The Chicago Way: Petraeus Betrayed

Recalling how Obama rose to political prominence by revealing sealed divorce records on his opponent, Jack Ryan, the Petraeus resignation seems straight out of the Chicago playbook:

Ryan is the ex-husband of Jerri Ryan, a woman who played a cyborg of some sort on the Star Trek series that many people apocryphally believe starred Katherine Hepburn as a spaceship captain; Ryan, the actress, currently plays a mortician on some CBS show where Dana Delany drinks chardonnay while solving crimes as a medical examiner. During their marriage, Jack Ryan used to openly talk about sexual fantasies he had of his wife Jerri, the most graphic of which is that Jack wanted to fly his wife to Paris and take her to the Cleopatra Club — which was a high-priced sex dungeon where the two of them could have sex in front of other wealthy people while utilizing various swings and other contraptions.  The Ryans never did any of this — it was purely Jack’s fantasy, and he wanted to do this with his own wife (while other men and women watched them).  When filing for divorce, Jerri’s divorce attorney put references to these fantasies into the filing to embarrass Jack (who wanted to have a political career).  The intent on Jerri’s part was to force a quick and lucrative divorce settlement so that the Cleopatra Club fantasies would never get out into the open.

In essence, Jerri Ryan blackmailed Jack Ryan into a much more generous divorce settlement than she would have received if she hadn’t made his unrealized sex fantasies a part of the filing.

The divorce agreement was supposed to be sealed and unavailable to reporters; once she had her loot, Jerri Ryan never talked about any of the Cleopatra Club stories again. Her intent was never to hurt Ryan, just to blackmail him for the best divorce settlement possible.

Flashforward to 2004.  The Obama Senate campaign illegally obtains Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce filing and sees the Cleopatra Club references.  Obama’s operatives release the embarrassing sexual fantasy material to the media, and the criminally stupid Cocktail Party here in Illinois makes the decision to force Ryan to withdraw from the Senate race after he was already picked as the nominee.  I need to use bold for this, but Jack Ryan would have won that Senate race if the Cocktail Party GOP establishment had not forced him off the ballot.

Victor Davis Hanson on the General at The Corner:

David Petraeus’s resignation marks the end of one of the great postwar military and government careers — his successful surge in Iraq being analogous to and as impressive as Matthew Ridgway’s salvation of Korea or Sherman’s sudden taking of Atlanta that saved Lincoln’s and the Union cause before the 1864 elections. In a book due out in late spring, The Savior Generals, I argue that his achievements were comparable to those of the best of history’s maverick commanders who were asked to save wars deemed lost — and did. But for now, the explanation of Petraeus’s resignation unfortunately raises more questions than it answers, in a number of significant ways:

1) Fairly or not, questions will be raised why this Washington-style Friday-afternoon resignation occurred after rather than before the election — a question that does not necessarily suggest that Petraeus’s did not take the proper nonpartisan course. But just days after this Tuesday, we are already beginning to hear of all sorts of “sudden” news: the Iranian attack on a U.S. drone; the plight of the Hurricane Sandy victims (400,000 still without power? gas rationing, tens of thousands homeless, exposure to cold?, etc.) as much more severe than we were led to believe; the sudden publicity of the “fiscal cliff”; and the Benghazi hearings. In that unfortunate politicized landscape comes the Petraeus bombshell.

2) We were beginning to sense that the crime of Benghazi (not listening to pre-attack requests for increased security; not sending help immediately from the annex to the besieged consulate; not rushing in additional military forces during the hours-long attack) and the cover-up (inventing the video narrative of a spontaneous demonstration gone wild to support a pre-election administration narrative of an impotent al-Qaeda, a successful Libya, a positive Arab Spring, and a cool, competent Commander in Chief, slayer of bin Laden, and architect of momentous Middle East change) were not the entire story of the 9/11/2012 attack: Why was there a consulate at all in Benghazi, given that most nations have shut down their main embassies in Tripoli? Why was there such a large CIA contingent nearby — what were they doing and why and for whom? Why did the ambassador think he needed more security when so many CIA operatives were stationed just minutes away? What was the exact security relationship between the annex and the consulate, and why the apparent quiet about it? Who exactly were the terrorist hit-teams, and did they have a particular agenda, and, if so, what and for whom? All these questions had not been answered and probably would have been raised during the scheduled Petraeus testimony — which is apparently now canceled, but why that is so, no one quite knows. And if Hillary Clinton departs, and perhaps Susan Rice and James Clapper as well, then the principals of the decision-making chain leave with more questions raised than answered. We are sort of back to a Watergate-like timeline of a scandal raised but not explored in a first term, only to blow up in the second.

3) If rumors are true that the liaison may have involved biographer Paula Broadwell, co-author of an extremely favorable biography of Petraeus, then there are additional ethical issues that, fairly or not, call into question Broadwell’s bona fides as an author and the portrait of Petraeus in her warmly received book. And if the FBI was involved, then additional questions arise over the reasons they also became interested — when, why, how, and on whose prompt?

