Well said, Steve. I agree with you.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 11, 2007 08:27 AMWestmoreland, Westmoreland, Westmoreland! When the good General had his exclusive interview with the bush/cheney fox news propaganda network, he opened the door for legitimate criticism for his dog and pony show! He should be nailed to the wall as a political hack general cleve
Posted by cleve at September 11, 2007 08:31 AMI agree. MoveOn did us no favors with its ad. I suspect those in charge became enamored with the cleverness of it and failed to anticipate that most people would find it offensive. General Patraeus is not the enemy here. He is merely the puppet dancing at the end of George Bush's strings. He may be trying to put lipstick on a pig, but that's what he has been told to do and, like any good soldier, he is trying his best to do it. Tough job.
Posted by PretzelsOne at September 11, 2007 08:33 AMI dunno, Bush/Cheney and the neocon cabal is now so closely tied and connected to Petraeus (who I believe allowed himself to be put in that position) I think it was a valid add. I think the majority of people believe Petraeus is Bush/Cheney's new sockpuppet, heck that is how and probably one of the only reasons he got the job. Petreaus=Bush/Cheney=Iraq. So by "attacking" Petraeus most people automatically infer attacking Bush/Cheney.
Plus just because you are a General and wearing a uniform it still doesn't allow you to lie about statistics and obscure the facts on the ground and the reality when testifying in front of congress and the American public. (Thinking Colin Powell)
If anything the add shook up the debate a bit and in the right direction and I'm all for that because as you note democrats just aren't angry enough to show some outrage over this never ending failed war.
It got people's attention that's for sure and at this point it is needed. It may be a distraction to some of those in the dc establishment and the repuke party who use this type of rhetoric on a daily basis (how many times have democratic leaders and we all been accused of being traitors by billo, coulter, limbaugh, and repuke congress critters when we question dear leader or his henchman etc) yet I don't hear any outrage over that.
Sometimes drastic and harsh language is needed.
And, lastly, the american public is far ahead of the washington pundit and dc media and beltway political establishment on this issue of Iraq. It is a firmly entrenched viewpoint, the cost of this fiasco certainly wasn't and isn't worth continuing or sustaining it. I don't think the add will hurt or distract.
a high ranking General goes before Congress and gives testimony that is at high odds with facts reported by numerous sources including the US GAO and even fellow military men. That testimony just so happens to exactly dovetail with the wishes of his Commander in Chief. The intended result is to keep US GI's in harms way indefinitly for only loosely explained reasons. I'll tell you who Petraeus is betraying...its the men and women that serve under him. From a PR point, MoveOn was stupid to do this, but the guy is a political shill at this point, hiding behind his stars.
Posted by T2 at September 11, 2007 08:52 AMI agree. That ad did nothing but rally the knuckledraggers who think anyone in a uniform is incapable of making a bad decision.
We need smart ads that can bring change, not taunts that are born out of frustration. I know their hearts are in the right place, but this was not productive.
Posted by TIKI AL at September 11, 2007 08:56 AMSteve, you and Jeff make a good case and so does emal and T2. I guess we'll see, won't we?
And you know, fuck Joe Biden. I saw him this weekend on Meat the Wankers, I think, and when asked if he'll vote for the funding coming up, he went off on a tangent about armored vehicles for the troops, whose "eyes lit up" when they got the newer vehicles and Good Ol' Joe wasn't about to disappoint those twinkly-eyed soldiers!
Conveniently, no one mentioned the recent story about how those vehicles aren't getting to Iraq quite as quickly as promised.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 09:02 AMThe Nation writes:
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has produced a detailed assessment to suggest that Petraeus and his aides have, in fact, been cooking the books in order to create the false impression that sectarian violence in Iraq is dramatically down. The truth is that the violence is not declining, as intelligence sources confirmed to the Washington Post in a series of interviews last week.
If Petraeus can't take the heat that comes from cooking the books for the Bush administration then that's just too damn bad. It's outrageous to go after MoveOn.org for demanding accountability from Patraeus. Why should he get a pass?
I agree, it's not constructive,they could have scored some points I didn't get a message from them asking us to vote on this ad as they sometimes do, a waste of member's money.
Posted by john griffith at September 11, 2007 09:15 AMDo you really not get how this would have played out without the MoveOn ad? How many times do Democrats have to see the script before they know how it ends? It goes like this, everybody is nice and polite, Petraeus is hailed as brilliant and patriotic, a few on the Hill ask him "tough" questions, he bobs and weaves but essentially sticks by his assessment and conclusions (all of which are deeply flawed, based on cherry picking, massaged and distorted "facts" and weak or faulty logic) and then Congress gives GWB whatever he wants. The war goes on and more people suffer.
Then all the "lefty" bloggers bemoan the spinelessness of DEMs on the Hill. Wring their hands and cry, "but I don't understand."
But let anyone, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink or MoveOn, interject a variation to the script and "lefty" bloggers are the first to attack them as not "helpful." In this way, "lefty" bloggers display that same spinelessness as DEMs in Congress. The same ole, same ole, that says we must be courteous and polite to the lying, killers because that way they will "see the light" and stop lying and killing.
