The Seattle Times editorialized today against the "childish ad hominem attacks on a general" from a group that "embarrassed itself and its position on the war with an over-the-top and unnecessary attack." This from an editorial page that currently finds itself in general agreement with MoveOn.org's policy goals on Iraq.
Meanwhile, the P-I carries an "Analysis" column from the AP on the stalled momentum of the anti-war movement. Such news "analysis" columns from major media outlets like the AP, the New York Times, or the Washington Post are invariably a look into the conventional wisdom on a given issue. On the topic of MoveOn.org it says:
Another factor in GOP unity, party officials say, was the advertisement in the New York Times, paid for by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. The full-page ad -- which taunted Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and accused him of distorting the facts of the war -- served as a rallying point for Republicans.Even with several GOP members wanting troops out faster than Petraeus recommended, the ad helped Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell drive home his point: Voting to bring troops home was a vote against a popular and seasoned uniformed officer.
It's all a reminder that a group who preached "moderation and restraint" immediately after the attacks of 9/11 may not always have the best political - or policy - instincts.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 23, 2007 10:40 PM | Email Thispatty Murray, would you finally like to come out against your friends at moveon and come into the world of grownups by acknowledging what a mistake it was for your leftist moveon friends to do such a disgusting thing?? Moveon has forever discredited itself.
Posted by: Michele on September 23, 2007 11:15 PMFor most it's pretty unthinkable that any one would actually allow such an ad to be placed. Most would filter such a blatant and highly visible attack, even if that's how they felt. But oh no. Not the Nutroots Left. They'll say anything and do anything.
American needs to come to know that face of Progressives today. These are not moderate people who are open to debate. These are the people that are screaming in the ears of mourners at Ground Zero on any given September 11th, and for that matter, any given day, preaching the "Truth." These are the people that you find burning flags, and effigies of Bush, defacing the Vietnam War Memorial in DC, etc.
It's an in your face attitude, and is as much about how much they can get away with as it is about advancing their socialist and Marxist goals.
The MoveOn.org ad shines light on the face of today's left.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 23, 2007 11:39 PMThis man, and again, I don't use that word with respect very often, is a credit to this country. Any poster on this site better recognize that (in writing) when they rant and rave against Rs or D that support the mission we are trying to accomplish.
I have liked the discussions with our own Cato, Bruce and dinesh, but until they repudiate the moveOn ad in writing, there is no room for discussion on other issues.
Posted by: swatter on September 24, 2007 06:55 AMNot one assertion by the terrorist lovers at MoveOn.Org has proven to be a "Fact". Are you honoring your political partner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today?
Posted by: swassociates on September 24, 2007 07:18 AMAs defined by the likes of you? No, and damn proud of it!
Posted by: cliff on September 24, 2007 07:34 AMNeed I continue.
Posted by: JDH on September 24, 2007 08:13 AMYeah, great, and no one else can insist on the same rate from the New York Times. Wonder how many requests they've received that they can now deny? Given that MoveOn functions with dollars donated from Democrat supporters, is another $80,000 all that much if it prevents the Times from being pressured to offer equal time like they did Rudy? Sounds more to me like closing a loophole at the Times. Who knows, the Times have have figured a way to funnel the money to MoveOn to pay the difference itself. And if MoveOn agreed to pay the difference, they must have been presented with a truly convincing argument.
Posted by: JoeBlow on September 24, 2007 12:51 PMwait, she is waiting for that call from the DNC/Emily's List...
Posted by: righton on September 24, 2007 01:42 PMHi Swatter- Why should I repudiate an ad that I had nothing to do with? Furthermore, I think General Petraeus, while apparently a bright and competent military leader, has inappropriately tried to capitalize on his military skill by venturing into politics. I wouldn't have thought to use the word "betray" to describe his behavior, but his political statements have served the country poorly, and in that sense of the word he has betrayed us.
In any case, it's hilarious to see conservatives, who tried to label people like John Kerry and Max Cleland as traitors, getting all upset over this ad. I suppose it will energize the right (which has little to be excited about these days), energize the left (the ad has brought record donations to MoveOn), and leave the middle where they were before, unhappy with the war.