4) Because of both Petraeus’s sterling reputation and his high office, infidelity takes on greater importance than if it were — how absurd to write this — merely that of a lesser figure like Bill Clinton, whose serial miscreant conduct was taken for granted, even when he was a sitting president. If the affair occurred while Petraeus was general, it contradicted the code of military justice; if while at the CIA, it posed a potential security breach.

5) For most of us, however, Petraeus is forever frozen as the hero of 2007–8, when, battered by the congressional hearings (Hillary Clinton’s “suspension of disbelief”) and ad hominem attack ads in the New York Times (“General Betray US”), he nonetheless pressed ahead and broke the back of the insurgency — in part due to his competence, his unmatched reputation, and the talented circle around him. After he came down from Olympus in 2008, his subsequent billets in Afghanistan and at the CIA took on political significance, given the Obama administration’s paradoxical and obsessive desire to affect his career by keeping him close by, and yet failing to appoint him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or supreme NATO commander — appointments that were offered to those of lesser stature. In 2007, the Left went after him as a “Bush general”; in 2009, the Right was disappointed in him for his sudden close, personal relationship with Obama; the truth was always that he sought to serve his country regardless of politics.

I believe Hanson when he posits that General Petraeus “always…sought to serve his country regardless of politics” but it is clear that he found out the hard way what all of those around Obama know – a scorpion is always a scorpion.

About these ads

76 thoughts on “The Chicago Way: Petraeus Betrayed

    • General David Petraeus’s Rules for Living, by Paula Broadwell
      Nov 5, 2012 1:00 AM EST
      1. Lead by example from the front of the formation. Take your performance personally—if you are proud to be average, so too will be your troops.
      2. A leader must provide a vision—clear and achievable “big ideas” combined in a strategic concept—and communicate those ideas throughout the entire organi­zation and to all other stakeholders.
      3. A leader needs to give energy; don’t be an oxygen thief.
      4. There is an exception to every rule, standard operating procedure, and poli­cy; it is up to leaders to determine when exceptions should be made and to ex­plain why they made them.
      5. We all will make mistakes. The key is to recognize them and admit them, to learn from them, and to take off the rear­ view mirrors—drive on and avoid making them again.
      6. Be humble. The people you’ll be lead­ing already have on-the-ground conflict experience. “Listen and learn.”
      7. Be a team player. “Your team’s triumphs and failures will, obviously, be yours.” Take ownership of both.
      8. Don’t rely on rank. If you rely on rank, rather than on the persuasiveness of your logic, the problem could be you and either your thinking or your com­munication skills. Likewise, sometimes the best ideas come from bottom-up information sharing (i.e., “Need to share” not “Need to know”). Use “direct­ed telescopes” to improve situational awareness.
      9. Leaders should be thoughtful but deci­sive. Listen to subordinates’ input, evaluate courses of action and second- and third-order effects, but be OK with an “80 per­cent solution.” “There will be many moments when all eyes turn to you for a decision. Be prepared for them. Don’t shrink from them. Embrace them.” Some­times the best move is the bold move.
      10. Stay fit to fight. Your body is your ulti­mate weapons system. Physical fitness for your body is essential for mental fitness.
      11. The only thing better than a little com­petition is a lot of competition. Set chal­lenges for your subordinates to encourage them to excel.
      12. Everyone on the team is mission criti­cal. Instill in your team members a sense of great self-worth—that each, at any given time, can be the most important on the battlefield.
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/11/04/general-david-petraeus-s-rules-for-living.html

  1. There’s no secret to Obama’s modus operandi. If you listen to this man carefully, he talks in generalizations, and then let’s his acolytes go specific. One by one, like pawns in a game of chess, they sacrifice themselves to save the king … sometimes knowingly, other times not.

    Petraeus is the the latest victim (likely preceded by H. Clinton).

    Side bar: Having served under Petraeus, my gut instinct is to approach this with a degree of trepidation. Of course not everyone is as they seem, but the man that Petraeus is … this does not add up.

    Stipulating that the Petraeus scandal is factual though, one has to ask the question … “What does Obama have to gain from all this?” It’s not like his administration as secured amnesty for Petraeus from any forth coming Congressional investigation. One can only assume that the battalion of Obama lawyers have now set up Petraeus is a man of ill-repute, and any testimony will be painted as not credible.

    Personally, I think they have chosen the wrong scapegoat.

    • Stipulating that the Petraeus scandal is factual though, one has to ask the question … “What does Obama have to gain from all this?” It’s not like his administration as secured amnesty for Petraeus from any forth coming Congressional investigation. One can only assume that the battalion of Obama lawyers have now set up Petraeus is a man of ill-repute, and any testimony will be painted as not credible.

      Asked…and answered.

      What I really want to know is why this matters? After all, “It’s just about sex.”

  2. It appears that a Petraeus was indeed betrayed–Holly Petraeus. Beyond that, however, the rest of the media stuff–like a typical RNL blog post, including this one–is sleazy speculation.

