unaware he was speaking before the International Institute of strategic studies? Unlikeley. Why should they be surprised he spoke in favor of the plan he presented? when asked a pointed question about the plan the vice president has presented, did you expect him to favor it over the one he presented?
  Unfortunately I am afraid that this is just another political game by the left. The left doesn’t like the plan presented to them. 10/1 there is another general in Afghanistan within a month, and his plan will fit closer to the vice presidents plan. Watch out for that bus General Mcchrystal.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 10:51 pm

  @vegofish, To answer, I’m making a few assumptions, I don’t know, but I’m assuming the General didn’t receive an explict green light to say whatever he wanted. High level officers are expected to know how to do somethings without word for word instructions. Perhaps if you compared it to a Vice President of a Pizza Corporation being authorized to speak somewhere and then telling the group that the Corporate plans for their new pizza will make it taste terrible and his plan to change the pizza has been rejected. Not, I believe what the Corporate president authorized the V.P. to do. I would go so far as to say what the general did was wrong, but even more wrong would be for President of the United State Obama to just let it go.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 7th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

  @Mike 300 Spartans, Oops, I used my wrong heading, darn the secret is out, I’m actually both 300 spartans and bad dog.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 12:12 am

  @Mike 300 Spartans, LMAO.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 12:54 am

  @Mike 300 Spartans, C,mon Mike, I know you know better. What did they think the topic would be when the General in command in Afghanistan speaks to a crowd at the International Institute for strategic studies? And again, I can’t find where the general made any statements that were not already public knowledge, nor anything remotely insubordinate. When asked if he thought a plan that was different than the one he presented to his superiors would work, and he answered honestly and succinctly, no, as far as I can find he did not elaborate, nor was he insubordinate, he simply answered a question with a simple answer. Where exactly has he violated the COC. As far as I can tell, no new information was released. He did not present ultimatums. Like I said, watch out for the bus General.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 2:02 am

  @vegofish, You are cornering me to the point where I might actually have to research this. Boo! What exactly did he say that was wrong? I don’t know I didn’t hear his lecture. If he stuck only with facts, no problem, if he shared some opinions that were in line with the President’s policies, no problem, but any opinion he had that was critical of the President and/or the policies of the President would make him dead wrong. To me it would be as wrong as a lawyer saying to the press about a client: “I believe my client will be acquitted, although personally I’m sure he is guilty.” Wrong thing to say, true or not, factual or not, a violation of the duties of the role you are in.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 2:16 am

  @Mike 300 Spartans, The lawyer analogy is pretty abstract Mike. Without more details, I am just not buying it. If he actually broke the chain of command then there should be consequences, I am a seaman, I understand the importance of COC. I am just not seeing it here.

  

  Mike 300 Spartans Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 3:02 am

  @vegofish, I’ll have to catch you next week.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 6:35 am

  @Mike 300 Spartans, Enjoy whatever is taking your time Mike.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  @vegofish, He’s going to his 25th high school reunion.

• whyswon
  1:17 pm on October 8th, 2009 11

  I think a very dangerous precedent is being set here by Mr. Obama by not listening to the General. Yes, chain of command is one thing; however, as a general rule of thumb (no pun intended) leaders usually listen to those who are experts in their respective field before making a decision. For example, the CEO of a toy manufacturer might be a financial wizard but perhaps he/she does not fully understand how marketing works. In steps the “VP” of marketing to advise the CEO on how to proceed. That’s what they know; it’s what they’re good at; it’s what they’re trained to do. The above example is a precise parallel to the situation in Afghanistan. The General knows the situation on the ground, Mr. Obama hasn’t a clue. The General is trained in combat techniques and has a lifetime of experience dealing with military actions and procedures. Mr. Obama was a college teacher and a community organizer. Aside from being duly elected as Commander in Chief, tell me what qualifies Mr. Obama, or any president for that matter, to command a military force? Yea, yea we all know Mr. Obama is the big boss man but that isn’t the point. You can say what you want about Bush, but at least he actually MET with his military advisors on a bi-weekly basis and gained input before making decisions. I think Obama has met with the General once since April? That’s inexcusible. It’s time he swallowed his pride and started taking the advice of people who know more than he does about certain situations.

