HA Bill Clinton is doing the exact thing he is accusing the republicans of doing. The moveon.org add was not only insulting to a general who had no say in starting this war but it was also childish mean and what's worse, stupid. If you are against this war please use logic and reason not name calling and charactor assasinations. What are we children playng recess/

What? Is Bill Clinton kidding? There's one BIG difference between the MoveOn.org ad and the Swift Boat Vets videos about John Kerry. The MoveOn ad is a total lie and the Kerry video By the SBV is the truth. Of course Bill Clinton would never know the truth, he doesn't even know what the meaning of is, is!

Total hypocrisy to condemn the ad. The ad was a bit too childish with the "gimme" rhyme - we've heard it before. But their points were correct.

How nice to hear a politician be reasonably straightforward to explain the hypocrisy - but do not give Bill Clinton any points for having been a great leader, he finished the destruction of Yugoslavia (see To Kill A Nation, by Michael Parenti), he gave us NAFTA and more WTO. He put more crumbs on our tables - but we deserve a lot more. We deserve a country where, when some fool insists we "punish" some nation or invade one, the JOURNALIST says "where's your PROOF?" and the least delay in answering is met with "thought so. Just a partisan propagandist."

Do not vote for Hillary, you'll just get more wars. See No One Left To Lie To, by CHristopher Hitchens.

We can love Clinton because he seems nice and personable and intelligent, but that's only (at best) the man, not the politician. We like him because he stuck it out against the Republicans. But he favors corporatism just as much as they do.

We need Democrats who start using the word FASCISM right in the face of the media every time it applies. They are backed up by DOZENS OF BOOKS by now, the only risk is being scared to be brave.

The people who disrespect our military are those who see fit to waste our soldiers' lives for corporate gain, advertised with lies. Nothing less than a lifetime sentence without parole could do fore the likes of Bush and Cheney and all those who help them destroy a great nation while threatening the world.

The terrorists are of OUR creation. Read Nafeez Ahmed's books The War On Truth and The War On Freedom. I see many reasons to think Cheney is suspect #1 for complicity to insure 9/11 did significant damage.

Read John Dean's books, specifically "Conservatives Without Conscience" and "Broken Government". And for a very topical movie (though historically inaccurate that Fawkes was a hero) see "V For Vendetta" by the Wachkowski brothers (who did the Matrix).

History will capture what a wonderful president
Bill Clinton was in spike of the lies from the sex hating, race baiting republicans.

It seems a crime not to impeach George Bush.
I honestly believe history will reflect the truth.
History will list all the lies and laws George Bush has broken; along with how weak and pathetic
the Republican Party really is.

Bill Clinton lied about sex. Most married men will lie about infidelity. Clinton lie didn't kill
or lame anyone. Nor was his infidelity with some
little boy !

*sigh* Guess I should have used spell check.
ADvertisement, not ADvertiesment :/

The abbrev *IS* ad, not add.
ADvertiesment, not ADDvertisement.

Clinton might not be a beacon of truth, but he is less deadly than Bush.

Language is anything but static, something for which we must be grateful. It's the dynamism of the English language that, at the high end, gives us Chaucer, Shakespeare, Pope, Dickens, and at the low end, gives us the liveliness of slang and dialect.

One of the interesting things about English's constant, beneficial mutations is the fact that some terms which start off as merely descriptive begin to degrade in meaning, eventually ending as insults. For example, the now archaic word "beldam" started off as a grand old lady and ended up meaning a miserable hag. "Spinster" originally described a woman who spins, but came to mean a desiccated, narrow minded old virgin. Another word that ended with a completely degrade meaning was "bedlam," which describes a completely insane situation, but that had its genesis in Christ's natal town of Bethlehem.

And then there's the word "liberal." It comes from the Latin "liber," meaning free, so the word "liberal" originally referred to one committed to freedom. Over time, however -- indeed, in our lifetime -- it came to mean one thing: someone who could not win an election. Clearly, it was time for a change.

Liberals, after some bold attempts to reclaim the title for themselves (and they've got the bumper stickers to prove it), decided to jettison the term entirely and come up with a new word to describe themselves. They are now "Progressives." The word "progressive" means to advocate beneficial change and progress, and that's certainly what Progressives would have the American people believe they offer.

