Today's MoveOn.org ad may become a case study in bad PR timing. Instead of applying heat on General Petraeus's testimony, it forced Democrats to play defense themselves in the old and new media, rather than spending their time playing offense politically over Iraq (see but one representative example here).
Harry Reid had to spend time backing away from the ad. The reliably cheeky and irreverent liberals at Rolling Stone blasted it. And locally our friend stilwell went scurrying for the exits.
Joel Joe Klein, uber-moderate Democrat and vociferous Iraq War critic (though no fan of the netroots) summarized it this way:
But for now, MoveOn has handed the Bush Administration a major victory--at a moment when all attention should be focused on whether we should continue to commit U.S. troops to this disaster. Just nauseating.
By making the story about their ad rather than future policy toward Iraq, MoveOn changed the nature of the debate in way they no doubt did not intend. One would think that even in the midst of their partisan fervor they would have realized picking an over-the-top fight with a decorated general of notable repute might not be so wise. Disagree with him? Fine. Impugn his character? Not so effective.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 10, 2007 10:10 PM | Email ThisIt's much easier on the right when we get the help of the left sinking their own chances. But I'm not too worried, because for every sensible Progressive, there's 50 fools who hurt their cause, and another one born every minute.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 11, 2007 12:13 AM
Rabbi Lapin is right. We are all in a boat together and they are the ones who keep drilling holes into the bottom of the boat. Not the least bit helpful or beneficial. They are to be ingored, because they can't be taken seriously.
Posted by: Misty on September 11, 2007 12:30 AMIt's time for the Moveon folks to disappear...they add no value and only make things worse.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 11, 2007 05:31 AMThe question I have with moveon is why does Soros keep pouring money into the organization? There are no more Bush' to hate. I just think he is making money on the emotions of the left and the politics of the left. I just don't think Soros has altruistic motives.
And how can Harry and Nancy turn away from moveon? It is my understanding they meet with moveon on a regular basis.
Posted by: swatter on September 11, 2007 06:45 AMA couple of theories because I do not have hard evidence:
Follow the money from Soros backed and influenced groups to:
1. Drug legalization and also look at Peter Lewis
of Progressive Insurance. Locally, the King County Bar has been a proponent of drug legalization. In my opinion, many of the studies have been skewed to come up with the Soros party line and look at where local pols advocating positions get support.
2. Many of the "civil rights" leaders like Sharpton/Jackson and probably Julian Bond are funded by Soros backed entities and the groups they represent are in the pocket of the dems. In my opinion, the most prudent course for communities of color is to be independent. We have permanent interests, not necessarily permanent alliances.
Soros has a one world government view. He wants to diminish US power and influence. At his core he is a militant atheist secular progressive to wants to remake the world according to his views. Truly a villian out of Ian Fleming's vision in his Bond fantasies.
The spin on Gen, P. was already negative enough w/o feeding the alternative reality afflicted right. Move On should have asked itself what it wanted to achieve? Adding fuel to the fires of the desperate defenders of the admin made no sense.
Rather, it seems to me, that MO could have helped the situation by publishing a riposte. As it were they could have pointed ut that the gernal actually suported the Democratic stand!
Gen. Petraeus said exactly what rational thinkers have been saying for years ... the Bush concept of establishing an American style democracy in Iraq is dead. Worse, that concept has hurt what might be in Iraq. the confederation that Jo Biden has talked abotu for about two years now.
So, what the good General SAID was that we could help the ethnic rivals in Iraq control their areas of the country. Supporting local sheikhs rather than a fantasized central democratic regime does work in the Sunni areas and is likely to work in the South because of Arab distrust of Farsi led Shia forces.
Petraeus tactics and his testimoney are exactly what Bush's critics have been saying for a long time.
Furthermore, echoing Congressman Murtha, the general emphasized how much worse off we are because we allowed el Qaeda of Iraq to build. I know this is hard on concervative ears but for once leave your alternative rality aside and listen to what this spoldier had to say about he imapact of the destruction of the great mosque.