  

  Bad Dog Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  @whyswon, What you are saying is not the point.

  

  Kaye Harris Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  @whyswon, I agree that a wise leader takes the counsel of advisors, but I don’t really think that’s the issue here. It’s not that the President has or has not taken General McChrystal’s counsel, or, whether the President is an experienced military man himself. The General broke ranks, he did not follow his COC, and he did what any military person knows better then to do; he spoke out against his CIC while acting in his official capacity… It’s really a simple thing. There’s no hidden “liberal” agenda (rolling eyes here), the president has not acted irresponsibly, the General did… He screwed up, plain & simple.

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 8th, 2009 at 11:47 pm

  @Kaye Harris, Exactly how did he not follow the COC on this? I am missing this point somewhere, I have not seen where he said anything insubordinate, or anything that had not already been made public. He had been cleared to speak at the event by his superiors and I can’t find anything he said that was out of line. Where is the plain and simple screw up here?

  

  Kaye Harris Reply:
  October 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  @vegofish, Howdy Vego, ready to rumble I see… Ok then… Here’s how I see it… General McCrystal, like any other Presidential advisor has every right to express his opinions to his CIC…

  He did that at last week’s White House briefing, via satellite from London.. Now then, his speech was one thing, but he really should have known better then to take on questions that would clearly put him in oppisition to his CIC. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve always been taught that civilians run the military. Military officers can, and should, offer their advise and opinions… in private. However, once the decision is made their job is to carry out orders. Gen. McChrystal was out of bounds when he said that he would not support a particular military position, as he said about the Vice President’s plan. If he doesn’t want to support a particular option, he should disagree and then resign, not b***h about it publically. Herein lays the break in the COC.

  As we know, there is absolutely no doubt about where the General stands: He wants a massive influx of troops, to execute a counter-insurgency strategy, which includes securing the people, taking and holding of areas, and rooting out al Qaeda and the Taliban.This strategy would very much mirror what was done in Iraq. Whether this strategy would work in Afghanistan is not the issue though (at least in this post)… The way the General has gone about making his case is the issue. Once he’d made his point in that three-hour strategy meeting with Mr. Obama and the administration’s national security team at the White House last Wednesday, he should have shut up and waited for his CIC to make his decision…. because, that’s the way things are done, Vego!

  Even Gen. Petraeus, is being very careful about publically giving his opinion after participating in the strategy meeting, for goodness sake. His aides are saying that he doesn’t want to get ahead of the President and the continuing deliberations.

  From his speech in England, to his interview with 60 Minutes, to the piece by Bob Woodward that detailed his fight, Gen. McCrystal has been incredibly public, taking the debate from behind closed doors.

  The General’s boss, the President of the United States, has not made a decision about what to do and until he does, the General’s job is to advise privately, not critique publically. If he wants to exercise his right to do so he should resign…. Plain & simple!