In case any "lefty" bloggers haven't noticed, IT'S NOT WORKING. Petraeus is a lying sack of shit just like those he works for. To pretend otherwise or not say it loudly and in their faces, means that this war will go on for at least another two years. To run and hide whenever anyway has the audacity to speak the truth is to enable those who lie and kill. And those lying killers are happy to shake their bloody hands with "lefty" bloggers.
Posted by Marie at September 11, 2007 09:29 AMI agree with Marie.
The Democrats will NOT end our occupation of Iraq.
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 11, 2007 09:40 AMThe good general is playing politician and deserves what he gets. His job is to head up the occupation as ordered by Bush not to justify it.
Posted by JohnT at September 11, 2007 09:41 AMKudos to MoveOn for showing that some liberals do have the courage and backbone to name Petraeus what he is -- a person who consistantly betrays the public trust.
Liberals should try standing up for MoveOn's right to free speech. Instead, liberals are all too willing to stab their most provocative activists (Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, Cindy Sheehan, and others) in the back when their messages displeases Repiglicans and the conservative meda.
Repiglicans suffer no such reciprocity.
We need to stand together and defend activists' right to free expression -- you don't have say whether you agree with them -- or find ourselves standing alone.
Posted by fafnir at September 11, 2007 09:43 AMFrom Marie:
In case any "lefty" bloggers haven't noticed, IT'S NOT WORKING. Petraeus is a lying sack of shit just like those he works for. To pretend otherwise or not say it loudly and in their faces, means that this war will go on for at least another two years. To run and hide whenever anyway has the audacity to speak the truth is to enable those who lie and kill. And those lying killers are happy to shake their bloody hands with "lefty" bloggers.
Marie, MoveOn contributed nothing to the debate yesterday except give the GOP another set of talking points. Tell me how MoveOn accomplished anything yesterday, when the public by the CBS News/NYT poll already thought Petraeus was a tool for the administration before MoveOn made him a victim, and made themselves the story and not the policies themselves.
And I'm sorry if lefty bloggers have let you down once again by pointing out that we shoot ourselves in the foot way too many times; that we don't have the political power or numbers to stop this war; and for pointing out for the umpteenth time how the Democrats have failed us.
Just because I don't think Cindy Sheehan or MoveOn walk on water doesn't mean I'm part of the problem here.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 11, 2007 09:57 AMI feel the simple choice of title "...Betray Us" blew it. All anyone focused on in the MSM was the title, not the substance of the ad. Even a "hit piece" could have been done better by this supposedly effective group. Who exactly were they trying to sway with this, who did they move in the right direction? No one.
Posted by RollaMO at September 11, 2007 10:00 AMDo you really not get how this would have played out without the MoveOn ad?
So, Marie, you're saying without the MoveOn ad, the Democrats wouldn't have known that Petaeus was a lying sack o' shit? Amazing. That's one magical ad, that is. Wonder how many of the Dems actually saw it before the hearing yesterday.
And though you may not agree, I think when Sheehan, Code Pink and MoveOn, as well as PETA and Greenpeace and other far left groups (and they are far left as opposed to my center left position) do extreme things - just as when the far right do extreme things like stand outside a hospice sending their kids to give a comatose woman cups of water - it turns the mushy middle off, and puts in their minds the image of the extremist.
And those lying killers are happy to shake their bloody hands with "lefty" bloggers.
I wonder. Is your use of scare quotes around the word "lefty" meant to imply that this is not a left leaning site? And are you implying that by not cheering MoveOn's ad, Steve and those who agree are in league with the administration? Because that's pretty goddamn extreme, if you ask me.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 10:04 AMIt looks like betrayal. It walks like betrayal. It talks like betrayal. It's betrayal. But, of course by all means let's be "constructive" and be polite and respectful to General Betray, er, Petraeus as he lies to our faces, oh strike that, cherry picks information, so that another 1000 of our men and women can die. Over the top? Not constructive? Since when is the truth over the top? Or not constructive? Funny, isn't it telling that I bet I could tell you which Dem each of the commenters is supporting by there take on the Moveon ad .... Personally, I'll be voting for Edwards so that maybe speaking the truth will not be considered over the top or not constructive.
Posted by Howd at September 11, 2007 10:07 AMSteve, we seem to agree here on the ad. For those of you wondering about the expense, it seems the NYTimes gave them a discount. They charged something like $68K for the ad when their normal rate for a full page is $173K. And many of you say this paper is a shrill for the right. That's a significant discount.
Kerry, Reid and others agree with you too. He recieved his fourth star from this Congress. He recieved his command with unanimous consent from this Congress. Crocker worked for the Clinton Admin before Bush. Why didn't they attack him?
This ad was an unforced error.
Posted by peter at September 11, 2007 10:10 AM
Gen. P is helping the Bush Gang keep up the Iraq arson job until it becomes the Dems' problem after 2008. Then they'll campaign on how badly the Dems did in putting out fire that the Republicans-Neo Cons-Bush Gang started. Since Gen. P. would like to be the GOP nominee in 2012, his performance has a bit of self-interest. MoveOn understated the case, if anything. But the Dem leadership is as clueless as ever, less spine than vanilla pudding, a greater ability to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory than the 1939 French High Command. One term for Hilary and a real nasty one to boot.