    As a former student wrote in an email with a link to a NY Times article sent to me last night: “This may be the most ridiculous article I’ve ever seen masked as legitimate news…obviously it’s news that he resigned and why. but this sort of speculation about which of her qualities tempted him to doom? Out of control.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/linked-to-petraeus-paula-broadwell-is-lifelong-high-achiever.html?hp

    If the media focused more on substance and less on trivialities, of course, we’d likely never have gone to war in Iraq, Obama likely wouldn’t have been elected, Petraeus wouldn’t have ended up being viewed as the “hero” he was before going to work for Obama (the two would never have been working together), and Romney would never have been the GOP nominee.

    • “If the media focused more on substance and less on trivialities, of course, we’d likely never have gone to war in Iraq, Obama likely wouldn’t have been elected, Petraeus wouldn’t have ended up being viewed as the “hero” he was before going to work for Obama (the two would never have been working together), and Romney would never have been the GOP nominee.”

      Normally, I disagree with James, yet I agree 75% with his comment, especially the part on reporting substance. Why did this comment receive such poor ratings? And why is he taking so much flak for it? I don’t get it.

      James, tell us more about the media.

      • McPhereson is a reflexive “progressive” – anything, and I mean anything, that contradicts his ideology has an explanation, no matter how absurd.

        I can tell you how threatened as a nation we were after 9/11 – I ran an engineering group for an airport equipment manufacturer and know that this incident shut down air travel and our economy for a full 6 months and changes the airport industry forever.

        If the media had done their job, a rank amateur politician, an incompetent named Barack Obama, would have been laughed out of the Democrat primaries.

        Obama is now running what amounts to a criminal enterprise – if it weren’t in government, he would be prosecuted under RICO statutes.

      • “Why did this comment receive such poor ratings? And why is he taking so much flak for it? I don’t get it.”

        Thanks, Justin, but Utah & company are just reflexive knee-jerk responders. If I’m for it, they have to be against it–kind of like Republicans in Congress when Obama adopts their ideas. Sad, really.

        Notice that Utah seems to be criticizing me, then backs up what I said–that if the media had done their job, Obama wouldn’t have been president.

        I also had to chuckle about Utah’s comment that “anything, and I mean anything, that contradicts his ideology has an explanation, no matter how absurd.” After all, this is the guy who predicted numerous times–apparently guided by his ideology–that Romney would win in “a landslide.”

        • I was guided by information that I posted and cited, there Comrade Jimmy. What I couldn’t estimate was the 140% turnout for Obama in battleground states.

          As far as blinded by ideology, I guess you missed all the back an forth during the primaries and our open criticism of Bush. Even one note of criticism of a Republican is 100% of what I have seen from you regarding Democrats – unless it was that they weren’t sufficiently liberal enough.

          All of your Iraq war bullshit has already been asked and answered but like every victim of BDS, you just can’t process facts. You have to continue to rewrite history to fit your mindset.

        • Well, I really don’t want to get into the middle of this argument, too many subtleties for me. :)

          James, I understand we have one thing in common, and that is we are both critical of Obama’s foreign policy. On the one hand, he has an aggressive drone strike policy. On the other hand, well, Kells put the question this way:

          “what did toppling Mubarek in Egypt and Qadafi in Libya have to do with quelching terrorism?”

          Any thoughts, James?

          • ““what did toppling Mubarek in Egypt and Qadafi in Libya have to do with quelching terrorism?”

            Though I made no such connection, Justin, both were sponsors of terrorism. Their successors may be as bad or worse.

            • Right, I more or less agree.

              However, I would wager most at the Rio including myself would go a little farther. The new leadership or lack thereof in Egypt and Libya is not merely just as bad, it is definitely way worse.

              • Could be, Justin, and you may well know better than I. Unlike some of the folks here, I feel no obligation to pretend to be an expert on everything, and no compunction to comment when I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.

                • “and no compunction to comment when I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.”

                  How’s that halo adjustment working out for you? :)

                • I understand, and I appreciate that.

                  A common complaint among conservatives is that Democrats appear reluctant to offer an honest, unbiased assessment of Obama. For example, there seems to be this widespread belief that Obama is a foreign policy saint, and that there is no way the average person can fathom the things Obama has been accomplishing. Occasionally one will come across criticism for his drone strike policy, but that is about all.

                  What conservatives find particularly troublesome is the level of faith Obama puts in Islamist radicals, sworn enemies of Israel and the United States. When an opportunity arises, it seems he tends to support America’s enemies, and ignore America’s friends. Why did Obama not take up the opportunity to overthrow the hostile Iranian leadership when friendly protestors were begging for it? Why did Obama aid in overthrowing Gaddafi and Mubarak, when these leaders had maintained amenable relations with the United States for years, and had been suppressing the more radical movements in their nations? Why does Netanyahu have to practically make a complete ass of himself in order to get assurances from Obama?

                  This is enough to cause concern, is it not? I don’t expect you to have all the answers, but doesn’t it make you kind of want to ask, what is the guiding principle of Obama’s foreign policy?

                • Justin, I’ve criticized Obama for his drones, for his secrecy, for his continuing of Bush policies regarding rendition and Gitmo.

                  “Why did Obama not take up the opportunity to overthrow the hostile Iranian leadership when friendly protestors were begging for it?”

                  I don’t know–but an Iranian friend of mine (no fan of the folks in charge there) says it wouldn’t have been easy–that Afghanistan would look easy by comparison. Again, I honestly don’t know.

