"MoveOn Declares War"

  1. MoveOn Declares War
    Copyright 09/13/2007 by Zashagalka (Used by permission, of course)

    On the day General Petraeus was to appear before Congress, before he even spoke, MoveOn.org ran a full-page ad in the New York Times calling the general a traitor. It made a splash, and a point. MoveOn should congratulate itself, for it accomplished exactly what it aimed to accomplish. The fact that it was extremely crude and offensive in doing so is almost beside the point.

    If you are familiar with the ad, perhaps you believe that the goal of the ad was to change the debate inside the beltway, or to convince the hearts and minds of independents and like-minded voters about the peril of war. It was not. The ad was aimed directly at Democrats in Congress. In that, it struck home.

    The netroot left is furious with Congress for not ending the war, as promised, immediately upon taking office. They are even MORE furious with the equivocations provided by those in office: you need 60 votes to have veto-proof legislation and Democrats still do not have the votes in the Senate. As any MoveOn supporter can tell you, it required and will require funding authorization to continue action in Iraq. It only takes 41 votes to filibuster such an authorization. Democrats have more than enough votes, for that.

    Indeed, the left is infuriated because, after promising swift action, Democrats in Congress help to pass a clean funding authorization this past spring, and are already equivocating about the passage of a future authorization bill. Instead of ending the war, the Democrats in Congress are actually funding it! How dare!

    It’s not that Democrats don’t have the power to end the war; it’s that they don’t have the political nerve to shoulder the blame for the fallout over doing so. In this, President Bush was correct to recently bring up indecent shades of Viet Nam. The Democrats in Congress have a long memory of winning just such a political battle (cutting funding), yet losing the war (Republican Administrations in 6 of the following 9 White Houses).

    MoveOn set the bar a little higher this past Monday, with its ‘General Betray Us’ ad. Many have reported that the ad has made Democrats in Congress politically uncomfortable. Yes, it has. THAT was its intended audience, and its intended result. MoveOn is declaring war on its own. It might as well have run an ad that said, “Democrats in Congress Betrayed Us.”

    The problem with this kind of political infighting is that it depends upon a certain calculation. Inner-party sniping depends on the understanding that there is political maneuverability to do so. It’s a given in that part of the political pond that Democrats will coast to the White House, and enjoy large gains in the Senate in ‘08. The math is there to support just such a calculation.

    In fact, the media routinely spouts such things at will. The most telling thing about this entire ad controversy is the fact that the New York Times gave MoveOn more than a 50% percent discount on that ad. One thing has been made clear as a result of this ad: the NYTs has staked out its political ideology.

    Political ascendancy is an untested calculation. One election does not make such things so. The ballot box always has a final say and the particular ballot box in question is over a year into the future. A year in politics is an eternity. In any case, political ‘locks’ rarely turn out, as planned. Recall the political calculation on the right, after ’04, that they stood on the verge of a generational voting shift. Think that was arrogant? No more so than the current calculations on the left, covering essentially the same condescending ground.

    MoveOn is taking the risk that the table has so shifted in American politics that its true political adversaries are now among its own. That’s a big gamble. It is based on an universal intelligence assessment that could very well be subsequently proven to be faulty. Using such dubious intelligence to wage war, as MoveOn would otherwise tell you, should be an impeachable offense.

    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 13, '07
  2. 49 Comments

  3. by   HM2VikingRN
  4. by   Spidey's mom
    Nice article Tim - right on target.

    I was listening on NPR to General Patraeus as I was driving 70 miles to the big city. I was appalled at how he was treated, called a liar, treated with out even the decency of respect for being a soldier.

    I got home red hot mad . . . I've not been that mad in a long time.

    Regardless of your thoughts on the war, this man is a hero. And should be treated as such.

    It is interesting to see "Code Pink" and Cindy Sheehan and MoveOn.org and other far left organizations get angry with Democrats.

    I'll be waiting to see the NYT's explanation for the ad reduction.

    I'm still waiting for the outrage over Norman Hsu . . . .


