Moveon.org’s ad
In her letter titled, “ Moveon.org ad tizzy a diversionary tactic", Kathy Madden of Aurora asserts that the outcry over the New York Times’ ad about General David Patraeus was simply a red herring to hide what she perceives to be lies about the situation in Iraq by Gen. Petraeus and the current administration. I would remind Ms. Madden that General Petraeus was chosen without dissent by a bi-partisan Senate to gather information and report. He did exactly this, and his report, while not rosy, was favorable to the surge effort, while encouraging that the troop numbers be reduced to pre-surge numbers very soon. This is not what Moveon.org wants to hear. The left knows that they cannot gain power in this country if America is successful in it’s efforts in the Middle East, so every step forward in Iraq is a step backwards for Democrats in America. While I believe that political dissent is absolutely necessary, dissent and sedition are two very different things. Moveon.org is in the business of sedition. and a lucrative business it is. So, Ms. Madden, feel free, as you are, to send your hard earned dollars to an organization that does nothing positive for anyone. But understand, these tactics that you and they have in common of calling people that disagree with you, “minions", “chicken hawks", “betrayers", etc., are no better than the ones used by people who call you “traitor"- it’s all a lack of civil discourse and decency that is prevalent on both sides of the political fence, sadly. Politicians and political activist groups have very little interest in anything but power, and they feed off of the polarization of citizen against citizen. And as far as people being exposed for what they really are, well, you had better cover yourself up- your gullibility is showing.
This letter has not been edited.
Seditiion? And then you talk about civil discourse? Rot in hell, Kath.
Posted by on October 15, 2007 02:27 PMWhere are the WMD's?
Posted by on October 15, 2007 02:57 PMWhat about the seditious, Scaife-funded right wingnut media that has poisoned and polarized the debate over the last 10 years?
The fact that the White House only permits people who agree with it to speak epitomizes how far the right is from the "Conservative Patriots" they like to pretend they are.
Middle America, the people who are paying attention, realize that the Bush's Iraq fiasco is the biggest danger facing this country, and that Bush's remaining supporters are the true phonies.
Vicious, juvenile rhetoric saying that Democrats want us to lose in Iraq is typical partisan swill, meaningless, and a lie.
It is a futile attempt to weasel out of the fact that Bush is a failure, and the worst possible occupant of the Oval Office for the Public Interest, National Security and Prosperity.
Posted by Eric Dolphy on October 15, 2007 03:30 PMEric, calm down. Fact, 18% of Democrats do want us to lose the war. Do you want Bush to win the war?
I was intriqued by your comment, "What about the seditious, Scaife-funded right wingnut media that has poisoned and polarized the debate over the last 10 years?"
What media is that? Fox News? What else? Which news media would you consider seditious? Can you give examples of stories or commentary that is seditious?
It seems to me that those on the left go crazy when you even mention Fox News. I guess your definition of sedition is disagreeing with you.
Posted by JIm on October 15, 2007 04:24 PMEric, calm down. Fact, 18% of Democrats do want us to lose the war. Do you want Bush to win the war?
I was intriqued by your comment, "What about the seditious, Scaife-funded right wingnut media that has poisoned and polarized the debate over the last 10 years?"
What media is that? Fox News? What else? Which news media would you consider seditious? Can you give examples of stories or commentary that is seditious?
It seems to me that those on the left go crazy when you even mention Fox News. I guess your definition of sedition is disagreeing with you.
Posted by JIm on October 15, 2007 04:24 PMJim if you wanted to win the war you should have voted for folks who wouldn't have needlessly occupied another country. Since it is too late, you should have wrote your Congressman before the invasion and thrown your support behind our military experts who insisted (and who were right) that we wouldn't be able to win the war without "several hundred thousand troops".
Read your Sun Tzu man....this war was lost before it began.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 04:30 PMDid you know that 54% of Republicans are senile? And that 77% of Republicans have no sense of humor whatsoever? And that 88% of Republicans believe that Ronald Reagan was not a total fool? And that 71% of all statistics are made up?