                  “doesn’t it make you kind of want to ask, what is the guiding principle of Obama’s foreign policy?”

                  I think the guiding principle of his foreign policy has been to do what was necessary for re-election. Now I don’t know what it will be. And I don’t think Romney had a clue what his would be.

                  And no, my “compunction “comment” wasn’t aimed at you. It was aimed at those idiots who feel obligated to comment on anything, especially if it gives them an opportunity to disagree with me or to kiss Utah’s butt.

                • “And no, my “compunction “comment” wasn’t aimed at you. It was aimed at those idiots who feel obligated to comment on anything, especially if it gives them an opportunity to disagree with me or to kiss Utah’s butt.”

                  Speaking of idiots … they write silliness like this.

                  Justin – McPherson is a man of mixed messages. If you really want to find a more civil discourse, you should converse with him over on his blog site. He behaves differently there. In fact, I think McPherson has a different suit for each, and every place he appears. Here, he’s just a self-aggrandizing jerk.

                  • All: I am sorry for my attitude but not for what I wrote. I am just tired of being talked to as if I am evil incarnate and wrong about every single position. I’m sick of being subjected to lectures given by people who have experienced and done less than I have and it is not that I am smarter than anyone else, I have personal experience in what I state, unlike some who talk theory. I’m going to punch back twice as hard. I don’t care if anybody “kisses my butt” what I do care about is that people think about what is said here and give it a fair hearing – it is up to the individual to use or dispose of it as they see fit.

                    But I’m done with being called a liar, a hack, a bigot and any other epithet simply because I’m not on board with “progressive” thought.

                • Utah – James will call me a butt kisser for saying this (and it’s absolutely retarded that he would do so as I have never met you), but let’s be clear ….

                  You have a right to post what you think, and or feel (that is until these progressives remove that right from the Constitution). Make no apologies for that, ever.

                  To James, and the rest of you sycophants … as much as I enjoy posting here, and even having the ability to start my own topics … it would not be worth it if I had to kiss Utah’s ass. Let’s make sure we are clear on that as well. Yes, it’s a great blog site, but like all other blog sites, each person can invent their own … no ass kissing needed.

                  Anything about that you liberals cannot fathom?

                  • Well, whether Jimmy knows it or not, you guys know that I place no restrictions on what you post and I try to refrain from stepping in in any situation unless I feel that the posts are damaging to the rest of the participants here. We have an open comment policy and all comments are un-moderated – except for drugs’ comments which keep getting caught in the spam filter due to the word “drugs” in his username.

                • @ Augger and Utah, agreed.
                  PROGRESSIVES will never understand, because they are indoctrinated in HOW to THINK.

                  PROGRESSIVES will never understand how “we patriots, believers in G-d, and natural law & SELF DETERMINATION” can walk an INFINITELY different amount of PATHS, (ie. think differently and therefore create new and different solutions) and RESPECT each other’s innovative solutions.

                  Trying to ORDER us to DO anything, would be like herding cats.

                • Texas – Greg, Drugs are indoctrinated, CCF to some degree, and I can forgive them. McPherson on the other hand, he knows better. For him, no free pass, ever.

                • “What do you think the Obama Administration is trying to cover up?”

                  Who knows? Probably something more serious than a Kenyon birth certificate. Maybe we can get Donald Trump or Sheriff Joe on the case. :-)

                • Any other person McPherson, I could see that as a joke. But with you, well …

                  Tighten up the halo, buddy. Your horns are showing. :)

                • “If you really want to find a more civil discourse, you should converse with him over on his blog site.”

                  You’re welcome any time, Justin–as are the rest of these folks. They just don’t have the guts to converse on a site where most people don’t agree with them.

                  “He behaves differently there..”

                  Often true. For one thing, I’m initiating the discussion over there. Here I’m pointing out others’ errors–or sometimes being attacked simply for saying something negative about conservatives. That threatens the boys here so much, in fact, that they’ve devoted entire posts to li’l ol’ me. :-)

                  These guys too often think you have to be fully supportive of one “side” or the other, and if your thinking doesn’t fit easily into a tiny box than they don’t get it–and don’t try. But I’ll keep trying to nudge them toward enlightenment. :-)

                • “I am just tired of being talked to as if I am evil incarnate and wrong about every single position.”

                  I don’t think either of those things. Evil? No. Always wrong? No. Wrong a lot? Yes.

                  “I’m done with being called a liar, a hack, a bigot and any other epithet simply because I’m not on board with “progressive” thought.”

                  I’ve never called you a bigot. Nor does someone have to be a “progressive” to be honest or nonpartisan.

                • Kells, I always appreciate it when you come by, but admittedly I don’t write nearly as much or as often as I once did. The last post was on Nov. 1, when I predicted (as I’d been doing since at least May) that Obama would win the election. The one before that was way back on Oct. 19, about Newsweek magazine.

                  Three days before that I did one about having breakfast with George Will, and correcting some of his errors. Interestingly, like Utah, he predicted a Romney win (though at the breakfast he said he didn’t make predictions).

                  Gotta get ready for church–back later, perhaps.