Posted by John Shreffler at September 11, 2007 10:12 AMIs this our divide, those who want truth spoken to power for its own sake and those who focus on the purely political effectiveness of such speech?
Posted by RollaMO at September 11, 2007 10:14 AMI agree with Marie's comments. This general is a political hack and it's great that MoveOn pointed this out in BIG LETTERS. Is this really a case of "shooting ourselves in the foot?" NO. Perhaps that is the impression if one spends too much time listening to the MSM sycophant punditry. But Bush is trying to hide behind "the General" and it's important to not play into that. Just because some guy is in uniform (Petraeus, in this case) does not mean we have to cower from exposing him for what he is. It is not a distraction. It is noot "personal." Petraeus IS part of "the issue."
Posted by TrainWreck at September 11, 2007 10:15 AMTo Howd, it seem candidate John Edwards is carry around with him a list of potential Cabinet members including several Republicans. Will he be betraying you if he's elected and names them?
Posted by peter at September 11, 2007 10:16 AMSteve, you are sooo right on this one. What conceivable good can come from publicly calling General Petraeus a traitor? Is there so much as one fence sitter (whether in Congress or in the general public) who would likely come around to a positon of opposing the Iraq war or favoring a near-term withdrawal of troops from Iraq because of MoveOn's characterization of the General? On the contrary, this plays right into the hands of those wingnuts who want to tar anyone who opposes the war as unpatriotic military haters. Petraeus is fair game for honest, fair minded criticism, but MoveOn's ad is simply over the top and counter productive.
Posted by redstater at September 11, 2007 10:33 AMBloggers live in a bubble. Generally, those on the left side of the aisle serve little purpose except to preach to the choir. The public at large hears little more than what the GOP and MIC enabling MSM puts out there. This week that would have been that Petraeus walks on water. Just like Powell did in 2002 and 2003. The only way to break through that dynamic by being bold and blunt in a media forum that's outside the pre-existing bubbles.
Whenever that's done, the MSM is guaranteed to jump in and declare that it's "over the top," controversial and doesn't reflect the views of the majority but only a fringe group. And who do they look to to confirm their assessment? Why "lefty" bloggers, of course. Not that they disagree with the content of MoveOn's ad, only that it wasn't "helpful" or wasn't phrased more politely. Because, god forbid, we should be outrageous in pushing back on the outrageousness of a General that will lie to keep an illegal and insane war going.
The difference between the right and left is that on their side, they don't denounce the outrageous even if it's nothing more than a pack of lies. That's why the SBV were effective. Whereas, on our side, they can count on us to denounce the outrageous regardless of whether it's fact or fiction. Heads they win and tails we lose.
Posted by Marie at September 11, 2007 10:34 AMSo much time and energy and treasure and blood was wasted waiting for "mid-September" and the great and awesome "Petreaus report."
No media or administration spokesperson said "just wait for the GAO report."
Petraeus was a straw man, a house of cards, easy to topple over as crap.
When I watched Cornyn make an ass of himself (and his Party) by attempting to add an (out of order) amendment to the Transportation bill this morning repudiating MoveOn for the ad, I knew that they had hit a nerve that was worth hitting.
Knock down their whole argument and make some headway. I think that the ad washed away the last illusions that these hearings were meaningful at all. They are not.
When I hear the Senator from TX speak about the "outrage" of a friggin paid advertisement vs the outrage of an occupation of a sovereign country and the murder of millions of innocent people in order to fatten pocketbooks and gain power there is no contest as to where the outrage lays.
I say that it is better to have some lies pointed out and have people made aware of them than to keep silent. Perhaps I would have done a different ad - but everyone knows that no matter what truth be put forward; if they had show pictures of caskets of piles of Iraqi bodies in the morgue - whatever truth that they pointed out it would have been labled "an outrage."
I do not think that this ad pulled attention away from anything...perhaps it encouraged more people to pay attention. Petraeus was apparently not even sworn in yesterday - all the better to encourage truth telling.
This occupation is an outrage.
Posted by Anjha at September 11, 2007 10:40 AM"the MSM is guaranteed to jump in and declare that it's "over the top,""
Senator(president) Kerry said it's over the top on CNN yesterday. He was totally upset over this mischaractization. Majority Leader Reid also was pissed at this ad. It wasn't what he needed to combat the "surge is working" crowd. It's almost as if Moveon.org was working FOR this admin. What a nice helping hand they provided.
Posted by peter at September 11, 2007 10:41 AM"Whenever that's done, the MSM is guaranteed to jump in and declare that it's "over the top," controversial and doesn't reflect the views of the majority but only a fringe group. And who do they look to to confirm their assessment? Why "lefty" bloggers, of course." Who is citing lefty bloggers as confirmation today? Haven't seen it.
Posted by RollaMO at September 11, 2007 10:44 AMYep, that ad was as effective as blowing up a clinic to change minds in the middle.
Nothing but simplistic namecalling. Get smart.
