I'm Rubber, You're Glue

....everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!

Or so that old playground retort goes. Actually, I first heard it on an episode of All In The Family. It figures that Mike "Meathead" Stivic, the family leftnutter, was the one to employ it.

Apparently the practice hasn't gone out of style on the left (via Double-H):

The word 'betray' used by MoveOn in the ad implies many meanings, but does not directly imply 'traitor' - unless that definition is introduced.

Voila! Another effort by U.S. citizens to question Bush's policy in Iraq has been silenced by right-wing, coordinated accusations that critics of the war seek to harm the country, this time by slandering the U.S. military.

Dictionary.com has eight meanings for the word "betray":

1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.

2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.

3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.

4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.

5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her
nervousness betrays her insecurity.

6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays
his lack of concern.

7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.

8. to seduce and desert.

I suppose it's true that not every one of the eight iterations explies treason (#1 above). Of the remainder, #2 isn't applicable unless Dems have deluded themselves into believing that General Petraeus was obligated either to fail with the "Surge" or, if he succeeded despite his best efforts, come back and lie about it to them and the country. #3 works, other than the fact that the libs have made it abundantly clear that they are no friends of his. #4 and #5 are antonymical unless, again, the Dems think he's duty-bound to tell them what they want to hear. #6 is what the general is, in fact, doing, which is what has the anti-war crowd so frothingly pissed. #7 is what they are so frothingly pissed that he isn't doing. As to #8, I doubt that the general has mistaken that Capitol hearing room for a singles bar, though there are quite a few "gentlemen" on the other side of the dais who have a lot more experience at such things than he does.

But we must return to that nagging little factor known as context. As I wrote yesterday:

What interests me, though, is how they have redefined "treason" [or "betrayal"] to mean failure to conform to the Left's....well, treasonous agenda, by reporting the actual facts on the ground in Iraq rather than telling the libs what their itching ears want to hear. General Petraeus doing his appointed duty by going before Congress and telling the truth is, indeed, considered a "betrayal" by the nutters because that isn't what they think he was sent to Iraq to do. He was supposed to fail; he was supposed to confirm for all time that there's no such thing as a military solution to any foreign policy problem; he was supposed to do the job (i.e. take a dive) for al
Qaeda and the Iranian mullahgarchy as penance for George W. Bush's "sins" and prove once and for all that America cannot, and must not, EVER defend its national security and strategic national interests anywhere in the world at any time for any reason - even to prevent more mass-casualty terrorist attacks in the homeland....

The Fifth Columnists aren't getting what they want, what they've lusted after for half a decade, and they're throwing a temper tantrum.

Liberals don't just subordinate country to party; they conflate the interests of the two as well. In their minds they believe with undeprogrammable zealotry that what is good for them politically is, ipso facto, good for the country, because, as little slices of God, they are omniscent as well as morally supreme, and are therefore entitled by divine right to omnipotence over America as well. Consequently they look upon political opposition the same way the Islamists look at "infidels," and with similar sentiments. Which goes a long way towards explaining the de facto alliance between Islamic Fundamentalists and the Western Left, and why Democrats are so fanatically determined to hand Iraq and Afghanistan (and Israel) over to our enemies, and party until the jihadis return to finish the job they started six years ago.

In the eyes of the Left, General Petraeus is the Devil's Advocate, and the Devil just happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

THAT is the context in which moveon.org used the word "betray" in their detestable New York Times ad. I think the only reason they didn't use an even stronger perjorative, aside from a puerile fondness for ironic puns, is because the "paper of record" isn't (yet) ready to run ads using hyphenated twelve-letter words whose first word is "mother".

And THAT, in turn, is what they describe as "questioning Bush's policy in Iraq," about which, in anything resembling factual terms, they have nothing to say because they've already been completely discredited. Character assassination is all they have left - and really, all they've EVER had from the beginning.

I'm still waiting for the evidence of how the nutters have been "silenced" by our calling of their spades as spades. Near as I can tell, the only silence out there is from Donk officeholders and presidential candidates refusing to condemn moveon.org's viciously dishonorable and unforgivable smear, thus linking themselves by their own implicit approval to their comrades' mercenary determination to betray their own country and see countless more of their countrymen die at the hand of foreign enemies if by facilitation of same their party can somehow add to their power.

There is another old saying: "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones". Sound advice for traitors dishonestly attacking their enemies with the same label.

Figures they didn't take it.