Equally important are the questions the General refused to answer .. he would not answer any question about the cost of this war to our global efforts, the sources of troops to continue beyond next Spring, or the role of El Qaeda in EQ of Iraq affairs. Worse he would not answer such strategic questions as how long do we need to be there to achieve what goals.
This is a good man serving a failed leader as well as he can.
The only thing predictable about war is that the best laid plans go awry about 15 minutes into the fray.
I heard a number today regarding the hate speech of liberals versus righties on the blogs. It was 20 to 1 in favor of the liberals being more nasty.
I think it is more like 10 to 1, but that is a number being quoted.
Posted by: swatter on September 11, 2007 07:44 AMUS military expenditures, including long term costs (VA, retirement) are closer to 50% of the national budget. Of I am worng cite facts.
FWIW Carter built up the uS military, literally creating the modern concept of a flexible force to deal with local conflicts. Raygun fucked it up by spending money on useless toys ... star wars and battelships.
Clinton's army succeeded in Afghanistan and would have doen evenb better if the little ones in DC had not over ridden Clinton's generals.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 11, 2007 08:25 AMPosted by: Huh? on September 11, 2007 08:35 AM
During Bush I, the push to reduce troop strength started. However, Clinton went overboard and made us as weak as we are. The guy showed his anti-military bias and I hope the Dynamic Duo (co-Presidency and all, you know) pay the piper next November.
Posted by: swatter on September 11, 2007 08:45 AMSo then Seattle Jew comes over here and wants to have a more rational discussion about the vagaries of the Bush policy of Democracy. Which I actually agree was a disaster.
The tantrums and cognitive dissonance is not occurring on the right. What the right is saying is: Give the four start general a chance to state his case, without a bunch of women in Pink screaming him down, etc. Then let's all figure out the best way to simultaneously address the real threat of fanatical Islam, and the best way to conclude our campaign in Iraq. But that doesn't mean an irrational withdrawal on an arbitrary timetable. And it doesn't mean they hate us just because we are there, etc.
As I keep saying, the real debate is on the right. The left has dissolved into childish tantrums and name calling.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 11, 2007 09:06 AMJeff B: SeattleJew is a liar. Now he is pretending Petraeus supports the Democratic view. Just incredible dishonesty coming from someone who claims to value truth so highly for religious reasons.
Huh?: yeah, he complained about the f-bomb. But I find lying to be far more offensive than any four-letter word, which is why I occasionally use it: to point out the extraordinary offensive I am responding to. And I notice that my abuse directed toward him in response to his rampant dishonesty has made him stay away from me, which is all I could really hope for!
Posted by: pudge on September 11, 2007 09:28 AMIn 1962, the percent of the federal budget allocated to military was indeed about half at 54%
In 2004 it was 22%
Excluding Social security and medicare...
1962: 63% of non-SS federal expenditures
2004: 34% of non-SS federal expenditures
Bad timing?? If you assume that MoveOn wants a strong liberally extreme Democrat Party, maybe. But a strong liberally extreme Democrat Party means no need for MoveOn and support for the power MoveOn wields as a result of the money it raises from the most extreme leftists across America.
I don't believe political philosophy is sufficient for people like those with MoveOn to turn on their own country, the American people, and side with America's enemies. Regardless of how whacked out they may be in their hatred of America, Bush, and Republicans. I do think, though, that the power granted them via the millions they raise is more than sufficient to explain their actions. It certainly appears sufficient enough to turn many Democrat leaders in the House and Senate into anti-American and unpatriotic enemies of our efforts on behalf of freedom, liberty and national security.
Posted by: Think about it on September 11, 2007 11:10 AM1986: Military Spending - $205 billion (1980 $)
2006: Military Spending - $219 billion (1980 $)
Growth = 7% (Build-up from Reagan peak)
1986: Social Spending - $362 billion (1980 $)
2006: Social Spending - $698 billion (1980 $)
Growth = 93%
It seems MoveOn was urged by the Democrat party electeds to slam Petraeus. I don't see how any D, liberal or progressive or stilwell can not claim allegience to MoveOn.