Posted by TIKI AL at September 11, 2007 10:54 AMyou can always depend on the Left to bring a knife to a gun fight
go ahead and clutch your pearls
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 11, 2007 10:59 AMif move.on doesn't do it? who will? That is the problem, that somehow the military is beyond reproach? The Constitution indicates civilian control over the military, not the other way around.
Posted by mje at September 11, 2007 10:59 AMMoveOn would've been criticized regardless. Any response from MoveOn is deemed sufficient cause for Repiglicans, weak-knee Democrats and the media to complain. What doesn't help is when liberal bloggers chime in and sanctify criticisms from regressives and the media.
Posted by fafnir at September 11, 2007 10:59 AMWow, Fafnir, that sound like you're wanting people in lock step with Moveon. No matter what they say, just follow them and we'll be alright. How Cheney of you.
Posted by peter at September 11, 2007 11:05 AMBut, of course by all means let's be "constructive" and be polite and respectful
So, you're saying that we should be "destructive," then? And could you point out where Steve told anyone to be polite and respectful? Not that it's a bad idea, though, if you expect regular people to listen to you.
I bet I could tell you which Dem each of the commenters is supporting by there take on the Moveon ad
I like Edwards, just like you. Hmmm.
Is this our divide, those who want truth spoken to power for its own sake and those who focus on the purely political effectiveness of such speech?
Are you saying these are mutually exclusive? Maybe the disagreement is more likely the method of speaking truth to power, and how to be politically effective while doing so? Is that wrong?
This general is a political hack and it's great that MoveOn pointed this out in BIG LETTERS.
Actually, the BIG LETTERS called a decorated US soldier a traitor. Funny, when the right did that to John Kerry, it was a bad thing.
Who is citing lefty bloggers as confirmation today?
On Hardball, Markos, just shrugged it off and talked about what was really important.
The difference between the right and left is that on their side, they don't denounce the outrageous even if it's nothing more than a pack of lies.
So we should be more like Republicans, is that what you're saying? Sorry, no can do. Besides, I thought we were all about the truth on our side.
MoveOn would've been criticized regardless.
So let's give them good reason? Yep, I've always been a fan of the "I'll give you something to cry about," style of parenting as well. *smirk*
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 11:06 AM"Are you saying these are mutually exclusive? Maybe the disagreement is more likely the method of speaking truth to power, and how to be politically effective while doing so? Is that wrong?" No, and you've got the jist of it. The point is that this ad, which contains important truths, is ineffective due to its choice of wording. You knew what would be picked up on the minute you saw the title "Betray Us." Not smart.
Posted by at September 11, 2007 11:15 AMThanks Coyote! Really thanks!
"So, you're saying that we should be "destructive," then? And could you point out where Steve told anyone to be polite and respectful? Not that it's a bad idea, though, if you expect regular people to listen to you."
I agree entirely.
Again thanks, hope thats OK.
Posted by peter at September 11, 2007 11:16 AMOh for God's sake! I agree with Marie. Before there was Move On or Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore, we, who were opposed to the occupation of Iraq were mischaracterized as unpatriotic, traitors, lefties, terrorist sympathizers, and radicals. Some here also criticized their tactics. Petraeus did betray us with his White House propaganda script just as the highly decorated Powell did. Those medals and ribbons meant nothing did they as the press and right wing publicly stripped Kerry and Cleland of their honor.
I heard the same criticism here when Colbert demonstrated his genius at the Correspondents' Dinner.
Time for truthiness. Stop being feaful of what the press has been doing to those who oppose Bush. Someone wrote an article a few years ago about the Dems acting like an abused spouse. We're doing it again!
I agree with Steve, for the most part. The ad looks like it's trying to out-do Limbaugh and Coulter, only it doesn't come off well at all, just looks kind of like a juvenile copy-cat. Stuff like that can be said by an angry individual, but coming from such a large group, it looks silly. Part of the problem also is that it targets the wrong suspect. It should be aimed at the enabling Democratic Congress. They've built up quite an index of betrayal of their voters since we voted them back into power.
I DO think he should have been sworn in, as a policy for all individuals testifying before Congress from now on until this ends, without exception. But, there really is too much gate-keeping by some lefty blogs (which shall remain nameless, as there are many here who worship them) but I don't see criticism of this ad as such.
I was wondering what Bagless was going on about last night.
Posted by Julie at September 11, 2007 11:32 AMThanks Maggie
All MoveOn did was throw the "Betray us" words out beyond the blog bubble. All we had to do was applaud them for doing to and respond any criticism of it by saying, "So, you approve of a General 'fixing the facts' to fit the WH policy of never-ending war in Iraq?" Is that the twenty-first century definition of patriotism in American?"
Too bad an ad calling Powell a lying sack of shit didn't appear in 1/03. Might have given someone pause before beginning "shock and awe."
If "lefty" blogges can't handle the truth, what hope is there for all Americans to handle it?
Posted by Marie at September 11, 2007 11:39 AMFuck off, peter, ya tool. The adults are trying to have a discussion here.
What doesn't help is when liberal bloggers chime in and sanctify criticisms from regressives and the media.
Who's sanctifying anything? Jeff and Steve have given their opinions, and I find I agree with them after my first knee-jerk response of defending MoveOn before I'd even looked at the ad. Are you saying Steve's and Jeff's opinions are not allowed on their own blog?