              • “Who knows? Probably something more serious than a Kenyon birth certificate. Maybe we can get Donald Trump or Sheriff Joe on the case.”

                James,

                I appreciate your invite and all, I really do. ;)

                But I am sorry, you sound just like that media you criticize for not addressing the substance. Your criticism of Obama is trivial, smooths the waters, attempts to make conservatives look like radicals.

                You, and the people who control a huge part of the narrative, refuse to ask real questions about serious matters. It is a dangerous road you are leading us down, James. The path to hell is paved with your so-called civility.

                As we speak, a Coptic Christian sits in jail because some Islamists made some noise. Members of the military are scratching their heads, wondering, does the Commander in Chief have my back, or is he going to make a sacrifice out of me?

                So, go ahead, make a joke out of it. I tried to engage you in conversation on matters of substance, but all you did is prove that Utah’s appraisal of you is 100 percent accurate. James, I am sorry to say this, but you are part of the problem, and it is time for you to wake up.

                Regards,

                Justin

                • “I tried to engage you in conversation on matters of substance…”

                  And I gave you my best answer: “Who knows?” I certainly don’t, and as I said before I don’t care to speculate on subjects about which I know little. None of us are experts on everything, even if some folks here pretend to be.

                  “You, and the people who control a huge part of the narrative, refuse to ask real questions about serious matters.”

                  It’s not my job–and I control almost none of the narrative. That small part I do control relates to issues where I happen to know something. And before you say “It’s everyone’s job,” ask yourself how actively you were engaged in questioning the Bushies’ actions.

                  “Utah’s appraisal of you is 100 percent accurate.”

                  Well, Augger will agree with you, at least. I’ve yet to meet anyone who was 100 percent accurate in appraising anyone they’d never met. And I’m guessing you know even less about me than Utah does, and are perfectly happy to judge me despite that ignorance. Sad, but not unexpected here.

                  “it is time for you to wake up”

                  Yawn.

                • OK, Justin, though you have no interest in my blog–which is fine, of course–I checked out yours, and now I’m even more confused by you. You seem to be suggesting here that I should have an informed opinion and be asking “real questions about serious matters” in every part of the political arena, yet back in February you wrote about yourself, “I know I am asking for trouble, bringing up politics, mainly because there is more information than I am able to wrap my little head around, and one issue ties into the next, and really I don’t pay enough attention to know jack-diddly, and even if I did, I wouldn’t know what to make of it…” http://jdogwhitney.com/2012/02/29/response-to-obamas-uaw-speech/

                  I’m not critcizing that perspective in the least, by the way–just pointing out that it fits all of us in some areas. That’s why when I am asked a question by a commenter about an opinion on which I know almost nothing, I responded with, “I don’t know,” or “Who knows?”

                  I’m also somewhat confused by your statement, “The path to hell is paved with your so-called civility,” especially after reading what you wrote just two weeks ago: “You are free to agree or disagree. Civil discourse is what makes this nation great.” http://jdogwhitney.com/2012/10/28/ten-reasons-to-vote-for-mitt-romney/

                  I’d agree with that last line of yours, of course, even if I’m now unsure where you stand on it.

                • Well, James, it’s like this.

                  Where is your OUTRAGE regarding Benghazi? I just have no patience for anyone who has no sense of outrage on this subject, especially considering all the asinine outrage that makes liberal headlines.

                  Outrage, James. Obama lied to us about Benghazi, persistently. OUTRAGE! On multiple occasions, the Obama Administration let down our people in Benghazi. OUTRAGE! The Obama Administration has been supplying Islamist radicals with weapons. OUTRAGE! A scapegoat sits in jail. OUTRAGE!

                  The Democrats said, don’t make politics out of a tragedy during an election. Well, the election is over. Now please, in the name of all that is good, please join us in our outrage.

                • Justin, your OUTRAGE seems rather selective. In fact, there are many, many things to be outraged about–for example, I link to about 20 of them in this post: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/nfl-replacement-refs-a-matter-of-life-and-death/

                  And here are links to others, from both sides of the political aisle: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/who-is-more-evil-obama-or-romney/

                  So I assume you’ll join in being OUTRAGED about all of those things, as well? Nah, I’m kidding–your snap judgments based on blog comments suggest that you probably won’t think at all about those issues, even if you bothered to learn about them. So carry on; you’ll fit right in here at the RNL.

                  • Ha! :)

                    Well, I’ll make you a deal.

                    I will give you some competent refs.

                    You just let us have a competent President (no that does not mean Obama).

                    Deal?

                • “Well, Augger will agree with you, at least.” — Well, there you go … wrong again. For instance:

                  “If the media had done their job, a rank amateur politician, an incompetent named Barack Obama, would have been laughed out of the Democrat primaries.”

                  I completely disagree with this statement. I think you liberals are so enamored with Barack Obama that he could choke that wife of his to death, and you liberal sycophants would still support the idiot. Is that enough of a disagreement to placate your metro-sexual sensitivities, James?

                  “I’ve yet to meet anyone who was 100 percent accurate in appraising anyone they’d never met.” — Well my God! The old saying that a broken clock is right twice day is real!