By giving themselves this label, however, the Progressives have proven yet again that there's no delusion quite as powerful as self-delusion. The fact is that, if you pick apart each of the Progressives' stands on any major issue of the day, you'll see that either they have staked out positions that were either proven false or ineffective decades ago, or they're still fighting battles that were long ago won, making their efforts redundant (yet still, somehow, harmful to the modern political process).

One, two, three, four, No way will we win this war

The most visible example of the Progressives' tendency to live in the past is their compulsive urge to view the Iraq War as if it was a movie sequel entitled The Vietnam War, Part II. This was apparent within minutes of the War's inception, when Progressives (both in and out of the media) were already labeling it a quagmire. They looked for and found their My Lai massacre when the Abu Ghraib scandal and the Haditha affair came to light.

Showing admirable tenacity, the Progressives have clung to these few 1960s/1970s lodestones despite some pesky details that run counter to their Vietnam narrative. For one thing, there was the fact that, in the months leading up to the War, Saddam Hussein worked hard to convince UN inspectors that he had WMDs. If this was true (and they're in Syria or elsewhere right now), he invited the War on himself and his long suffering people.

If it was Saddam issuing propaganda aimed at aggrandizing his stature amongst the rogue nations of the world, no one can be blamed for bombing his nuclear Potemkin Village. Certainly he'd actually built that faux village on a solid foundation, since few could doubt that someone who would gleefully use poison gas to massacre his own people would hesitate to use it against foreign enemies, given the chance.

Another problem for the Regressives... er, Progressives... is the nature of Saddam's Iraq itself. Vietnam had the bad luck to be caught between opposing Communist forces, with Vietnam the battered football in the middle. Iraq was quite a different kettle of fish. In a region that distinguishes itself as the land of repressive regimes, Saddam stood out as a star. In addition to the Halabja massacre (see above), Saddam brutally tortured and murdered his own people, committed ecoterrorism to drive out disfavored ethnic groups, gave free reign to his sadistic sons with the hope that they'd eventually rule Iraq, invaded neighboring sovereign nations, and is believed to have murdered around 200,000 of his own people. Under Hussein, Iraq was not an unwitting international football kicked around in the Cold War, it was a time bomb waiting to explode.

None of these icky little facts deter the Progressives. For them, it's always 1974 all over again and they urge us on to the one lesson they learned from the Vietnam War: the U.S. should turn tail and run. Sadly for Iraqis and Americans, the Progressives are careful to freeze their historic memories to fix on that (to them) wonderful moment when people raced to the rooftops of buildings, desperate to board the last U.S. helicopters. Memory carefully stops before it reaches the reeducation camps in North Vietnam or the Killing Fields of Cambodia. For Progressives, useful as the past is to define their current-day agenda, some history lessons are better left unlearned.

‘I believe it is peace in our time."

When it comes to terrorists, Progressives show a true sense of retro style, turning the Way Back machine to the 1930s, with Neville Chamberlain as their role model. For those who are not conversant with Chamberlain's dealings with Hitler, they are instructive.

Immediately upon assuming power in 1933, Hitler began to use violence and intimidation within Germany in order to achieve his political and social goals. To the extent that he went after Communists, many in Europe and, especially, in Britain, were not unsympathetic to his goals, even if they deplored his tactics. They were less sympathetic to, but perfectly willing to ignore, his attacks on Jews, gays, clergyman, gypsies, and the mentally and physically handicapped. These were, after all, internal affairs and (I'm sure this was said with the inevitable shrug), "what can one do?"

Europe's ability to look the other way changed in 1938 when Hitler, feeling limited by turning his aggression on his own people, began turning his energies outward. In March 1938, after having already procured the assassination of an Austrian Chancellor, Hitler invaded Austria in what became known as the Anschluss. (And it's no credit to Austria that large numbers of its citizens were delighted with this turn of events.) Although this was a complete violation of all international law, and was clearly an act of war, Chamberlain's government sat passively by.

Then, in September 1938, when Hitler began to rumble about the Sudetenland, which Germany had lost to Czechoslovakia after World War I, Chamberlain went to Berlin to meet with Hitler. Hitler quickly got the measure of the man and offered Chamberlain an either/or solution to the Sudetenland issue: Either Britain assist Germany's plans to annex the Sudetenland or Hitler would invade Czechoslovakia and take it back himself. Overawed by Hitler's reasoning, Neville Chamberlain quickly agreed to the "either" part of that plan and executed the Munich Agreement. Proud of his negotiating skills, which gave Hitler the power and geographical range instantly to overrun Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain returned to England and boasted to the British people that

"this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time."
The 1930s peace crowd took those words seriously. Despite Hitler's increasingly aggressive acts throughout the 1930s, both inside and outside Germany, and despite Hitler's clearly expressed threats to take over Europe and destroy all whom he deemed inferior, Chamberlain and the peace party that support him were "shocked, shocked" when Hitler, appropriately viewing the Munich Agreement as a carte blanche from supine European leaders, first invaded Czechoslovakia, then Poland, and then tried to take on the world.