I heard the same criticism here when Colbert demonstrated his genius at the Correspondents' Dinner.
Wha?? Not here, unless it was a troll.
Stop being feaful of what the press has been doing to those who oppose Bush.
Who's being fearful of what the press will say? Steve said: "MoveOn made itself the story." He's absolutely right. It's all anyone was talking about yesterday, and again here today.
I was wondering what Bagless was going on about last night.
Who gives a shit, really? He's a dumbass troll.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 11:40 AMNo one here, me especially, is afraid of the press or how they will react if we get aggressive in our efforts. But those efforts must be smart and aimed at the right people with the right message. A personal attack at General Petraeus didn't add anything to yesterday's debate, nor did it influence any of the Democratic or Republicans on that committee.
For the money that MoveOn dumped on that NYT ad, they could have run ads over the weekend in the key newspapers in each important representative and senator, asking those folks to focus on the key questions and costs of this war that the Bush Administration continually avoids. Instead, MoveOn wanted headlines.
And they got them.
Yet we are supposed to cheer when MoveOn slams a general, and when Cindy Sheehan shuts down a Capitol Hill newsconference by the new Democratic leadership because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid haven't stopped the war?
Who is really living in a bubble here?
Posted by Steve Soto at September 11, 2007 11:44 AMAll MoveOn did was throw the "Betray us" words out beyond the blog bubble.
Well, not really. The folks in my office and my kids and their friends have been giggling about the Petraeus/Betray Us idiocy all summer. And they don't read blogs.
If "lefty" blogges can't handle the truth, what hope is there for all Americans to handle it?
Who's not "handling the truth?" I thought we were disagreeing on the methods of disseminating "the truth."
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 11:58 AMWhat do you prefer to call someone who is in a position of authority and responsibility and who is lying and whose lies will result in the deaths of Americans for whom he is responsible? Plus he is acting as a spokesman for this administration so he is fair game. Just because he wears a uniform does that make him any less culpable or responsible than Bush Cheney to harsh criticism? He's put himself out there and taken on that responsibilty and with responsibility comes accountability. He also should have some integrity and obviously as with all loyal bushies that is not a requirement for any position in this administration.
Is General Petraeaus deceiving the American people and will that deception most likely assist in perpetrating a failed policy and lead to the deaths of American troops..imo yupp, is that dereliction of duty? Betrayal to his oath as commander? Or ????. What would you prefer to call his actions and his words? Is he just the loyal soldier Colin Powell was considered (but loyal to a fault is also an issue) and where in the manual does it talk about lying during congressional testimony in order to proceed with what is a failed policy? Doesn't he also have a responsibility to the goddamn truth...and don't we all have a responsibility(and a right) to speak out when we feel someone in that position is doing things in our names that we know are wrong and are based on lies.
And very lastly, coyote..I agree petey such a total tool ruins the entire thread (most likely his goal).
Posted by emal at September 11, 2007 11:59 AMSteve, sorry no - they could have run ads over the weekend in the key newspapers in each important representative and senator,
First that wouldn't have changed the opinion of anyone that reads those newspapers (a small minority). Second, it wouldn't have gotten on the TV which is where most Americans over a certain age live. Third, if those members of Congress had any interest in asking such questions, they would ask them. It's not as if they don't have colleagues or staffs that don't know about those questions.
MoveOn got on the TV the cheapest way possible because those who report the news on the TV live in NYC and DC and look at the NYT and WaPo. (They will also pay attention to any small market TV piece of crap run by wingers because it's the MSM's job to shill for the government.)
The sad reality is that Congress has no interest in stopping the occupation of Iraq. The Democrats are perfectly content to cry "we don't have the votes" and expect the public to conclude that it's all the fault of the GOP and GWB and then they will respond by voting DEM in '08. Of course, they're counting on Bu$hCo not doing a 180 and drawing the troops down below 50,000 before then.
Posted by Marie at September 11, 2007 12:29 PM"First that wouldn't have changed the opinion of anyone that reads those newspapers"
Valid point, but neither has this ad. It doesn't work. It pleases some, pisses some off, and annoys the very people we want to move.
Posted by RollaMO at September 11, 2007 12:37 PMFirst that wouldn't have changed the opinion of anyone that reads those newspapers (a small minority).
You're making two assumptions here:
1) That it wouldn't have changed the opinions of local newspaper readers and
2) That it did change the opinions of the people who saw it in the Times or on tv.
Do you have any data that suggests opinions were changed? Do you have data to support your assumption that local newspapers don't change the opinions of their readers?
Second, it wouldn't have gotten on the TV which is where most Americans over a certain age live.
How do you know this? MoveOn has been getting mentioned more and more on tv, why wouldn't their ad be noticed, considering the advertising they did for the ad.
Third, if those members of Congress had any interest in asking such questions, they would ask them.
What proof do you have that members of Congress have been moved to ask such questions due to this ad?
MoveOn got on the TV the cheapest way possible because those who report the news on the TV live in NYC and DC and look at the NYT and WaPo.
