September 10, 2007
MoveOn made itself the story
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 This
This is actually bad news. If there's one thing we've been able to count on, its the Nutroots zeal. Some Progressives seem to actually be learning that the Nutroots / MoveOn are a third rail that damages them.
It'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.
Moveon and KOS are basically the same. Calling our soldiers "idiots" (KOS) or gratutiously attacking a fine man like Petraeus who's simply trying to do the best job he can. Dems can never stop themselves. This is another "Wellstone Moment" for them. Going way past anything reasonable and showing themselves to be the out-of-control, foaming at the mouth hate-machines that can't be taken at all seriously.
People, you cannot put national security into the hands of these out-of-control pols. This is what is underneath all of that with them. It is damaging to the country and not keeping anyone safer. There's nothing to recommend them!
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.
This ad is atrocious. It's disrespectful, dishonest and an embarassment to all who are in any way associated with Moveon.
It's time for the Moveon folks to disappear...they add no value and only make things worse.
stilwell scurrying? I was rolling on the floor laughing. He is not a moveon type? That was even more hilarious.
The 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.
5. Don't forget our own Darcy "Moveon" Burner. You know our local political pundits are always happy to run to Darcy and read/print her press releases, maybe they should look-up the Camp Wellstone grad today and ask her how she "feels" about the ad. A follow up question about how much Moveon money is in her campaign coffers would be appropriate too. Since she has no record to run on, we must assume she hold views similar to those who support her campaign financially.
A 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.
My issue with Move On is a bit different. I think they make too many tactical errors.
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.
8. I agree totally, SJ.
War is Hell.
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.
10. Remember it was when President Clinton controlled our military he cut 250K military jobs. We are still building our forces but a democratic run congress will not support building our military strength. They talk big but they always vote no to improve military strength.
Examples of Democratic Presidents.
Carter for each dollar cut in Defense (TO balance budget) 2 dollars was added to other government programs.
Clinton for each dollar cut from defense nearly 10 dollars added to other areas of the budget.
Historically we can look at President Kennedy.
During his time in office around 50% of the budget was spent on defense.
To day I do not think we are spending even 10%. Yes we spend a lot of money for defense. We should spend more as long as our borders remain open. Who knows what is crossing the border every day. I know Drugs are smuggled. I know more illegals are smuggled. How many terrorists enter this country each month due to the open borders to the south and even to the north.
Consider this we did catch a bomber here in Washington State coming in from Canada. IT was luck that got him caught. One alert Border Inspector asking the right questions and seeing something was wrong. Something Seattle Police are not allowed to do.
Moveon.org would rather fight for the right of terrorists to kill American Citizens and Weaken our military than support US. They view the world in their own rose colored glasses. Very similar to Vietnam and how many million people died when we cut and run. And they want to do it again. This time will the death toll meet the same level as Vietnam or will it grow into something much worse. Cause and effect of actions.
My feelings are that moveon.org and other antiwar people are causing more death every month. Because they are giving hope to the terrorists. By their actions they support the terrorists and their mission to destroy Western Civilization. Yet they do not realize that if we lose this war. They themselves will be the first one eliminated by new rulers.
I wonder if MOveon.org every thought about what would happen to them if The world now was under Muslim Laws. Because that is what they are supporting by their actions. Muslims kill non muslims every day in many countries of this world. Do they want that to happen in the US? Look at the tension in Thailand, India, and Indonesia. Look at what the Muslims are doing in those countries. Our troops are not there yet every day the religion of peace kills more non muslims. And it is from Indonesia that Terrorists plan attacks in Philippines.
They have to think about their actions yet they can not see outside of Iraq they are blind to what is happening in many places outside of the Middle East. Or just ignore what is happening.
11. MoveOn and KOS are spawn of the same pond scum. It is worth remembering that all of the 'Rat candidates for their party's nomination pandered to these scumwads at their "convention" a few weeks back. Now they want to "distance" themselves from it? Not going to be a very effective tactic for anyone with a brain and memory. (Of course, that let's out the mainstream press, and a good portion of the electorate.)