    P.S. Wrong thread for political cartoons. :-)
  5. by   VivaLasViejas
    I trust General Petraeus far more than I trust the Bush administration or anyone else to tell us what's really going on over there. Part of that, of course, is my own need for hope that my daughter and son-in-law will be safer during their TOD there as a result of the progress he says is being made; the other part is simple logic: the man is in charge of our forces, and he's been on the ground and seen up close and personal how things are going. And if he says progress is occurring, I'm going to believe him over anybody whose boots have never touched the ground in Baghdad or Fallujah......and that includes Congress critters of both parties, as well as MoveOn and others who talk and talk without doing anything.
  6. by   Cursed Irishman
    Petraeus was the commanding officer of my division when I was in the army, the man always impressed me w/ his common sense policies. Besides that, he's the first officer who came out and said the solution to iraq isn't a military one. No one should question his intelligence or his ability to accomplish a mission. That said, he has been brought in to late in the ball game.

    The question that will always have to be asked is this: When America pulls out, will Iraq devolve into a bloodbath? The answer for the foreseeable future will be yes. Increasing troop levels will not solve the bigger problem with Iraq: the majority of its people do not really care who is in charge, nothing has really changed in their day to day existence from when Sadam was in charge. There was an opportunity to change Iraqi lives w/ their assistance following the invasion, unfortunately that chance was squandered. From my experience, about fifteen percent of the Iraqis wanted democracy, fifteen percent wanted an Islamic state and the other seventy percent were so poor they didn't care who ran things, they just wanted some food and water. Supporting Iraq in its current political situation at this time will only be a waste. The Kurds are our way out of Iraq.

    By the way, generals are so far up the food chain they generally receive a very sanitized and/or distorted version of the reality below them. If there are problems that he knows about on his level, you can be guaranteed that the reality is much worse.

    Just my .2
    Last edit by Cursed Irishman on Sep 14, '07
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    U.S.-IRAQ: Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
    By Gareth Porter*

    WASHINGTON, Sep 12 (IPS) - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting...

    Move on was disrespectful to the General.

    The Swift Boat ads were disrespectful to Senator Kerry's service.

    Saxby Chambliss ran ads with Max Clelands picture along with Bin Laden and Saddam basically calling the veteran who gave both legs and an arm in service a traitor.
  8. by   Logan
    Well Generals can never be bought. That is a truism in the military.

    And 'Statesmen' (I use that term loosely) know nothing about anything. That is also a truism in the military.

    After all, neither Lincoln nor Jefferson Davis served in the war - surely their leadership had nothing to do with that war's outcome.

    Like wise, neither FDR not Churchill set foot on a battlefield - and their 'several thousand miles away' persona had no particular effect on the war either.

    Generals are immune to the effects of administrative oversight - being that politicians allow Generals to conduct and wage war as they please .... there fore, Generals have nothing to fear or worry about in conduct of their operations and particularly their results.

    Boots on the ground always have the most 'unbiased' opinion of it all. After all s/he is there! How dare we question them! None of the soldiers who fought in Vietnam questioned their actions, did they? Of course they didn't! The ones who did were traitors anyhow!

    An unrepentant grunt,
    M. Logan
  9. by   pickledpepperRN
  10. by   Spidey's mom
    Spacenurse . . . . . this attack against Rush has been proven untrue.

    He was not talking about soldiers who do not agree with our being in Iraq as "phony soldiers" but in soldiers who lie, as in Jesse MacBeth . . in fact, he and the caller to his radio show were speaking about this particular person. I was listening.