So you're saying the purpose of the ad was to get on tv? I thought it was to speak "truth to power." And once on tv in the context of "controversy" somehow catapults the truth? Especially if, as you suggest, the Dems wouldn't ask the hard questions unless they saw the ad. You think purposely creating a controversy will make them more likely to ask the questions the ad demands be asked?
The sad reality is that Congress has no interest in stopping the occupation of Iraq.
If this is true, then why run the ad at all?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 12:58 PMI wouldn’t jump in a foxhole with General Petraeus. Just like Westmoreland's testimony contributed to an additional 28,000 American deaths, betrayal is not too strong a word. It's free speech baby. Ike Skelton calling middle aged women a**holes during the hearing is a greater
insult than any one page ad directed at a four star general.
Marie, lord knows I didn't get into blogging to throw rocks back and forth at people I respect, so let's just agree to disagree on this. Same with you emal. We're not going to agree here, but I will agree with both of you on one thing:
There are too many Democrats who want this war to drag out for political purposes in 2008.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 11, 2007 01:30 PMPeople in America are so conditioned to lying these days that telling the truth makes you confrontational.
I read the MoveOn.org ad and have to agree with Marie. All they did was have the guts to say the truth. Scary stuff in today's Amerika, I guess. Who cares how many ribbons are on the uniform if the man wearing it is a liar? And why should an organization be chastised for saying so? Too impolite? What a quaint notion.
Napoleon wrote, "A commander in chief cannot take as an excuse for his mistakes in warfare an order given by his minister or his sovereign, when the person giving the order is absent from the field of operations and is imperfectly aware or wholly unaware of the latest state of affairs. It follows that any commander in chief who undertakes to carry out a plan which he considers defective is at fault; he must put forward his reasons, insist on the plan being changed, and finally tender his resignation rather than be the instrument of the army's downfall."
There's no excuse for a military commander in Petraeus' position just "following orders" or "doing his job like a good little soldier." Men in these positions need to have a spine, and show some moral courage, and be loyal to the men and women who make up the army. Petraeus can not hide behind the excuse he's just doing what his commander wants no more than Bush/Cheney can hide behind Petraeus' ribbons and expect no one to call foul.
When it becomes unpatriotic to publicly question or admonish our military, our military personnel, or our government, we stop being a republic. Someone has to speak up, and luckily we still have a few that make us squirm a bit in our chairs when they do it.
Like someone else wrote earlier, what's the discussion here supposed to be about? Petraeus can lie, Bush can lie, Cheney can lie, and MoveOn gets called on the carpet for bad copywriting. Incredible!
Posted by Cosrai at September 11, 2007 02:20 PMAny names or links you wanna float our way on that note, Steve?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 11, 2007 02:23 PMSteve, I don't think any of us began blogging with that intent. Initially for me it was simply to connect with others who weren't buying into the insanity that was being shoveled on this country. Next it was to "make the pie" larger. When it was large enough, the task was to push the debate to the left. I know that I for one underestimated how difficult that third step would be. The country was at the tipping point by late 2004 but has moved ever so slowly since then as (IMHO) the inbred cautiousness of Democrats kicked in and allowed the rightwing the space to push the debate back into their turf. Where it remains today in spite of the obvious evidence in 11/06 that the tipping point had passed. Patience can be a virtue when it's not a matter of life and death. Not so good when all we've managed to accomplish is the perpetuation of Bush/Cheney's war for four more years which is pretty much what would have happened without any effort from you or any of the rest of us. Not so different from the frustration I felt thirty-five to forty years ago, except back then I thought there was wisdom in the counsel to be patient and polite.
Posted by Marie at September 11, 2007 02:37 PM
Marie, who's counseling patience?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 03:14 PMThere is one scenario that suggests to me a possible value to MoveOn's ad: if it prevents Petraeus from becoming the Republican nominee and the next US prez.
--
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Iamcoyote said:
Actually, the BIG LETTERS called a decorated US soldier a traitor. Funny, when the right did that to John Kerry, it was a bad thing.
Disagree with the implied equivalence with the Swiftboaters. ACTUALLY, just because a guy is a "decorated US soldier" doesn't inherently give him immunity to charges of treason. In this case we have a guy who is more concerned about pleasing Bush and Cheney then doing what's right for the soldiers, the American people and the world. Anyone who's involved in perpetrating and perpetuating this monstrosity deserves a BIG FAT SCARLET LETTER. That could include spineless military brass as well as enabling Democratic party politicians.
Posted by TrainWreck at September 11, 2007 04:31 PMread the MoveOn.org ad and have to agree with Marie. All they did was have the guts to say the truth. Scary stuff in today's Amerika, I guess. Who cares how many ribbons are on the uniform if the man wearing it is a liar? And why should an organization be chastised for saying so? Too impolite? What a quaint notion.
The ad looked childish, damaged the image of MoveOn, as far as I'm concerned. It looked almost as bad as kids saying, "Nya-nya, you said betrayus", "Did not", "Did so." One thing the Repuglies have been good at is framing their message. This was NOT a good example of how to do that. For pity's sake, do you want Beavis and Butt-head to be our messengers? People like Cheney like to invoke the horror of MoveOn because it has been such an effective force for change. Such a shame that that has likely been damaged with all but the most blind who cannot objectively look outside their box of cognitive dissonance. Sometimes, all it takes is one mis-step of that sort to take an organization down. That would be such a shame.