                  “‘You’re welcome any time, Justin–as are the rest of these folks. They just don’t have the guts to converse on a site where most people don’t agree with them.” — And there is your typical McPherson lie. Been there, done that, wasn’t impressed except for “Reul” (spelling). The rest … “yawn”.

                  “That threatens the boys here so much, in fact, that they’ve devoted entire posts to li’l ol’ me. :-)” — You flatter yourself entirely too much, James.

                  “I appreciate your invite and all, I really do.” — Justin, you will, until you read his 1,000 liar post. :)

                • Justin, you must listen to James. I have video that proves my point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=M-mLO0ZgOwc&feature=endscreen

                  As you can see, Michelle went to public school, and thanks to affirmative action, she went to Princeton and Harvard! There was this stupid guy in Fort Walton that went to school with her (In those pathetic public schools) and said that she was totally smart and could’ve done it on her own,. Yeah, right! Wake-up call!! We’ve got to educate the poor; it’s only fair. It’s also fair that we feed poor children. (I feel very happy that starving children with bloated bellies are eating on my dime). If Bush wouldn’t have screwed everything up, their parents might have a job. This is where Christians in this country really miss the boat. Um, right, like, who built that ark??

                  Annola

                  • Annola,

                    I have been thinking about what you said.

                    “Justin, you must listen to James.”

                    ROFLMAO!

                    “We’ve got to educate the poor; it’s only fair.”

                    Well … define educate. You mentioned that the public schools are pathetic. Perhaps home schooling is the answer?

                    “It’s also fair that we feed poor children.”

                    I think so, too. I just think we have already proven that people can do it a lot better on their own rather than having Washington manage it.

                    “If Bush wouldn’t have screwed everything up, their parents might have a job. This is where Christians in this country really miss the boat. Um, right, like, who built that ark??”

                    Noah?

                • Justin, please tell me that you’re kidding and that you didn’t think NFL referees were the point of the post.

                  Besides, having a “competent president” isn’t up to me–I didn’t vote for Obama last week.

                • “you are not going to gain any popularity points with Justin”

                  Wow, Augger–you went right to the top of my list of concerns. :-)

                • Yeah, we are well aware of your vast benevolence, McPherson. Do what you do best, patronize everyone, and bloat your own ego.

                  Have at it.

  3. If the media focused more on substance and less on trivialities, of course, we’d likely never have gone to war in Iraq, Obama likely wouldn’t have been elected, Petraeus wouldn’t have ended up being viewed as the “hero” he was before going to work for Obama (the two would never have been working together), and Romney would never have been the GOP nominee.

    You see, this is evidence of the fatal flaw in modern “journalism” — presented by a self-proclaimed “journalist,” no less. James claims to be “focusing on the facts,” yet he still thinks we went to war in Iraq over WMDs. This is what happens when the “journalists” believe their own lies. All one has to do is read the official Congressional records to find that we didn’t “go to war” over WMDs, we just resumed hostilities from the original Gulf War as a result of Hussein repeatedly breaking the terms of the cease-fire.

    The rest of the assertions made in this quote are — even if some appear accurate — nothing more than opinions asserted as facts. It’s just another symptom of the decay within our news media: they simply don’t understand the definition of a fact well enough to even recognize what one is.

    I’ve never figured out why simple truths like this are so difficult for the media to understand, but they are. Until our “journalists” can figure out how to report “the facts, just the facts and nothing but the facts” — which starts by understanding the dictionary definition of a “fact” — then this republic will continue to decline because the people will lack the information necessary to make the informed decisions which are crucial to successful self-rule.

  4. “everybody wanted to go to Iraq”

    Not true–I protested the war before and after it began, and Knight-Ridder newspapers (which unfortunately had no newspapers in NY or DC) did a good job of question the Bushies’ rationale during the buildup to war.

  5. “It was voted on in Congress.”

    So? So was Obamacare. Are you now saying that was a good idea? Just because Congress approves something doesn’t mean it wasn’t stupid–nor that “everyone” wanted it–in fact, 156 members of Congress voted against the Iraq misadventure.

    • Obamacare? That bypassed the House, which is why I feel it is unconstitutional as the SCOTUS ruled it a tax.

      Hindsight is 20/20. No, I don’t think it was a good idea ……. now. But, back then, I had different views….influenced by the likes of the WTC. At the time, I felt like it could be a foretaste of the feast to come. Believe it or not, at that time, I was also strongly supportive of the Patriot Act. I suppose I just felt like we needed to kick some ass in whatever way possible. I felt, (and still do) that the 9/11 attacks were unacceptable.

  6. “I felt, (and still do) that the 9/11 attacks were unacceptable.”

    Of course. But that is irrelevant to the Iraq War. And I also opposed the Patriot Act at the beginning, by the way–of course more Dems than Republicans opposed it, too.

    • SBJ; I do not see how you can call 9/11 irrelevant with regard to the Iraq War. I distinctly remember still feeling threatened at that point in time. Perhaps it was unfounded fear, but it was fear ready for action nonetheless. Was the impetus of the war based on the fear of another attack on American soil? Could be. Was for me. And if ya wanna know what I truly believe, I’ll tell ya. I truly believe they had WMD in Iraq and moved them. I could be wrong. Little clues keep poppin up. I guess I should say little clues that are ignored by mainstream media keep poppin up.