Chamberlain's incredible naiveté in believing that it was possible to have peace with a tyrant bound and determined to control and kill anyone who affected his power meant that, within seven years of the Munich Agreement, through genocide, the ordinary and tragic casualties of war, and battle deaths, as many as 72 million people are estimated to have died. One can only conclude that Chamberlain got "peace with honor" confused with the Roman idea, which was to "make a desert and call it peace."

If the above narrative sounds uncomfortably familiar, it should, and I'm not just saying this because you probably studied World War II in school (or, at least, you did if you're over 30). The so-called Progressives are closely mimicking Chamberlain's behavior. They're thrilled with Bin Laden's reasoning, especially since he sounds uncannily like their own Progressive leaders. They want us to do everything that Bin Laden and his minions advise: withdraw from Iraq, jettison Israel, and remove any Western presence from Saudi Arabia (except, of course, for the petrodollars).

The Progressive's antiquated appeasement standards are even better displayed with Ahmadinejad's visit to New York. Let me remind you here that Ahmadinejad may have been part of the 1979 hostage crisis, that he's repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel entirely, and that he's determined to become a nuclear power, which poses a threat to all Western interests. But who cares? Bully boys are always treated well by appeasers. This time, not only were the Progressive appeasers excited to give him a forum at the once prestigious Columbia University in New York, they've gave him airtime on American TV courtesy of 60 Minutes.

And just to put the whole matter of the Progressives' fawning over Ahmadinejad in its proper retro perspective, in 1933 Columbia happily offered the red carpet to a high ranking Nazi official. One could argue that, in 1933, it wasn't quite so obvious how terrible the Nazis were to become, but Columbia President Lee Bollinger has killed that argument already. He announced that he would have invited Hitler to speak too. Keep in mind that even Chamberlain didn't invite Hitler to London.

We're having a baby, my baby and me.

One of the most retrograde areas in Progressive thought concerns abortion rights -- and I think you'll agree with me whether you are pro-Choice or pro-Life.

A couple of years ago, I found myself at the abortion rights webpage for the National Organization of Women. What struck me right away was how dated the organization's position was regarding abortion. At that time, to make its point about the need for legalized abortions, it led with photographs of four women who died from abortions. Following the link, I was led to the story of seven women who died from botched abortions. The years of death were 1929, 1929, 1940, 1950, 1967, 1977 and 1988. The dates are significant, since only the last two occurred after abortion became legal.

The death in 1977 was blamed on the fact that the dead woman was denied public funding for her abortion; the death in 1988 was blamed on a young woman afraid to seek parental consent for a legal abortion. Thus, with the exception of the 1977 and 1988 abortions, all the highlighted deaths occurred in times when birth control options were nil to limited, and when the stigma of pregnancy for unmarried women was extraordinarily high. The 1988 abortion was also a "stigma" abortion, since the girl was afraid to tell her parents.

There is no doubt that, if you are pro-Choice, either whole heartedly or in a lukewarm kind of way, there are, in 2007, still arguments to make in favor of abortion -- rape, incest, a high risk pregnancy, a woman's right to control her body, etc. The old reasons, however, just don't apply anymore. Aside from the easy availability of myriad forms of birth control, nowadays the average accidental pregnancy may well be difficult or inconvenient, but it is no longer social death. Women are not turned out at night into snow storms, women do not become community pariahs, women are not forever tainted because of having an "illegitimate" pregnancy and, despite NOW's focus on teen abortions and parental consent, it's the rare news story that concerns a teen dying of a back alley abortion in those states requiring parental consent. It may certainly be embarrassing for a woman to admit to a pregnancy, but it is no longer the end of life on earth as women know it. Certainly the abortion debate would be more honest, if less emotional, if the "Progressives" were to debate abortion in the here and now, instead of in the then and gone.