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 10th, 2009 at 12:24 am

  @Kaye Harris, I would prefer civil debate rather than a “rumble” Ms.Harris , We’ll leave the profanity laced tantrums to your friend dog. 
  I respect your opinion but I still have not seen evidence of the kind of insubordination you seem to think has occurred. If anything I see a void in leadership from the civilian side of the issue. If the White House or the DOD did not want the General on T.V and in print then they had only need to make it so. Active Duty Generals are not interviewed by 60 minutes without permision from their superiors , in this case Secretary Gates and President Obama. And lets not be naïve about the subject when the General is allowed to speak to the public. Also lets remember that it was not the general who released his recommendations on the war in Afghanistan in the first place, it was the White House. I find it completely unrealistc for the White House to expect the General to be silent on the issue and then allow him to be interviewed by 60 minutes and do question and answer sessions at military strategy think tanks. This is all under house control, or at least it better be.
  You say “he should have shut up and waited for his CIC to make his decision…. because, that’s the way things are done, Vego! “ Well ma’am, apparently that’s not the way things are done because that is not the way the White house did it.
  You also say” Gen. McChrystal was out of bounds when he said that he would not support a particular military position, as he said about the Vice President’s plan. If he doesn’t want to support a particular option, he should disagree and then resign, not b***h about it publically.
  I think maybe you are jumping ahead a bit here, since the President has not settled on any particular plan, it is a bit premature to want the generals head for opposing him. For this same reason I find your argument that commenting on or defending the plan he presented to President would put him at odds with the President since the President has not made a decision to be at odds with. You seem to have already pre-determined the Presidents decision regarding the war. I certainly have found nothing from the general that would qualify as bitching, and again do you know something we don’t? Has a decision already been made? Funny thing, I think your certainty is revealing, and I agree. I think a decision has been made and it is at odds with the Generals, So the General needs to go. So we need to manufacture a crises. So now we need to say now that it was a bad thing for you to talk to the public that we told you to talk to.
  Another funny thing, I am at odds with the general too. I don’t think he is asking for near enough troops. Considering the state of the of the world today , I don’t think we are strategically capable of commmitting the number of troops required to make any tangible gains in Afghanistan, and I think it is foolish and dangerous of us to try.

  

  Kaye Harris Reply:
  October 14th, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  @vegofish, A civil discussion it is then… and again, my apologies for not noticing your comment here earlier.

  First, you must know (wink-wink), I have no “inside knowledge” of what decisions the White House has, or has not, made concerning its Afghanistan policy, Vego… You were just being a bit snarky, right? If my previous reply came off sounding as if I do, pls allow me to remind you, I’m a simple little social worker from, MS, I’m not privy to anything that the average citizen can’t read any day of the week. However, one need not be an insider, or psychic, to assume that the General & the White House maybe at odds…

  I think we can twist the General’s blunder every which way from Sunday to justify his actions, but I still say he acted inappropriately when he spoke out against the President’s national security team before a final plan has been settled upon. It was bad etiquette if not down right insubordinate, imo. And no, I’m not naive enough to believe that Gen Gates, or maybe even the President himself, had no clue that McChrystal, MAY just say something inappropriate. However, and again, just mho, he should have known better… if there’s an attempt afoot by the White House to “unseat” him as you’ve alluded to here, I’m sure he would, or should, have been able to recognize that as well.

  BTW, it seems you too, initially believed that the General broke CoC; if I may quote you?

  On October 7th you wrote: “I cannot disagree, chain of command is chain of command, just another blunder in what has already been too many blunders by our leadership on the subject of Afghanistan. And then in reply to Mike’s comment: Actually, I agreed that he violated the chain of command, my point about him being thrown under the bus is secondary to that.”

  By October 8th, you were singing a new tune…

  “I agree Joe, I am just not seeing where the COC has been compromised. Just another manufactured crises by Pelosi, and crowd, to bring about a situation that forces this commander out for one that has a strategy that the left accepts. And also as GDA asserts, to draw fire away from health care. And: @Joe Lovell, I agree Joe, I am just not seeing where the COC has been compromised

  This overnight change of heart makes one wonder exactly what you believe, Vego? Perhaps you have allowed your “friends” to sway you away from your initial common sense?

  

  Kaye Harris Reply:
  October 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  @Kaye Harris, …o’ and, Mr Dog is no more (or less) a friend of mine then Mr Vego is… ~smiles~

  

  vegofish Reply:
  October 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  @Kaye Harris, Actually just the opposite. I was swayed by my friends on the left initially, then after further researching the subject decided I was initially mistaken and revised my opinion. I really only meant common sense would dictate that more troops would be a philosophical hard sell to Mr. Obama, with only the slightest bit of “snarkiness” intended. thanks for the response.

  

  Kaye Harris Reply:
  October 14th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

  @vegofish, Always a pleasure…You gentleman certainly keep a woman on her toes & frankly, I like the debate…The brain’s just a big ol muscle, and as they say, if you don’t use it you loose it.@:-)