And when you, a Republican ask for specific citations, that's a real knee slapper. The White House lapdogs pretending to be journalists have generated reams of falsehoods that 99% of Republicans swallow without question.
Their misinformation is carefully documented by such groups as Media Matters and The Center for American Progress, who, despite Rush's drug-addled rantings, are reputable organizations that stick to the facts.
Posted by Eric on October 15, 2007 04:44 PMOh, and Jim, FACT: 89% of Republicans are cynical, constipated, miserable, arrogant, hate-drunk hypocrites who haven't stopped lying to themselves since 1943.
Posted by Eric on October 15, 2007 04:51 PMEric,
Media Matters and The Center for American Progress are full of facts about the government, media, and the world. For this reason, they are too "left wing" to warrant discussion from Serious Journalists who know that the only way to get a good story is to kiss the Bush admin's ass.
Jim is clearly an idiot, but do not expect him to realize he is an idiot, because he would have to be smarter than an idiot to realize he was, in fact, an idiot. Kind of a catch-22.
But hey, let's have some fun and push on this monkey a little: Hey Jim, can you cite your stat please? Can you define "win the war?" Can you define "seditious" (no cut and paste here, I want it in your own words)?
Now watch, as Jim and all his super-awesome and uber-intelligent comrades proceed to talk at great length about everything except the questions I've asked.
Posted by Grog on October 15, 2007 04:59 PMThanks, Grog. You seem to know your way around here. I like the part about the idiot.
Speaking of idiots, and the Republican trademark of deception, it's so hilarious that these fools say that Reagan was a "Great American President." He wasn't. Ronald Reagan was a B movie actor portraying a great American president.
His script was concocted by amateurs who couldn't get laid so they got into politics. They skimmed through Atlas Shrugged and mistook Ayn Rand's girlish romance as real philosophy, and we ended up with "Trickle Down Economics," which translates to "Piss on the Poor."
I guess when a person is miserable and stupid, Rush Limbaugh makes a great role model!
Posted by Eric on October 15, 2007 05:09 PMKathy uses the term "seditious." The definition of sedition is incitement of resistance to lawful authority. Strikes me that Moveon.org does that. You may think it justified, but it looks seditious to me. There are many seditious right wing groups. The militia movement strikes me as a prime example.
Any political administration controls who speak for it. So that discussion is bogus.
I think everyone agrees that Iraq is not good. The historical question is: Would leave Saddam to develop WMDs been better or worse? I happen to think that it would have been worse. But I recognize that there is room for disagreement.
I do think that any intelligent anit-US terrorist would be encouraged by the anti-war rhetoric I see from Moveon.org. and it's ilk.
Eric, take a chill pill dude. How often do you have to wipe the spittle off your computer screen from all that foaming at the mouth you're doing?
I got a news flash for you, Media Matters, The Center for American Progress, or any other news outlets aren't exactly reputable sources of news. All news outlets spin or distort the news, every single one of them. Just because you want to believe what they're preaching, doesn't mean they're unbiased and on the level.
But if you want to be a naive sheep and blindly accept as gospel everything Media Matters and The Center for American Progress spoon feeds you, then go for it.
Posted by Wez on October 15, 2007 06:56 PMAnti-US terrorists are probably more encouraged by the bungling and dishonesty of the Bush administration, and our disasterous mis-steps in Iraq.
Bin Laden, who the "Decider" doesn't much concern himself with, is free to bustle, while Dubya cynically changes the goal posts daily trying to deflect attention from his criminal malfeasance.
Saddam Hussein was a plug holding Iran back, but now, thanks to war-profiteering Neocons, Hussein is gone and Iran has free run in Iraq.
Moveon is just concerned with the truth, and stopping the damage that the Neocons and the Bush administration are inflicting on our country.
Republicans feel justified in maligning legitimate organizations concerned with the truth, like Moveon.org, while defending pernicious, lying, divisive demagogues like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, and Malkin.