      I don’t think we should have to be the world’s policeman; this is why I voted for Paul. At the same time, I believe bullies who take innocent lives deserve swift and severe puishment.

      • So, Kells, tell me how Iraq was remotely relevant to 9/11, rather than a distraction from the real problem (mostly Saudi terrorists, trained in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden then hid before going on to Pakistan).

        • We went to Afghanistan first. Iraq was a known trining ground for, and state sponsor of, terrorism and was in violation of any number of UN resolutions. Bush stood up for the UN – I thought you lefties liked the UN – and stepped up – with a coalition – to enforce compliance after a warning period. Saddam had a chance to comply but he counted on the UN to go soft as it always had. Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force.

          But Jimmy, we have been over this: http://therionorteline.com/2012/06/22/responding-to-mcpherson-progressive-ph-d/

          I’m sure that you just forgot.

          Don’t worry about anything though, Obama has it covered – his focus is razor sharp – on his drive: http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/new-yorkers-still-in-the-dark-as-obama-hits-the-links/

          • Thanks for repeating the link, Utah. I trust that readers will scroll down to the bottom comment, where I pointed out how much you got wrong, and how you had misrepresented me and my views. No, I didn’t forget your dishonesty.

            And I don’t get why you people keep thinking I’m going to defend every action of a president I didn’t vote for. But keep tossing out the irrelevant BS in an effort to deflect attention from the point made–I don’t blame you for trying.

            • I didn’t deflect from anything – I’m sorry you don’t have the capacity for reason.

              You are defending an ideology, one shared by the current president. A common tactic on your side, to challenge for specifics without giving any. You didn’t vote for Obama, but you share his views, so we can’t argue about what he does…

              I feel sorry for your students…and their parents for the money they are wasting.

              • “You didn’t vote for Obama, but you share his views”f

                Some of Obama’s views, some of Romney’s and some of yours. Not enough to vote for any of you.

                “I feel sorry for your students…and their parents”

                Fortunately for me, they don’t feel the same way. And your opinion doesn’t matter to them or me.

                • Well, James, I’ll leave you with this before I call it a night.

                  For the record, I really could care less about what you think or have to say because you have less than zero credibility with me.

                  You have no interest in exploring alternatives; you seem to be nothing but an ideological hack, a poseur. You seem to have little energy to conduct any sort of independent inquiry – you have a fleeting association with the truth and a tenuous grip on reality. You share and profess an ideology in common with the Obama administration. News flash Jimmy, when you unquestionably quote the party spin and toe the “progressive” line, you stop being a journalist and start being a propagandist – and for that reason, you are not a journalist or a professor, you are just another de facto government employee, scarcely better than a civil servant at the DMV. Sure, you get paid by a private university but we have already established that over 70% of the funding at the school is from federally guaranteed student loans or grants, so let’s not kid ourselves – if it weren’t for the federal government your journalism education would mean that you would be busing tables.

                  You don’t test a hypothesis, you decide what the answer is going to be and then do just enough to confirm your bias.

                  I don’t have that conflict, I am not a “journalist” and I am admittedly a partisan. My allegiance is to philosophy and reason, not the theoretically impartial reporting of facts as you purport to teach the young minds filled with mush that come before you…but I suppose you teach “activist” journalism so that they can find the “higher truth” as they report the half-truths and lies…just like the New York Times.

                  And about that credibility thing:

                  So you wrote a book about how crappy conservatives are. To quote Joe Biden – “big fucking deal”, that kind of propaganda is a dime a dozen. We are used to being treated as Neanderthals while we actually do things of value for you to enjoy while you look down at us. While you were toiling away in academia, ruining young minds and writing books about what other people do and think – imparting absolutely no tangible value to society – I have been running companies that employed thousands of people, paid hundreds of millions in taxes, paid hundreds of millions to vendors and sub-contractors and returned hundreds of millions to stockholders and the economy.

                  Here’s what gets me – you and other “progressive” academics/Democrat sycophants feel free to lecture others about things that you know only from viewing out the window of academia. You don’t live your convictions in an open, competitive environment every day like I do where tenure doesn’t protect poor performance, yet you and your ilk presume to lecture people like me about how we are wrong about any number of things. My performance is measured all the time by my company and my clients, by month, by quarter and by year – in millions of dollars, not course evaluations turned in by enamored co-ed undergraduates.

                  You see, Jimmy – my performance feedback is real time, measurable and tangible. My world is a win/lose proposition. I build real value and my decisions have real consequences – so you see, I have real world experience with my values, even when they are exposed to different religions and cultures.

                  Your side also deigns tell me that I owe more to the government because I don’t care about poor people – when I donate to my church and 6 different charities.