You are making these numbers up and ought to use the freakin web to show us where they come from.
US 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.
So SeattleJew it took you less that 3 days to go from being offended with the use of the "f-bomb" to using it yourself (above). As you know, vulgarity is a weak man's imitation of strength.
Seattle's typing is very poor today. I wonder why?
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.
Notice the irony. Goldy post over at HA that conservatives have mental issues, and Seattle Jew coins the term CBD (Conservative Brain Defect) and a hearty round of yucking and back slapping ensues in Goldy's comment thread. Go read the comments. Do they remind you of MoveOn.org?
So 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.
This was really one of the stupidest things MoveOn could have done. If anything, it drove Democrats TO Petraeus, for fear that if they were ambivalent they might be identified with MoveOn. And of course, it made it much harder for MoveOn to associate themselves with ANY mainstream liberal people or groups in the future.
Jeff 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!
SJ mentioned military spending. From the US government's own web site you can download the historical data.
In 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
"Today's MoveOn.org ad may become a case study in bad PR timing."
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.
If anyone still has doubts why Federal Spending growth is out of control, here is the outcome of 20 years of Federal Spending bloat using the same historical data:
1986: 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%
Hewitt and Praeger have been playing the Petraeus talk with questions. Podcasts are great for staying focused compared to radio.
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.
21. Hey SJ, it may be tough for you to remember but try hard.
The Clintons reduced the size of the military because it doesn't take many servicemen/women to serve appetizers to foreign visitors or political contributors.
Clinton succeeded in Afghanistan? Oh really. Bubba himself said "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists", and missed Osama. So where was the success? How'd bubba do in the mog? The USA lost 18 men in short order. If we use Mogadishu as Bill Clintons loss rate in fighting a war, there would be 6570 losses and over 26,000 wounded A YEAR. Not 6 years, ONE. How ya like them apples?
And as for the "useless toys" the RR era brought, I'll bet those patriot missiles using the technology brought by SDI research isn't thought of as "useless"
#12 Seattle jew
FWIW 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!
I voted for carter, but I have to say Carter was the one who destablized the Iranian government when he wrote of fthe shah and incredibly screwed up the whole mideast power structure. His incredible bungling of the hostage crisis emboldened the rabble after that.
Most 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.
MoveOn.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.
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 @ 24
Just 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...
26. Richard B: Wars are started by the military commanders? Uh, doesn't Congress play some kind a role? I seem to remember every one of the Dem candidates except Obama voting to go into Iraq. Are you maybe one of those "truthers", thinking 9/11 was an inside job? Ya think maybe X-Files was a documentary?
27. Sorry, there was Kucinich, too, but he's not really a viable candidate.
A lesson for the future - The US does not enter another war, unless war is declared by Congress. The last war to be declared was WWII.
Congress 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.
24 You are ill informed. Can you please list all the wars that the United States engaged in that were started by Generals? I count 1. I challenge you to even name it.
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
As 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.
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.
Richard Borkowski: "As 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."
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?"
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.
P.S. This isn't exactly a "current poll" either--it is about a year old.
Also, 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.
P.P.S--I didn't make it absolutely clear when I showed the results, but the 53% under "Hiding something" should really be "MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH BUT HIDING SOMETHING". Richard Burkowski had to add the 28% who said "mostly lying" to the 53% who said "mostly telling the truth but hiding something" and the 3% who are "unsure" to get to the "84% of the public who believes that this Administration is lying".
This 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.
34. I also did a poll. 25% of those being polled say they were telling the truth; 50% said they were saying what the pollster wanted them to say in order to get rid of the pollster; and 25% said they were lying. Oh, and 10% were unsure what they said.
Hey!!!!!!!!! Are any of you active duty soldiers or vets???????? If you are, great!
I 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!
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.
"San Francisco architect", well that figures--no one has said that (BDS) Bush Derangement Syndrome only occurs in non-professional people. I would be willing to bet that if you plotted the people who believe this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense and the people suffering from BDS the lines would lie right on top of each other.
I'm sorry, but you people really need to get over the 2000 election. You're embarassing yourselves.
Thought 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!