Frank Rich or Frank Bitch?

You decide.

But don't forget his background is from the macho world of the British theatre dahlink, replete with such precicous luvvies as Sir Ian McKellan from the Ist Mechanized Gay Actors' Brigade.

To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington... "Our army is composed of the scum of the earth -- the mere scum of the earth."

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Theatre boy is so irrelevant one can only wonder why his accusations of cowardice are newsworthy, but then again it is the New York Times.  Bitch boy, bitch, bitch, bitch...

Just ask Henry Clay and Aaron Burr...

Having questioned his honor General Petraeus should challenge him to a duel, I think that would temper those liberal tongue real quick like.

frank should be happy NB is giving his some real press since the only readers he's really getting are dead fish and parrots. thanks jack for the circulation info, who knew the paper was doing that bad. i still buy my suffering local liberal swinging paper from time to time, they refuse to call illegal aliens illegal aliens down here in phoenix, but quite literally it's to do the soduko and crossword and i'll save the paper to start my bbq charcoal. maybe if the paper were to publish information that was worthwhile i bet it would be successful cause i still miss the nostalgic feel of the paper over a computer screen.

anyway what we are seeing with the whole General Petreaus situation is liberal immature self interest at it's finest. this report was no secret, everyone knew who knew anything about military strategy that this was going to be successful. remember how mad nancy and harry were and tried to do everything to stop the increase before it started, because they knew they were going to be made to look like a fool because they have invested in defeat. well now the Gen has returned with the report that everyone has seen coming since it's inception and even a few of the liberal mouthpieces went over there and said it was working. and what do the liberals do, well these openminded liberals are so closeminded that they can't accept they were wrong, they can't deal with the facts and they fall into complete denial. this then sets off their own self interest immature pounting child routine that cranks up the right wing conspiracy "they lied" machine. i'm suprised they didn't get walter cronkite out to say the war is virtually unwinnable.

for those of you who don't know who he was, he was the cbs news anchor who reported that litl statement after the tet offensive failed against us troops in vietnam where we lost about 162 soldiers in the n vietnamese cease fire breech and they lost approx 19,000 fighters some estimates made it as high as 45,000. so it seems like a good time to drag out the old man to lie to the public some more.

nobody knows a lie better than a liberal.

lunaticcringeradio

Petraeus` boss, CENTCOM chief Admiral Fallon apparently doesn`t think much of Fallon either, and used the above words to his face, according to one recent news report:
http://ipsnews.net/n...

"Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

"The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress. ...

"Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia -- the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

"The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

"By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.

"Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region."

Food for thought about the behind the scene disagreements over priorities.

NYT repoters, staff, mgt and owners....all cowards......all traitors.  I wonder how far their sales will have to diminish before some shareholder stands up and says "what the hell is happening to our investment.  Look o the CEO.  Not brain surgery.

It seems that Mr. Rich tosses the word "coward" around quite a bit. Someone remind me, what war did he serve in? I don't proclaim to be the smartest person on earth, but a coward is better defined as a hate-monger who sits behind a desk writing venom about a person they know nothing about. Obviously, because of his idolotry of former president Clinton and co-president Hillary Clinton, draft dodging is more up Mr. Rich's alley, he really should write about that, something he knows about and leave things he has no concept of to the experts. Perhaps he should go back to being a theater critic and leave national security to the brave military men who have actually seen action.

Mark. I do believe I caught one Democratic Senator offering up a bit of sympathy to Gen. Petraeus, as he sat down for yet another long grilling session (all live on TV) in front of a senate committee. The implication being, of course, that it took courage just to be there, and continue.That being said, let's reflect on the real cowards in the political world today who are skilled in somehow finding themselves only in the company of friends and fans in the media when it is time to be swooned over by the press.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore come to mind, do they not?

Well, Mr. Rich, you've got to figure that General Petreaus had limited choices.  He could have gone on Fox News Channel and gotten an audience or he could have gone on MSDNC and DNCNN and gotten no audience. 

Maybe he could have interviewed with your paper, but since the New York Times attracts more canary crap than it does readers, General Petreaus would have been wasting his breath.

i don't follow the columinsts that much but it seems to me that the only times that i hear this guys name is in conjunction with some outrageous anti country, anti religeous, anti military rant.

he gives the appearance that whenever his job is getting shaky that he goes out and smears one of our american institutions thereby gaining personal stature.

small problem: as he chops down people, things, places for his personal aggrandizement his employer loses.

there is every appearance that this guy is in a sinking boat and the only bailing bucket is the one he has been using for target practice.

i hope there is no one around to pull him out when the invietable happens.

bet this guy gets real nervous in a room full of "rough men with guns in their hands".

C 

"Theatre critic for the New York Times, dear."

"Oh, I thought he was someone important"

was around when Truman nominated General Marshall to be Defense Secretary, would NewsBusters have found  Republican Senator William Jenner contemptible for calling General Marshal "a front man for traitors"?

Like I asked before.......wasnt Mr Rick the food critic??? what a moron...

I wonder...has this guy ever put on a uniform and risked his life for his Country? We are living in sad times, when good is evil and evil is good.

Hannity & Colmes put up this same quote (Fallon to Petraeus: "ass-kissing chicken-sh*t" and "I hate people like that" on their show on 9/14. Seems they think this report is sufficiently credible to broadcast it to the nation.

Did you guys also miss the long WaPo story last week and other news? http://www.washingto...

"a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq ... has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.

"One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. ... The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men.

"Bad relations?" said a senior civilian official with a laugh. "That's the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it." ...

"Fallon, who took command of Centcom in March, worried that Iraq was undermining the military's ability to confront other threats, such as Iran. "When he took over, the reality hit him that he had to deal with Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and a whole bunch of other stuff besides Iraq," said a top military officer.

"Fallon was also derisive of Iraqi leaders' intentions and competence, and dubious about the surge. "He's been saying from Day One, 'This isn't working,' " said a senior administration official. And Fallon signaled his departure from Bush by ordering subordinates to avoid the term "long war" -- a phrase the president used to describe the fight against terrorism. ...

"Fallon has made the case that Petraeus's recommendations should consider the political reality in Washington and lay out a guide to troop withdrawals, while Petraeus has resisted that, beyond a possible token pullout of a brigade early next year, according to military officials. The Joint Chiefs have been sympathetic to Fallon's view."

Name-calling aside (which apparently no one has denied, BTW), I think the reports of differences of opinion between Petraeus and Falllon are worth considering. It is based on these differences that Senator Jim Webb said he would ask that Admiral Fallon also be called to testify. Seems that there are some significant differences in opinion between the President and his military leaders.