We Shall Overcome

Perhaps ashamed that during both major Civil Rights battles (the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movements), Democrats allied themselves against African Americans, modern Progressives not only proclaim themselves the defenders of Civil Rights in America, but they also continue to wage the battle against racism as if it's still Selma, 1964. In the Progressive world, racial oppression is an omnipresent aspect in the fabric of American life, with every white American (who isn't Progressive, of course) a slavering racist anxious to degrade and dehumanize blacks.

To Progressives, something like the Jena 6 is a beautiful thing, because it proves their point -- America is a racist nation, and they can board their protest busses and bravely take a seat at the segregated lunch counters of their fantasies. What they seem incapable of realizing is that even government conduct as suspect as that in the Jena 6 case reveals how far America has come since the actual Civil Rights movement. I'm probably not the first to notice that Jena 6 is a cause celebre, not because it's happening all over America, or even all over the South, but because it's anomalous.

White America is not routinely scapegoating black America. Indeed, the most recent racially motivated scapegoating saw a white Southern politician attempt to destroy the lives of several white defendants in an effort to curry favor with the local black community. (That would be the alleged Duke rape, for those of you scratching your heads over my allusion.) It's also worth pointing out that the Jena 6 case is not the traditional "whites are bad, blacks are scapegoated" scenario, but seems to be an uglier and broader slice of race warfare amongst the young'uns, with each side enthusiastically threatening and otherwise terrorizing its opponent.

There is no doubt that there are still Americans who are racists, and it behooves each and every American to target that racism where it lies. But we make a grave mistake if we (for "we" read "Progressives") pretend that the institutional racism of the Jim Crow South is still a looming factor in the lives of African-Americans. That kind of historical yearning means that, every three years or so, when something bad happens to African-Americans (and I don't deny that bad things happen), Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can race over to relive their own glory days in the early 1960s, all the while obscuring the fact that we live in a much less racially charged world. This kind of 1960s theater in the 21st Century does two terrible things: it continuously inflames the African American sense of grievance, something both psychologically and practically damaging; and it helps grow two dangerous emotions in white Americans when it comes to race: ennui and resentment.

Look for the union label

Unions were a necessity in the early days of the industrial revolution. Workers were so spectacularly abused in those days (in part because they had limited mobility when it came to looking for greener employment pastures) that only by united action were they able to shift the employer/employee dynamic away from mind-bogglingly brutalizing practices. (See, for example, the successful 1888 strike that forced the British government to legislate against the horror of phossy jaw, a phosphorous based cancer that afflicted 19th and 20th century workers in match factories.) Unionization is still useful today in highly dangerous industries where the risks of employment go beyond the economic and into life and death scenarios - and this is especially true in the chemical industry, where the employer has information the employee lacks and has the ability to control environmental safety which, again, is something the individual employee cannot do.

Having said that, most unions today are not useful at all, but are redundant victims of their own success. Thanks to decades of union action, the federal government and all the States have wage and hour laws, labor commissions (most of which are usually very hostile to the employer), occupational safety and health laws, mandatory retirement plans, minimum wage laws, etc. All of these, of course, were worker protections that unions fought for and won.

The problem is that, once you've done what you came for, what's left? Well, for a lot of unions, aside from a huge effort negotiating salaries for the union bosses and a de minimus effort doing the same for union members, what's left is a bullying style that tries to infringe on management prerogatives by dictating how the business should be run. The most obvious example of that trend can be found in the teacher's unions, which routinely try to control both the broader political process and the classroom curriculum, all the while pressuring their employer (that would be you, through your agent, the government), to continue employing them without regard to performance standards.

Despite all this, for the Progressives, unions are the only things that stand between American workers and the 19th Century factory system of 12 hours, at salaries equal to mere pennies, in horrible unsafe conditions. It's as if the social and political changes affecting employees during the last 100 years never happened. Instead, only by emphasizing working conditions that, in most cases, no longer exist, can Progressives keep alive an institution that serves their larger political agenda (often with a complete disregard for the rank and file's beliefs), but that has an increasingly small effect on any given union's original purpose.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, when running in 1992, were fond of repeating the old saying that insanity is defined by doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome. They were prescient (and I'm not just talking about Hillary's recycled healthcare plan). No matter how they label themselves, the Progressives are anything but: on every issue that affects Americans, they have staked their politics and theories that are antiquated, ineffective or redundant. And if that's not crazy, I don't know what is.