Ads are so important. The greatest candidate in modern history (in my opinion) was taken down by poor ads, I'm convinced, that man being Howard Dean. Dean likely could have survived the scream if he hadn't already been pushed on his way down the slippery slide caused by Joe Trippi's horrendous ads. He was already history in Iowa by the time the scream happened. So sad. I hope that MoveOn has better sense the next time. Thankfully there's still plenty of time before the next election.
ACTUALLY, just because a guy is a "decorated US soldier" doesn't inherently give him immunity to charges of treason.
I never said it did. I was just pointing out that when Kerry was charged with being a traitor for political reasons everyone thought it was bad; and now Petraeus is being called a traitor for political reasons and it's supposedly good. It's not, in my book, especially for any soldier following orders, no matter how high up the food chain they are. The president is this guy's commander in chief; Petraeus simply has no choice but to do as he's told. And as we've all been talking about all week, he's not even the one responsible for his report, ultimately, Bush is.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 05:13 PM"Fuck off, peter, ya tool. The adults are trying to have a discussion here."
"And could you point out where Steve told anyone to be polite and respectful? Not that it's a bad idea, though, if you expect regular people to listen to you.""
Coyote, you had just said this then you give me the FO. That's a point I had agreed with you totally. Great job there don't you think? Lead, and they will follow?
Moveon.org did the equivalent of 'swiftboating' with this ad. They prejudged the testimony given to both the House and Senate hearings. Wouldn't want those folks on any jury that I'm in front of.
They were given a discount by the NYTimes to do it. Some/many here seem to think they have a right bias, yet they gave a discount for this. Not just a small one either. Normal rate for a full page is about $173K, they paid $68K. That's a huge discount and they took the story away from the surge and placed it on the ad.
How come everyone coming from Iraq "betrays" us? This labeling applies to all those soldiers sending back positive results. They're all traitors too? They haven't been to the WH, been told what to do or say. You show me ten, I'll show you one hundred that will say positive things. They all traitors or just misinformed because they don't fit into Moveon's mold. They've been there, Moveon hasn't.
Posted by peter at September 11, 2007 05:24 PMBut, petey, you're not "regular people." You're a troll. No one cares whether you listen or not.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 05:49 PMSo I came here to TLC to read the ravings and what do I find?
Well from a previous thread I discover that under the "Bush regime" Julie has decided that flying is difficult in the post-9/11 world.
"...I'm afraid to even bother to try to fly anywhere, considering the real possibility that my name might be on the no-fly list for having attended a Quaker (Friends)church as a kid...[or]...for protesting this bogus war"
Afraid to fly because her name "may be" on a no-fly list. Not "is" on a no-fly list, but "may be" on a no-fly list. Yup, chalk that one up to the loss of freedoms that ChimpyBushMcHitlerBurton has brought us: fear that something "may be," not that something "is."
But as she qualifies it:
"Why waste my time?"
Because she has only so much time....and most of it is taken up by protesting, I assume. Funny, it seems to me that it would be so easy for the Bush regime to "disappear" Julie and her protesting friends rather than simply maybe, possibly...might...put them on a no-fly list.
I also discovered that Julie's right to sloganeer in shopping malls has been abridged. So may I ask, Julie, was it your habit to wear your political beliefs on your clothing before 9/11? And in what specific instance were you chucked from a shopping mall for your choice of apparel?
It appears as though Julie's right to habeas corpus has been rescinded! This is very disturbing to me. It would be the one documented instance where such such action happened. Julie: what were you arrested for? Where are you incarcerated and What legal authority suspended your [right to] habeas corpus? I have seen no proclamation suspending this right so I must assume that it is only in your personal experience.
And Julie fears that she may be tortured for her beliefs.
Well, Julie, if you think sleep deprivation, loud noises, and people yelling are torture, then I suggest you go and protest these activities at any military boot-camp. (As you have posted, protesting is one of your preferred recreational outings.)
It also appears as though Julie likes responding to her own posts. This would be considered unusual behavior for anyone not a member of the "reality-based community."
What else have I discovered on the aniversary of almost 3000 lost souls?
Well Seven-of-Six, who seems to have a problem with counting (but, then again, he -- she? -- may have some unusual deformities associated his fingers and toes), demonstrates ignorance regarding the "job" of a senior military office. While, I may add, providing a full-throated scream of Leftist insult: is an insult born of ignorance an insult?
But let us MoveOn to today's "front page" articles.
The first thing that occurs to me is the lack of any direct acknowledgement of almost 3000 dead on this anniversary day.
Instead we have as the most popular thread an article stipulating that "MoveOn Didn't Help." In the body of this article the author states that MoveOn advertisement was a "....hit piece on General Petraeus."
Now, stating that the advertisement is a "hit piece" would, I think, normally elicit a sense of unfairness regarding the "...personal attack," as the adverstisement is also referred to in the article. But no, not in this case.