This is because Republicans are content with and proud of being misinformed.
Posted by Adam One on October 15, 2007 06:57 PMOh Gosh! Oh Golly! There was an ad!! In a newspaper!!! (much pearl clutching and hankie wringing).
Posted by Charles B. on October 15, 2007 07:18 PMWhen moveon.org or mediamatters present information, they give full quotes of the questionable material, and then compare it to exact quotes by the same people saying the opposite thing at another time. Often they compare Rush's or Bill's rantings with statistics from the government's own agencies, or actual credible sources.
In contrast, when right-wingnuts like Rush and O'Reilly spew their fevered slander, it's stuff they make up on the spot - and then when it's disproved, if they do make a retraction it's hushed up. More often than not, they keep repeating the same things over and over even when they've been patently shown to be lying.
It's all a cynical ratings grab by hacks posing as journalists, selling noise that appeals to the lowest of human instincts, people who want their opinions to be true regardless of reality.
Don't ask for "specific examples" here. There are volumes of material available for the finding.
The issue is values. Evidence shows that Republicans value elitist, anti-social, inflammatory rhetoric that has a "ring of truth," even when it's a blatant lie.
People who care about this Country are increasingly discerning and see through the demagogues and ratings grabbers, and have learned to be better shoppers when it comes to information.
The remnant of the 'Cons still seem to be content with fast food junk.
Posted by Derek on October 15, 2007 07:23 PMAdam and Derek, you guys make me laugh too, just like Eric does.
Media Matters, MoveOn, or whoever your favorite news source is tells you what to believe, and you believe it without question. They tell you what you want to hear, and you want it to be true, so in your mind it is true.
Did you guys know the word gullible is not in the dictionary?
Posted by Wez on October 15, 2007 08:03 PMIf everything is better in Iraq, why is Blackwater and others there?
Posted by rick on October 15, 2007 08:58 PMWez, unlike Republicans, I don't believe everything just because it appeals to me. I actually check into the credentials of where my news comes from. That's what makes the difference, Wez.
I would rather not hear that the President is a lying criminal, and that 25% of Americans are idiotic enough to support him, but unfortunately, revolting as it is, it's the truth.
That's the biggest problem we have in this country right now, Wez, is that some people (Republicans) only hear what they want to hear, and decent people hear things that are the appalling facts.
In sum: I dont believe what I hear "without question." I am diligent and thorough in my fact checking - and the facts are that the Neocons lied us into a disasterous war for fraudulent reasons, and are now trying to play out the time so they can blame the nightmare on the next administration.
It's careless, lazy and insolent Republicans like Dubya, and you, Wez, who have allowed this mess to take place. It's cynical, depressed, dishonest, crooked Neocons who believe any demogogic garbage that's presented just because it fits their anti-social, pernicious, divisive, imperialistic agenda.
Until you admit that you are in grave error, and that you have unquestioningly swallowed a pack of lies, you will remain with your head in the sand, deluded, and fundamentally wrong. Your complacency with this is a disgrace, and you do not deserve to call yourself an "American."
Please stop pretending to know anything about politics, or to be in any way "patriotic." You are a traitor, and the criminals you support are traitors.
Posted by Adam One on October 15, 2007 11:21 PMosama is hillbillary's biggest supporter and wants the liberal progressives to win the election so he can rule the world without any worries of having to hide in a hole any longer.
Posted by on October 16, 2007 06:43 AMWell, there you have it folks! 06:43 AM, anonymous, has just summed up, in a single sentence, the whole "philosophy" of Republicanism/"conservatism"; and the whole reason for the Iraq quagmire they keep us in today.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 16, 2007 09:10 AMAdam, where did I say I knew anything about politics or say anything at all about patriotism?
You're the one who seems to think you know it all. But all you really know is what MoveOn or whoever is spoon feeding you. And you happily lap it up.