Bookworm

@Rudd-O

Uh, der - I think I was calling him dishonorable because he LIED in a court of law under OATH which is very dishonorable.

Notice I called him "filthy lying bastard" and not "filthy person who had sex bastard".

Since when should I trust any President, past or present, that has lied to the world in a court of law as well as on TV to all the world and then still consider him honorable... hmmm ok, never.

Honor:
1 a : good name or public esteem : REPUTATION b : a showing of usually merited respect

Clinton has deserved no merit of respect from me for his political life or his personal life, in other words there is nothing heroic about him that I would esteem in my life.

And since you brought it up, when did it become honorable to cheat on your wife by having sex with multiple other individuals? I guess it is ok for Presidents and people of stature to do and that makes it ok for the rest of the world - I do not think this is so.

And since when did my view of "honor" become a measure of how worthy someone's discourse is? Honor and worthiness are synonymous - check the dictionary - www.m-w.com. If he has lied on TV before and under oath, who is to say he is not lying now?

Worthy:
1 a : having worth or value : ESTIMABLE b : HONORABLE, MERITORIOUS

Wow Dylan, did you write that yourself? You left out a key fact. Try adding this . .

"General Petraeus lied to Congress when he claimed that secterian deaths and violence were down in Iraq. That was a lie. Secterian deaths in Iraq in 2007 are double what they were in 2006".

AP writer Stephen Hurst reports, "The death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago. The figures are considered a minimum, the actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted."

Maybe the headline was wrong in the ad, a small detail. It should have been General Liedtous.

Open Letter to
Eli Pariser, Executive Director
MoveOn.rg:

You are a fifth columnist and eventually, because you feel that you do not have to tread the halls of decency, you will overreach, [as you have done with your ad defaming General Petraeus] - you have betrayed America. Yet, you would want valiant men to protect you as you sleep - your children, your wife, your lover, your friend. When you have cut down the most noble of them all - you will find yourself alone - terribly alone, as you reap the whirlwind. May God have mercy on you and all those who seek to undermine these United States of America. I'll wager that your actions have done more to guarantee the defeat of the Democratic Party in 2008, than anything that you might have concocted heretofore.

It is because of men like Gen. Petraeus that your First Amendment Rights and your villainy are protected – for the time being.

I didnt think the neo-cons could get any more
disgusting- but they can.

Bill Clinton ran this country better than any president since WW2, and has every right to show his
anger toward these piggy little liars.

There's something nice that can be said about that maggot Kerry?

To the Swift Boaters among us: When you move your mind set to saying "nice" things about Naval Officer John Kerry for his patriotic military service to America then the Petraeus/Betrayus group might say nice things about that wonderful intelligent, patriotic General. Meanwhile let me enjoy the squirming of the Swift Boaters.

Of course that has to be his position...he and Hillary are on moveon's payroll you clowns.

"Concerning Clinton being angry. Well he has a right. He was accused of lying under oath"

Accused? Check your close-to-reality facts. He was guilty of perjury.

Concerning Clinton being angry. Well he has a right. He was accused of lying under oath, shamed and shamed the girl with him. Why not worry about things like the lies Bush gave us and the killing he has done by sending these(including Cheney) Black Water guys out to do a dirty job. That is treason and that is called an issue for a "War Crime Committed by The President and Vice President of These United States. What is going to happen when they leave office..laugh at all us in turmoil because they used the scare tactic. Guess what? People aren't falling for any of it. We speak our minds and have a right to defend our constitutional rights as well. Now, here we go again, the government is controlling that as well!
What about "Tillman"?

You know, I love how people are ALL about freedom of speech and freedom of the press until someone says something they don't like. Then they want the mics cut.

The brave men of our military have no choice about what war they fight and they're fighting to protect that freedom of speech. You have to assent to the right of others to use it, even if you would rather they didn't. Otherwise, our principles don't exist, our soldiers' sacrifices of the past 200+ years are for nothing, and we might as well all be issued a list of what to say and think.
MoveOn's ad wasn't anywhere NEAR what I saw being released during the 2004 elections. The only difference now is that it's isolated from a hundred others.

You people may not like what they said, but you'd damn well better remember they had a right to say it. Just like you have the right to disagree with every single word, comma, and punctuation mark in the ad, and to say so.

Condemned for speaking their mind in a free country? Smells like horse pies to me.

@jessehaff:

I love how you spell "add". Slip showing?