    Jesse Adam Macbeth (b. Jesse Adam Al-Zaid,[1] in 1984) is a disgraced former soldier who falsely claimed to be an Army Ranger and veteran of the Iraq War. He lied in alternative media interviews that he and his unit routinely committed war crimes in Iraq.[2][3] Transcripts of the video were made in English and Arabic.[4] According to the U.S. Army, there is no record of Macbeth being a Ranger,[5][6] or serving in a combat unit: he was discharged from the service after having been declared unfit or unsuitable for the Army, or both,[7] before he could complete basic training.[8]
    After his release from the Army in 2004, Macbeth purported himself to be a veteran, telling war stories and garnering attention from mainstream,[9] alternative[10] and student media outlets. He joined Iraq Veterans Against the War in January of 2006,[11] and represented, or was scheduled to represent them publicly at various events throughout the country;[12][13][14] the organization has since said it does not endorse Macbeth or his accounts of military service.[11] Accounts in Macbeth's name appear on Military.com and Myspace.com, and both were used to post claims about military service in Iraq.[15] On September 21, 2007 Macbeth admitted in federal court that he had faked his war record. U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan declared that Macbeth had been in the Army for just 44 days and had been kicked out as unfit.[


    Someone dropped the ball in this increasingly partisan atmosphere where people attack without checking the facts first.

    Rush has many folks today coming out to stand up for him . . .including many Democrats and John Warner and many active duty soldiers.

    I feel badly for the man in the video - he has been mislead and used.

    I am so tired of the attack machine . . . . on both sides. Let us just deal in facts.

    The fact is, Rush never ever called soldiers who disagree with the war, "phony soldiers" . . .he called Jesse MacBeth and others like him "phony soldiers".

  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    Sorry I heard it. I think Rush is being less than honest.
    I am tired of all the hate too.
    But clearly some of these media people are not.

    Limbaugh selectively edited "phony soldiers" clip, claimed it was "the entire transcript"

    Summary: In response to Media Matters' documentation of his recent description of service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," Rush Limbaugh claimed that he had not been talking "about the anti-war movement generally," but rather "about one soldier ... Jesse MacBeth." Limbaugh then purported to air the "entire" segment in question. In fact, the clip he aired omitted a full 1 minute and 35 seconds of discussion that occurred between Limbaugh's original "phony soldiers" comment and his subsequent reference to MacBeth.
    Original: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=i_related


    National Review's York ignores Limbaugh falsehood about splicing of audio and transcript: http://mediamatters.org/items/200710030010?f=i_latest

    The wounded soldier id NOT a suicide bomber. He is the victim of one. http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/ne...ng_vetera.html
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Sorry I heard it. I think Rush is being less than honest.
    I am tired of all the hate too.
    But clearly some of these media people are not.

    Original: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010?f=i_related


    National Review's York ignores Limbaugh falsehood about splicing of audio and transcript: http://mediamatters.org/items/200710030010?f=i_latest

    The wounded soldier id NOT a suicide bomber. He is the victim of one. http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/ne...ng_vetera.html
    Fred Thompson said it best on HIS website today: Who do you think Gen. Petraeus and the troops trust more, Rush or anybody on the left?

    Rush is the most popular program on the Armed Forces Radio Network. Let the liberals try to cancel it and SEE what happens. It'll be an uproar and THEN you'll know who supports the troops, AND VICE VERSA.

    Much ado about nothing. A comment purposely taken OUT OF CONTEXT to try to create an issue to draw parity with the Betray Us ad. BOTH controversies are creations of the left. The MoveON ad was purposeful hate. The Rush controversy is liberal fiction. It doesn't wash.

    There is no doubt that the context was in relation to the soldier that claimed to be overseas committing atrocities that really never finished bootcamp before being kicked to the curb. He - and his claims - were phony. A phony soldier. Of course. And the troops despise these mischaracterizations about them and ARE IN AGREEMENT with Rush. The 'phony soldiers' and their cohorts are the ones that diss our military with reckless abandon. That includes, Mr. "How soon can we lose" Harry Reid.

    How on earth do liberals really think that such purposeful deceit will attract voters? This fiction about Rush only appeals to its far left base. It's meat for a base that is rather full - of itself - at the moment. Hence the 'Betray Us' ad that started this need to manufacture something here.

    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Oct 3, '07
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    WHO edited the tape?
    I heard the entire segment.

  14. by   pickledpepperRN
    Talk is most popular?
    Don't they have any music?