Posted by: Bruce on September 24, 2007 02:55 PMAnd one of your own doesn't even want to call him anything except a great man and a great soldier (see 16 above).
And what should the guy have said? He is a soldier and reported what he saw; it is up to your Democratic Congress to do politics. I would be surprised if Petraeus didn't hop the first flight and go back to his men. He didn't want to be in DC.
So, he betrayed the left or the US? You can at least answer that one without a Bruceism?
Posted by: swatter on September 24, 2007 03:20 PMYou say Petraeus "is a soldier and reported what he saw." No, he's a general and he reported what his political bosses needed to get re-elected. Just before the 2004 election, he wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post saying there had been "tangible progress" in Iraq and "momentum has gathered in recent months". I think that was more politically motivated than just reporting what he saw. But of course it's possible he thought he was telling the truth. In any case, his comments have served the country poorly.
Hey, General Petraeus is not the main problem in Iraq. But nor is he a hero.
Posted by: Bruce on September 24, 2007 03:41 PMCould you explain what the christian "message of hate" is?
Are all of Moveon's actions above reproach, in your mind?
Posted by: Michele on September 24, 2007 03:58 PMYour comments at 21 were well stated; I just don't have to agree to them.
The 2004 memo has been brought up. I just can't remember if that was on the Fox News program or not.
There is just too much data coming out of Iraq now that would contradict his main point in the report- things are better in certain spots in Iraq due to the surge. Knowing what I know now of the main report, he also was clear on what wasn't going so well. In other words, his report had 'red meat' for all sides.
So, I just don't understand the vitriole against a great man who, while he supports the CIC, he has not painted a rosy picture. Go after Bush or the war, but not this man- this solder; support the troops?
Posted by: swatter on September 24, 2007 03:59 PMAm I the only one that very seriously disbelieves that?
It sounds like total sour grapes to me.
...to just over 3 million people. So what exactly was it's membership size before the ad? 74? You do realize how ridicules you look by fabricating such obvious lies, don't you?
Posted by: Mike H on September 24, 2007 05:17 PMI have the right to call you anything I want and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Though, I would be more than happy to give you the opportunity to try. Bring some of that hate, boy.
Instead of stereotyping all of us neo-con, fascist, Bible-thumping pro-lifers as one, you might want to recognize some of us are good ol' boys who don't much go to church, have no problem tipping back a few beers and are patiently waiting for the day of your vaunted, long-promised revolution.
BTW, you little toad. The Mission Accomplished incident that puts chuds like you into orbit happened in May of 2003.
Posted by: jimg on September 24, 2007 05:24 PMI doubt it. They just parrot the official party line.
Doing their own thinking is just soo harrd!
Posted by: deadwood on September 24, 2007 07:22 PMI almost forgot to ask.
Whose brand of fascism do you prefer?
THIRD war? What, pray tell, were the first two?
And you're being selective with the poll results. 4 to 1 say MoveOn hurts their causes. Only 35% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of MoveOn.
MoveOn is really just a fringe group. Seriously.
Oh, and Bill? That's really gotta sting...;)
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 24, 2007 09:23 PMNo, A. Alexander, they haven't. When the Rs had congress, they didn't sport an all-time low 11% approval rating.
Posted by: Michele on September 24, 2007 09:23 PMIf the moveon ad was tepid and the condemnation was so over the top, why did the Dems use the condemnation of said ad when they said they were now going to have to fund the war for another six months or more? Just asking.
If moveon's ranks are swelling so much, why ...see above.
Bruce, I got to thinking a little about that Petraeus 2004 memo. I haven't gotten too far into the research, but I have a couple of comments. When Petraeus was unanimously annointed by the Congress and when he went back to Iraq armed with his new terrorism manual, I figured just the opposite of you. I thought he would come back and say, "let's get out of here, pronto". And that was entirely based upon the press and the kudos the left heaped on him.
During the time there, I heard he was a straight shooter, 'if anyone can pull this off (i.e. making the 'surge' work)', he could. That included those with BDS making those statements since they were so sure the surge would fail. Harry Reid announced it had failed two months before the report came out.
And now with all the vitriole, I read his military history and am totally impressed. Haven't you thought it through more?
Posted by: swatter on September 25, 2007 06:54 AM