Just because you repeat stuff out loud while rocking violently back and forth, doesn't make it true, you know?

@B2 Bomber:

Clinton had sex, you sanctimonious sonuvabitch. Since when that constitutes a dishonor? And since when did your cockeyed view of "honor" become a measure of how worthy someone's discourse is?

Au contraire, what really constitutes dishonor is killing innocent people and squandering your money to benefit a handful of corporations behind this war.

So coming from Clinton, who is a Liar (proven in a court of law - not a social court), compares John Kerry to Petraeus and MoveOn to the SwiftBoaters. First, Kerry is no where near comparable to Patraeus. Second, the Swift Boat Vets have waaaay more honor than MoveOn. Third, Bill Clinton has less honor than all of these individuals or parties. And what the hell was Bill doing with that sanctimoniuos tone of voice in this video - it is not like he is any sort of beacon of truth or valid information. It is not like people sit around and wait to pass judgement on something until the "Great and Honorable" Bill Clinton has spoken.

So any point that Bill Clinton makes is moot in my book, unless I need a question answered about having sex with interns in the Whitehouse - filthy lying bastard.

The abomination bush regime of corrupt fascist war criminals who usurped the white house could not have done it without blinder wearing bleating retard cheerleaders for fascism like jessehaff.
Its morons like this jerk that are really dangerous because they vote! These idiots apparently have their blinders on so tight and in there BUSHWORLD hallucination they bleat "Support the Troops" "Support the Troops" 9/11 9/11 9/11.
IN REALITY these morons are supporting the ABUSE of our troops and pimp 9/11 continuously.. These aholes have a profound ignorance of what America USED to stand for before Cheney usurped the presidency!!!

You know where the "Betrayus" name came from? From soldiers who know the guy, who know him to be a shameless liar, fraud, and ass-licker. No wonder W is beyond the good general, he can see a kindred soul.

You know where the "Betrayus" name came from? From soldiers who know the guy, who know him to be a shameless liar, fraud, and ass-licker. No wonder W is beyond the good general, he can see a kindred soul.

I just love the way that you are considered unpatriotic, a sort of national black sheep, for exercising your human right to disagree with your leadership in America. That being anti-American or anti-Military is a failing and not a stance. If you feel that your nation, government or military is failing you, then you should consider being anti-branch in question a badge of honour.

"You dont like it GO MOVE TO VENEZUALA! DICK BAGS!"

LEARN THE PRINCIPLES THE GODDAMN COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON BEFORE YOU SPOUT OFF IN ALL CAPS.

"You don't like it, go move to..." is the least American statement one can make, given that the country was founded on the ability of the people to change it.

So let's move on, shall we, and get to more important matters, like getting out of Iraq.

"You dont like it GO MOVE TO VENEZUALA! DICK BAGS!"

I do hope you are just out for a troll. If everybody had that attitude, the country would fall into decay faster than you can say "ignorant fucktard". Running away from a problem is rarely the best solution.

You dont like it GO MOVE TO VENEZUALA! DICK BAGS!

"Know your facts, retard: Clinton was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH - not a blowjob."

By this standard whole Bush Adminstration should be hanged multiple times publicaly for their crimes against humanity thru out world.

Don't distract from the important (life affecting) factors here with rhetorical technicalities.

No matter how you look at it, lying under oath about a blow job didn't kill 3,000+ Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis (and counting, unfortunately). Countless other lies from the Bush Administration certainly did.

"Impeachment over a blow job but no impeachment for shitting on the Constitution."

Know your facts, retard: Clinton was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH - not a blowjob.

Get educated.

Impeachment over a blow job but no impeachment for shitting on the Constitution.

impeachment for purgery as i recall. democrats kept saying it was about sex but it was really about lying under oath, which is why he was disbarred.

Impeachment over a blow job but no impeachment for shitting on the Constitution. And for these spineless Democrats to play along with the Rethuglicans is a disgrace. And tell me what enemy are we giving comfort to? The ones in Iraq who have nothing better to do than watch Bill O'Lielly on Fuax Noise? You Rethuglicans are the dumbest people on earth. Do Iraqi's get the NYT? I think the only terrorist we have in Iraq are Bush's Blackwater klan. Or do you mean the terrorist Bush and the terrorist Cheney? The only comfort they got was to see freedom of speech squashed.