Loretta Sanchez called him a liar and kept after him regarding a poll he hasn't seen. She sure sounded stupid and I felt anger that this sorry excuse for a human could belittle one of the great people in the world.
Posted by: swatter on September 11, 2007 12:20 PMFWIW Carter built up the uS military
*********************************************
What in the heck are you smoking? Many in the armed services left because Carter cut most of their funding. Just to give you an idea my MEDAEVAC unit was taking parts from 3 other Hueys, just so we could keep one flying.
Learn a litte history would ya!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2007 01:18 PMMost of the mess Bush is cleaning up started with Carter - And I don't just mean the middle east. Carter was instrumental of the destruction of the American educational system through the creation of the NEA. Add-on giving away the Panama Canal, solutions to the inflation problem that were worse than the disease and his incredibly stupid "there's an energy crisis so lets all give up and just live in the cold and dark" attitude... well, suffice it to say anyone old enough to remember the guy has to admit he was a complete embarassment as President and most Americans couldn't wait to vote him out of office when the time came.
Comparing Carters time in office to GWB's really reminds anyone old enough to remember who the worst president of all time really was. Even considering the war, hands down Jimmy did more damage to our country. When I see him on television being treated like some sort of an elder statesman, I have to laugh. Whyy would anyone want to listen to his opinion given the track record of failure he racked up in office?
I was a pretty staunch democrat when I was in college, but Carters "leadership" turned me into a republican in the first place. Other than the fact that he seems to know how to swing a hammer well enough to build low cost housing, that's about the only positive thing I could say about him.
Posted by: johnny on September 11, 2007 01:43 PMMoveOn.org seems to largely echo the sentiments of the American public. Namely, we're sick of the war, we're sick of being betrayed by being lied to on a daily basis. The Jessica Lynch story. A lie. The Pat Tillman story. A lie. Bush's promise to hunt down bin Laden. A lie. Bush now celebrates and even offers commentary on the bin Laden videos. bin Laden has almost become just another prop for Bush.
Read today's Seattle Times. There is an Op-Ed by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton.
They say it perfectly:
No word is more poisonous to the reputation of the United States than Guantánamo. Fundamental justice requires a fair legal process before the U.S. government detains people for significant periods of time, and the president and Congress have not provided one.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003878213_sept11op11.html
This war has been a fiasco from day 1 and it's time for some grown ups to end it and restore the rule of law. Wars are started by the military commanders. They are ended by the public. The public will end this one too.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on September 11, 2007 04:11 PMJust exactly how many POW's from WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam had their detentions challenged in the courts? Just checking.
That's what happens in wars... You capture or kill the enemy...
Posted by: David on September 11, 2007 04:55 PMCongress was irresponsible for not doing so and not calling the President on not declaring war on Iraq or after 9-11. In both cases, it would have been feasible. If a vote would have been had by Congress, who knows what the verdict would have been on Iraq ?
When questions are framed differently, views tend to change.
It is incomprehendable why we have not bothered to declare war since WWII - yet look at how many wars we have been in.
All the other wars were either started by the Politicians (Mexican War, Texas War of Independence, Civil War, World WarI, The Barbary Pirates, the Spanish American War) or were forced on the United States by actions of hostile states. WWII.
As for Grown-ups the difference between the Boy Scouts and the Democratic party is the boy scouts have adult leaders.
In the mean time, go stick you head in t
Posted by: Not a Yank on September 11, 2007 10:16 PMAs a matter of fact, yes I would like the truth about 9/11. Count me in with 84% of the public who believes that this Administration is lying about the events of 9/11. Current polling shows that only 16% of Americans think Bush is telling the truth about 9/11.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469
Abstract: - Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.
You ought to ask people what they think about 9/11 sometime. Most of the people I ask, whether it's my barista or car rental agent, they usually question the government's official conspiracy theory. There are lots of other conspiracy theories as well. The question is, which one is true?