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 10:51 AMIt's interesting to compare the presentation styles of the two sides.
Media Matters, Moveon, and the Center For American Progress, for the most part, present comparisons of broadcast content, or simple facts. Usually, their material is presented in a calm, professional tone, by a variety of people.
Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Fox "News," [and their followers], on the other hand, deal in juvenile put-downs, "gotcha" politics, smears, insults, innuendos, ridicule and fevered, broad-brush generalizations. The right-wingnuts are also led by cult-of-personality demogogues, bloviators who's names become household words.
Appealing to a barely literate population weaned on Jerry Springer and whose attention span is limited to the average time between television commercials, the so-called "Conservative" packaging sold well for a decade or so. Now, having failed so miserably, it's going the way of the Edsel, or Pogs.
Stavros, you don't like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or FOX because they're biased and have an agenda to push. Well guess what, Media Matters, MoveOn, and the Center For American Progress are also biased and have an agenda to push. They're just opposite sides of the same coin.
The only difference is you agree with the bias of Media Matters and the others. So in your mind there is no bias and the news you receive from them seems calm, professional, and accurate.
If you honestly believe you're getting the straight story from any of them, you're just as brainwashed as any "right-wingnut."
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 12:59 PMSo, Wez, you're a deconstructionist. You believe that nothing is ultimately true or provable. That "facts" are just an anomaly of hierarchical, patriarchal society.
Deconstructionism, an interesting philosophical fad of the 80s and 90s, has informed much of the failed aspects of feminism and gay liberation.
Deconstructionism argues that ideas like "gender," "right," "wrong," etc. are ephemeral, sexist, homphobic, and a waste of time.
Cute, Wez, but not practical in the real world.
We're in Iraq for the oil.
Posted by Stavros on October 16, 2007 01:10 PMHere's an example of the crude, insolent and smug level of rhetoric that characterizes the Republican idea of "debate:"
Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as "another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform" and accused him of going to Iraq "to pad the resumé." Hackett, a Marine Corps veteran, re-enlisted last year. The New York Times reported that "Mr. Hackett spent seven months in Iraq leading a civil affairs unit in Ramadi and Fallujah before returning to Ohio in March." On August 2, he narrowly lost a special election to Republican Jean Schmidt for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat.
On his August 2 show, Limbaugh asked, "Can a liberal Democrat, hiding behind a military uniform, win in a Republican district while lying and denying his liberalism?" He answered his own question the following day, telling listeners, "Democrats once again lose an election running an ultraliberal hiding behind the military uniform." Limbaugh also said that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was "hiding behind a military uniform" during the 2004 presidential campaign and that "[former Sen. Max] Cleland's [D-GA] uniform didn't help him in his re-election either."
From the August 2 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: OK, if you go to the top of our homepage at RushLimbaugh.com, you'll find a link to see this Hackett ad, and it is amazing. The libs, once again trying to hide behind a military uniform. It didn't work for Kerry. I can't imagine it's going to work for Hackett, but we'll see. But you gotta see this ad to believe it.
*******
Wez, how does this kind of infantile sarcasm fit the definition of "reasonable"? Tell us, how can you honestly support this kind of hateful smear tactic? How does this "inform" anyone?
How dare Rush Limbaugh, a bloated, oxycontin abusing draft-dodger, malign our troops this way? And how can you defend it?
Stavros, there are facts and there is truth, but we're never going to hear an accurate account of what's happening in the world from a news outlet. Be it FOX News, CNN, CBS, MoveOn, Media Matters, or anyone, they all twist and slant the news to fit their own beliefs and agendas.
If you want to believe MoveOn because you agree with their agenda, that's up to you. But like I said before, if you think you're getting the complete and accurate story, you're as brainwashed as anyone.
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 01:46 PMAdam, where did I defend Rush?