In this case, the advertisement is considered to be detrimental to the cause. It does not appear as though the author of the "MoveOn Didn't Help" article is the slightest bit concerned that the General's character was impugned, attacked falsely, but that the attack would harm the greater effort to dis-credit the current Administration.
But then again, with respect to MoveOn.org, what do you expect from an organization whose genesis was the result of a semen stain on a blue dress. It is all rather filthy.
Oh, and by the way, six years ago today almost 3000 thousand people were murdered.
Posted by Bagley at September 11, 2007 06:01 PMHappy Patriot's Day folks!
Posted by peter at September 11, 2007 06:28 PMThe meme of betrayal has a decided resonance in the case of General Petraeus. My strongest affinities and sympathies are with those protesters in the gallery who shouted "war criminal". This General is the kind of errand boy who is not asked to swear the usual oath to tell the truth. What you see is what you don't get. Congress showed such deference to the General when his appointment was confirmed; and now they are scandalized by a play on words (Betrayus) when a wink and a nudge proved good enough.
Nothing reasonable can be expected from America's occupying army except that it will multiply the misery and the blood that is spilled in the unfortunate occupied country. And we are supposed to respect this? We say prayers and read the names of those killed in New York six years ago. But who reads the names of a million Iraqi dead?
Posted by Copeland at September 11, 2007 07:01 PM
Julie,
Sorry, but for me the message is more important than the messenger. I don't care if it's Beavis and Butthead, or Ren and Stimpy. carrying the message. If the message has merit it really doesn't matter.
I really have no opinion of MoveOn.org as an organization, but I do think the ad served its purpose. Call it childish if you like, but "General Be Tray Us" is a catch phrase that won't soon be forgotten. Like "Wide Stance Republicans" it's something that's both fun to say and makes a point at the same time. Humor can be used to sell ideas. Most people like to laugh.
In your opinion, is Howard Dean the only great candidate of modern times that suffered the fate of a bad Ad Man? I think Dean's problem was he just didn't come across as someone you wanted steering the bus. Was that due to bad copy, or Dean's own shortcomings? Advertising can accomplish many wondrous things, but in the final analysis it's the product that matters.
Posted by Cosrai at September 11, 2007 08:58 PMCosrai, I think Dean has proven his stuff since then, and we may very well owe the Dem majority in Congress to him. I realize that he has not been favored by Hillary, but tough--HE's proven his competence, Hillary has yet to prove hers, other than by winning elections. We should have learned our lesson about the difference between winning elections and being a competent leader from Georgie Bush. Nuff said.
Posted by Julie at September 11, 2007 09:22 PMBagley, if your party cared about those 3000 dead Americans, your glorious leader wouldn't have let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. So please spare us any moral lectures from you, as the Bush GOP has no ground to stand on when it comes to talking about 9/11 and smearing others for any supposed lack of toughness or patriotism.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 11, 2007 09:48 PMI was just pointing out that when Kerry was charged with being a traitor for political reasons everyone thought it was bad; and now Petraeus is being called a traitor for political reasons and it's supposedly good. It's not, in my book, especially for any soldier following orders, no matter how high up the food chain they are. The president is this guy's commander in chief; Petraeus simply has no choice but to do as he's told.
Respectfully disagree. Legal and moral (not political) arguments could be made that those responsible are in fact "treasonous." This is different from what the Swiftboaters did to Kerry. This isn't about smearing the General for mere "political reasons." Furthermore, at some point up the "food chain" the "he's just a soldier following orders" excuse is no longer valid. Hitler's generals were not immune from charges of war crimes just because they were "following orders." I disagree that Petraeus "simply has no choice but to do as he's told." He could have decided that doing the right thing was more important than keeping his job. See, for example, General Shinseki.
Posted by TrainWreck at September 12, 2007 09:21 AMAs I have posted before: I believe Osama is dead....long dead. However, his Jihadist organization al-Quada continues, as do affiliated terrorist organizations like the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Abu Sayyaf Group, both in the Philippines, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories. Let us also add groups in Algeria and Thailand, and cells in Europe, the United States, Australia, and Canada to numerous to mention.
A dead Osama does not neuter these groups. They remain committed to the destruction of Western Civilization and the rise of a new Caliphate. The "Osama is alive" argument is a straw-man argument: a dead Osama..an alive Osama, it does not matter in the present war on Islamic terrorism.
"...moral lectures...?"
A simple observation of an obvious truth: not a single front page article (yesterday) on TLC addressing the terrorist attack on the United States that ocurred six years ago yesterday. Not a one. How very 9/10.
Instead we get as the most popular article -- at the time I posted my comment -- the one you authored about the MoveOn advertisement. And everything I have to say about that article I posted yesterday.
But as to your post above, "...smearing others for any supposed lack of toughness or patriotism." Your indignation misplaced: when the spokespersons for al-Quada adopt as their own the talking points so often repeated by "progressives," then how fearful is al-Quada of the toughness and patriotism of those same progressives? Extending this thought: how fearful are all of the other Islamic terrorist groups?
Steve, you do not have to answer the question. The question is rhetorical....and the question does provide its own answer.
Posted by Bagley at September 12, 2007 05:16 PM