                  Well, James, I can tell you that I have made a 30 year career of performance and achievement based on conservative values and Christian beliefs. I hold degrees in mechanical engineering, finance, and economics, along with an international focused MBA but knowledge without application is just words on a page. I also have traveled to over 80 countries, doing business in 30 or so and that allows me a little wider view of how things work in the world. I’ve negotiated with Russians, Chinese communists, Indians, Japanese, Koreans, Arabs and Israelis. I’ve lived abroad in Scotland and China and not writing about it James, doing it. Living with the consequences of my decisions and stressing over the impact that those decisions have on my employees.

                  How many sleepless nights have you had worrying about your employees, Jimmy?

                  Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any. Sorry.

                  In some way, I help put the gas in your tank every week and technology that my company designed even shut off the Macondo blow-out in the Gulf, if you have been defended by the military or driven a car with an airbag, you have benefited from my 16 years in the defense and automotive industries, if you have flown anywhere around the country or the world, you have an 80% chance of touching something that I designed, built or managed being created.

                  Pretty sure that trumps an obscure book or two. I read your book – the world would have been better off of you would have saved the single tree the paper came from.

                  But, wow, I’m just an ignorant conservative – how could I possibly compete with a brain like you?

                  With my background, it really shouldn’t surprise anyone that I thought Romney was the right man for the job.
                  So your ideology won an election – we lost – but there will be another one in 2 years and another in 4, In case you missed it, the control of Congress stayed the same – we still hold the House, same as before November 6th, so I doubt that much will change.

                  Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, I would not be very disappointed to see you take yours (and drugboy as well – seems a match made in heaven) and scurry along to that Media Matters for America knock-off echo chamber that you call a “journalism” blog.

                  Nite, James. Sleep tight. Don’t let the evil conservatives get you. I hear that if you wear your Che tee shirt to bed, it wards off the ghost of Reagan.

                  • You guys dance naked all the time. That’s why I had to join the Southern Baptists – they don’t believe in dancing and as much as I like being naked, I can’t dance.

                    So, there you go. Baptist.

                • Go to bed!! I’ll have a nice surprise for you in the morning. You may not like it, but if you try to boot me, I’ll tell everyone of our divine misconception. Yes, we Lutherans can be especially cruel. :evil:

                • “I really could care less about what you think or have to say because you have less than zero credibility with me.”

                  So why could you “care less”? In your case, I COULDN’T possibly care less about what you think or have to say because you have less than zero credibility with me.” ;-)

                  “you stop being a journalist”

                  Funny–I keep pointing out to folks here that I haven’t been a journalist for decades. I guess you guys are just slow, huh?

                  “if it weren’t for the federal government your journalism education would mean that you would be busing tables”

                  Doubtful, though that would be an honorable job. If I weren’t working in journalism or public relations (I’ve done both corporate and non-profit PR), I might be doing one of the several other jobs I’ve held, which has included work in factories and sawmills and on farms. No high-falutin’ oil jobs, though, I have to admit, though I can change the oil in my Ford pickup.

                  “I am admittedly a partisan.”

                  Good for you. I don’t happen to believe either party is worth the partisanship you adhere to.

                  “So you wrote a book about how crappy conservatives are.”

                  Not really–but then if you actually read the book as you claim, you’d know that. Actually I was pretty complimentary of conservatives in some places, less so in others. I challenge you or any of your nimrod followers here (perhaps you can read it to them) to find a something that is incorrect in what I wrote.

                  “I don’t care about poor people.”

                  I’ve never made such a claim, of course. Guilty conscience?

                  “I donate to my church and 6 different charities.”

                  Cool. Me, too.

                  “I’m just an ignorant conservative.”

                  Awe, you’re being too hard on yourself.

                  “how could I possibly compete with a brain like you?”

                  Try reading a wider variety of sources, ignore pretty much every post on the RNL written by someone else, and try relying less on knee-jerk partisanship. Maybe you’ll get there. ;-)

                  “So your ideology won an election”

                  No, it didn’t–but you know that.

                  “we still hold the House, same as before November 6th, so I doubt that much will change.”

                  Yep, gerrymandering managed to save a House majority for the GOP. And I agree that little will change. In fact, I said before the election that would be true regardless of which guy was elected president.

                  “I would not be very disappointed to see you take yours … and scurry along”

                  I don’t blame you–it must be hard to have me pointing out the shortcomings of the RNL and its regulars so often.

                  “Don’t let the evil conservatives get you.”

                  That’s something I don’t worry about at all. For one thing, real conservatives have a tough time getting elected to positions where they can do much harm. Neo-cons I worry a bit more about.

                  “the ghost of Reagan”

                  You mean that guy who repeatedly raised taxes, supported gun control legislation, traded arms for hostages, increased the deficit, and failed to send even one budget to Congress that was smaller than what Congress actually passed? I suspect his ideas would haunt Republicans more than modern Dems, if they knew enough history to remember what he actually did.

          • “Well, what did toppling Mubarek in Egypt and Qadafi in Libya have to do with quelching terrorism?”

            I never said they were related in any way, did I?

    • Yep, the article is weak, however given the inhumanity of Obama … well, he does use, and discard people as his needs dictate. We’ll just have to go with our gut instincts on this until we learn more. There is a reason that Obama, and this issue is, and remains on the radar.

      Somehow, I expect another “Executive Privilege” edict forthcoming.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s