"Of course the disgraced, impeached, disbarred Clinton"

Disgraced (retained a 65% approval rating at the end, the highest end-of-presidency rating of any President that came into office after World War II.), impeached (then acquitted), disbarred (actually true: 1/3 well done!)

You partisans do love your mythology, don't you? I'm surprised you forgot to accuse him of murder too.

And how, exactly is it anti-military to criticise a specific general for acting as a shill for the civilian government? Shouldn't that sort of thing send Hawks into palpitations? Oh right, this isn't about the actual military or the troops living and dying in Iraq, this is about propping up some nationalistic ideal of our ethnically superior army of morally perfect ubermensch. My bad.

The 'war time' you're referring to is a war of aggression and choice on the part of the United States. The standards that apply to an era like WW2 don't apply here. Petreaus doesn't have the balls to speak his mind. Instead he parrots the thoughts of the white house.

So Clinton's disgraced because he got his dick sucked. So where does that leave GWB? He's personally responsible for a war that has killed thousands of people, is bankrupting our treasury and squandered the goodwill that came our way after 9/11. As a 'war' president, he should pick up a weapon and lead our troops through Baghdad personally.

The war on terror is already lost. We've become a quasi police state. The government can arrest you and hold you indefinitely if the choose to do so. No more habeus corpus. No warrants required for eavesdropping. If you dare open your mouth to express dissension, you're called an al-Queda sympathizer or an America-hater.

Before you go calling me a liberal, I'll have you know I'm a pro-gun, pro-liberty, pro states rights... more of a libertarian than anything else, though I have no party affiliation.

The current administration is a disaster. The only people who don't think so is the small minority of people that benefit directly from it.

Clinton is a megalomaniac. He just can't keep himself out of camera range can he?

I know, he's being a "magnanimous statesman".

Yeah.

Land of freedom of speech! I'm ashamed our congress would do this.

Christopher Hitchens was the original one to point this out. Back during the midterm elections, the Republicans were outraged that John Kerry made a joke "insulting the troops" which, as Hitchens put it, was "looking like they're talking about Iraq when they aren't."

I was going to make a joke about kissing Clinton, and then I saw the comment above me - which is so bereft of actual thought that it boggles my mind.

Let me lay this down for you in a very simplistic fashion, so as I do not confuse you:
- This was an ad. End of story.
- As an ad, they can buy space to say what they want.
- The "good general" wrote as much of that report as a pampered sixth grader wrote on their book report.
- MoveOn's ad wasn't in poor taste. If you feel it was in poor taste, I'm pretty sure that there is some stipulation -somewhere- in -some- document that serves as a backbone for our government that informs you that it's your opinion. Deal with it.
- "It gave comfort to the enemy". Jesus. Wow. I really wish I had time to sit around and wonder what effects (x-media) was having on (y-terrorists).
- "disgraced, impeached, disbarred Clinton". Don't even get me started there, little man. When the non-partition ORB group's numbers on the death toll (~1 million, 4 years) start to roll out into the American press - then maybe we'll see some action.

This is a president that was elected into office because of Carl Rove and his ability to read the American people - and then crap what they want back into the publics' collective mouth. People like you perpetuate it. Please start your own country somewhere else - the sane people would like our country back.

jesse - i assume you're not familiar with the term irony.

Von,

You have to be joking. This is anti-American? Since when is freedom of press anti-American? Would you prefer to live in a fascist state?

Looks like someone's (jessehaff) not been paying attention to reality nor does he (jesse shaff) care about our troops in Iraq by supporting a rogue (vice) President who has proven he cares less about human suffering than.

"The enemey" could care less about a word in an ad. This is another GOP ploy to deflect from the mess (over 1 million Iraqis dead since we invaded)

Looks like someone (jessehaff) doesn't really understand who's really lying here. Shame on him.

jessehaff,
actually what's ridiculous and disingenuous is the anti-military, anti-American personal smear add that MoveOn placed in the NY Times paper. Equally ridiculous was how NY Times gave MoveOn a six figure discount to MoveOn for a personal attack ad against a sitting general during wartime. NT Time's own editor later scolded his paper's decision to print this add, clearly they were wrong for doing so. MoveOn’s ad was not only in very poor taste, but it gave comfort to the enemy, something that the democrats do pretty often, as they hate Bush more than the terrorists.
Of course the disgraced, impeached, disbarred Clinton has a problem with criticizing Moveon, as this is a group who's very existence was to defend him during the impeachment trials.