Personally, I believe our air defenses are far too superior to have had so many problems on just 1 day. The fact that they were grounded is a matter of public record. The question is why?
Clearly the FBI, the President and the Pentagon are hiding lots of documentation that should be made public. I believe that government can only function properly when public information is kept public. Transparency to government records is an absolute necessity to a healthy government. That holds true on a state level, a county level and especially a federal level.
You realize that you are lying about this poll? The poll did NOT say that "84% of the public... believes that this Administration is lying about the events of 9/11".
Here is what the poll ACTUALLY asked and what the results ACTUALLY were:
"When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"
The Results:
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%�
So, there are two things that you misstated. First, the question was NOT about "the events of 9/11", it was about "what they knew PRIOR (my emphasis) to September 11th, 2001". Second the results did not indicate that "84% of the public... believes that this Administration is lying". In fact, only 28% (what do you bet the vast, vast majority of this 28% are Democrats) believe they are mostly lying.
If you are going to refer to a poll of this type, tell the truth about it. Otherwise it makes you look slimy.
Posted by: Bill H on September 13, 2007 06:01 AMAlso, the previous two questions ask whether the Bush and Clinton Administrations paid enough attention to terrorism before 9/11. 77% and 67% of those polled respectively, said that they did not pay enough attention to terrorism. I certainly think most agree (on both sides of the aisle) with this assessment. We needed to be more serious about terrorism prior to 9/11. That's water under the bridge, the question is what we are doing about it now.
Posted by: Bill H on September 13, 2007 06:07 AMThis is the height of deception! It also confirms what I have said before about the left accusing the right of doing what they themselves are doing--in this case blatantly LYING.
Posted by: Bill H on September 13, 2007 07:03 AMI think those are the voices we really need to be listening to. There is a perspective, I would argue the only perspective, that actual military members have on this issue, that is extremely important.
The rest of you are jus' talking out your ass...
Have a nice day!
Posted by: Matthew J. Crane on September 13, 2007 02:10 PM
Despite what the specifics of polling numbers say, there is simply no denying that MILLIONS of people don't believe the government's official conspiracy theory about 9/11 that this was a total surprise attack that no one knew about. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary.
Last night, Anderson Cooper on CNN had a 15 minute segment on the Doomsday Plane that was flying over the White House on 911 after the attacks in D.C. They showed film they had broadcast on 9/11/2001, clearing showing the jet flying around. Then they showed a picture of the Flying Command post jet, the 747 that is to be used in case of all-out war. Then they overlaid the 2, clearly showing that the plane flying over the White House, was indeed, the 747 command post jet, flying over restricted airspace.
Then he showed how the 9/11 Commission ignored anything about this jet at all. Why would this commission refuse to investigate this if they wanted to get at the truth?
All through this segment, they showed footage of the Pentagon burning, referring to the explosions that had happened there. Not once was there a mention of a jet crashing into the Pentagon. Nothing. The film footage showed no evidence of a plane crash at all. The last time I watched footage of an airline crash and couldn't find the plane was...... well, never.
The notion that people who have serious concerns about 9/11 are mentally disturbed people who take too much Oxykotin is dead wrong as well. There are lots of 9/11 truth groups including a group called 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,' founded by San Francisco architect Richard Gage, AIA. These are the people who design these buildings and they are certified professionals. So the search for the truth goes on. And the number of people who are demanding the truth is growing, not dwindling.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on September 14, 2007 05:06 PMI'm sorry, but you people really need to get over the 2000 election. You're embarassing yourselves.
Posted by: Bill H on September 14, 2007 07:44 PMThought this news might be of some interest to your readers:
NEW moveon.org TV ad coming out on Monday Sept 17th...basically calling President Bush a traitor.
Catch it here:
MoveOn.org TV Ad
For general david betray us fans or not:
General David Betray Us
Have a great weekend!
Steve