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 01:49 PMAnother right-wingnut demagogue that Republicans unquestioningly worship is Bill O'Reilly. He is another pernicious, anti-social influence. In terms of damage, there's not much difference between Bill O'Reilly being given a microphone and Charles Manson being given a microphone. But Fox News, which operated at a loss for it's first three years and was kept afloat by it's owner Rupert Murdoch, is a propaganda arm of the White House - so oil, cigarette, and pharmaceutical dollars get the upper hand.
Try to defend this, Wes:
O'Reilly frequently denounces "cowards" who refuse to face him on-air, saying, for example, "If you attack someone publicly, as these men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If you don't, you are a coward." But O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Media Matters while refusing Media Matters President and CEO David Brock's request to appear on The O'Reilly Factor.
O'Reilly threatened Canada with a boycott like the one he advocated against France, then cited a phony statistic about the success of the French boycott. The threat came during O'Reilly's April 27 debate with Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick about Canada's harboring of two deserters from the U.S. military who have fled to Canada. From FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserter [sic], doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.
MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.
O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...
MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...
O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."
MALLICK: I think that's nonsense.
Media Matters for America found no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review." A Google.com search revealed no mentions of "Paris Business Review," "Revue des Affaires de Paris," or any similar French name. A LexisNexis search for "Paris," "France," or "French" within five words of "business review" produced no relevant results. There is a journal called "European Business Review," which is published in England; however, over the past two years, "European Business Review" has not mentioned an American boycott of France.
Furthermore, contrary to O'Reilly's claim that France has lost "billions of dollars" due to an American boycott, American imports from France have actually increased since international tensions with France began in the months prior to the start of the war in Iraq in March 2003. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in February 2004, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, up from $2.18 billion in February 2002.
...........
The problem we face is not "phony soldiers," it's phony pundits, pretending to operate in the public interest. [and the gullible fools who believe them...]
Posted by Derek on October 16, 2007 01:53 PMDon't backpedal, Wez. You're a Republican, and we all know it. You defend Republicanism - admit it.
Posted by Adam One on October 16, 2007 02:02 PMDerek and Adam, you guys are going to have to help me out. Where did I defend Rush or O'Reilly or anyone? Where did I say they weren't biased, slanted, or that they weren't pushing an agenda? Can you show me where I said anything like that?
All I've been saying is you guys are getting your information (and blindly believing every word of it) from sources that are every bit as biased, every bit as slanted, and are absolutely pushing agendas just like Rush and O'Reilly. I don't know if you're in denial, or just too brainwashed to see it.
Mr/Ms anonymous 2:21 PM, did you have anything intelligent to offer, or is that the best you can do?
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 03:11 PMWez, you wrote:
you guys are getting your information (and blindly believing every word of it) from sources that are every bit as biased, every bit as slanted, and are absolutely pushing agendas just like Rush and O'Reilly.
Prove it.
Media Matters describes itself as "a web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
MoveOn is a liberal political action group.
You don't suppose that maybe, just maybe, they might have a liberal slant? They're the liberal version of Rush or FOX News. As I said, just opposite sides of the same coin.
And I still maintain you're brainwashed if you think they're any more objective and impartial than the conservative side of the house.
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 03:52 PMReality itself has a Liberal bias. That's why Republicans are having such a hard time these days. The biggest threat facing Republicans today is the truth.
Posted by Stavros on October 16, 2007 04:41 PMHmm. More of that Orwellian Republican pretzel-logic.
Wez, what universe do you live in? Here, in the United States, our coins are very different on each side. You seem to think that both sides of a coin are mirror opposites - maybe it's that way in Mongolia or wherever it is you hail from, but your idea of a coin is more like the "heads I win, tails you lose" variety.
If we use the coin analogy, it goes like this. One side is the Truth, the other side is a Lie. Or we could say one side is the Liar, and the other side Exposes the Lie. [See, different as cheese and chalk - not different as forenoon and afternoon.]
Like Stavros said, you seem to be a deconstructionist, and believe that it's impossible to know the truth. 'Cons seem to continuously obscure and cloud the issues to avoid facing the truth - maybe that's what you're up to.
My friend's 22 year old son is stationed in Baghdad. That's the truth. When Rush smears the troops, and smears people who rightfully question the war's legitimacy, and "carries water" [his own words] to perpetrate falsehoods, those are Lies.
When Bush tries to say that we attacked Iraq because of 9/11, that's also a Lie. The White House's own investigative committee agreed that the reasons stated to justify invading Iraq were flawed. Bush own father, the real George Bush, and Dick Cheney, that vampire, both said in the 80s and 90s that invading Iraq would be a disaster.
As long as you stay in your new age delusion of a squishy universe where nothing means anything and black is white and truth is a lie, you will still be a Republican, as shameful and anti-American as that is.
Posted by Adam One on October 16, 2007 05:39 PMOh please, Stavros. Reality only seems to have a liberal bias. But what do you expect when you get all your news from liberal outlets?
You need to get out a little more instead of soaking up that steady stream of indoctrination propaganda from your "news" sources.
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 05:39 PM
Adam, are you essentially saying that if it comes from the right it's a lie, and if it comes from the left it's the truth?
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 05:50 PMWez - you don't know where I get my news. The neocon mantra about the "Liberal Media" is as obsolete as the one about "Supply Side Economics."
Because of the web, I can access over 4,500 different news sources from around the world. I read all of them continuously, and filter out the contradictions and the unsubstantiated claims of Matt Drudge and Bill O'Reilly.
The "Liberal Media" is a thing of the past. People like you, Wez, who only get their scripts from Fox and O'Reilly, and speak in neocon jargon, are the anachronisms.
Blaming the messenger, and shrieking "Liberal" at people who expose Neocon lies and malfeasance just looks desperate, Wez.
Wez, a desperate, wishy-washy, new age deconstructionist, trying to defend the corporate-facist armchair hawk lawyer conmen who've taken over the government of this dying country. Pathetic.
Posted by Stavros on October 16, 2007 05:53 PMYes! You finally get it! Republicans are LIARS. Look at Larry Craig! He lies about his lies, and then lies about it - and he's a Hall of Famer! Dubya's being upstaged!
Q] How do you know when a Republican is lying?
A] When his [or her] lips are moving.
[Don't forget Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin!]
Posted by Adam One on October 16, 2007 06:03 PMStavros, how do I know where you get your news? Well, the way you were touting the virtues of Media Matters, MoveOn, and the Center For American Progress gave me a pretty good idea. And as I've pointed out, those are self professed liberal outlets.
And I'll ask yet AGAIN, where have I defended FOX or O'Reilly? Where have I said anything complimentary about them? What makes you think those are my sources for news? That seems to be your standard attack against anyone who disagrees with you. "He disagrees, so obviously he he gets his scripts from FOX." Can't you do better than that?
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 06:22 PMAdam, if you honestly believe cheats and liars can only be found in the Republican Party, your brainwashing has been a success. If I were you, I'd seek deprogramming as soon as possible, because you have completely lost touch with reality.
Posted by Wez on October 16, 2007 06:30 PMWez, you seem really defensive. What are you defending, exactly?
Posted by Eric Dolphy on October 16, 2007 07:39 PMThe president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and generals don't become generals by saying negative things about their boss.
This is the primary concern expressed by moveon's advertisement. Basically, senior government officials cannot be trusted to provide honest, unbiased reports on programs that are wholeheartedly supported by their superiors.
For Gen. Petreus to say anything truly negative in his report would be career suicide.
I am certain that adding 20,000 troops to the effort in Iraq DID have a beneficial effect -- albeit short-lived. However, the primary challenge of Iraq remains -- to establish a stable government that can take care of itself in a powder keg environment of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds who all want to annihilate each other and any American "infidels" that they can get their hands on.
(Editor's Note: Tree Hugger is a 21-year Air Force retiree with five tours in the Middle East from 1991 thorugh 2006.)
Posted by Tree Hugger on October 16, 2007 09:14 PM