September 14, 2007 1:56 PM
Not moving on from moveon's 'Betray Us' ad
Elizabeth Edwards did the heavy lifting for her husband's campaign today when she criticized moveon.org for a controversial newspaper ad that refered to Gen. David Petraeus and "General Betray Us."
“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards.Edwards spoke in an interview after a Des Moines campaign appearance. She noted that her father was a career naval officer, and she grew up on Navy bases, so she said she respects military service.
MoveOn.org is a liberal, national group that supports many of the stances that John Edwards has taken in his campaign, including criticism of the Iraq war. The group ran a full-page ad in the New York Times this week, taking a shot at Petraeus, who is the top military leader in Iraq. The ad ran on the day the general was to testify to Congress about progress he sees in Iraq. Its headline sparked angry protest from Republicans, who said it smeared an honorable man.
Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by simply using Petraeus’ own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.
She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says.”
Two other Democrats chose the "respect the general/denounce the war" tact, reports M.E. Sprengelmeyer.
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson went out of their way to defend Petraeus' honor in the wake of a newspaper ad referring to him as "General Betray Us."MoveOn.org accused Petraeus of "cooking the books" to make a troop surge look more successful.
Richardson stopped short of criticizing MoveOn.org.
But he made it clear he preferred to aim his fire at Bush, not Petraeus or U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who both defended the president's troop surge.
"Look, I disagree with the ad because I think they're men of integrity and competence. But there's such frustration in this country," Richardson said. "They're good civil servants both. They're patriotic people. But their job is to support the president. The president is the one with the flawed policy. It's a failure of civilian leadership."
Biden called Petraeus an "honorable" man. But he said the general's hopeful report left him unconvinced.
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani unveiled an attack ad against Sen. Hillary Clinton, accusing the Democratic frontrunner of attacking Petraeus' character.
The ad paid for by the Giuliani campaign attempts to link Clinton to another ad, paid for by MoveOn.org, a liberal anti-war group, that ran in the Times on Monday. The MoveOn ad accused Petraeus of "cooking the books" on the Iraq war and played off his name, asking, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"MoveOn's political action committee will begin airing a new ad on television Monday that accuses Bush of a "betrayal of trust." The ad will run from Monday to Friday in Washington on cable and nationally on CNN. The total ad buy is $60,000.
The MoveOn TV ad argues that, despite plans to withdraw about 30,000 troops added to the U.S. military presence in Iraq earlier this year, Bush remains mired in the war.
"Now he's making a big deal about, you guessed it, pulling out 30,000 troops," the ad states. "So next year, there will still be 130,000 troops stuck in Iraq. George Bush. A betrayal of trust."
September 14, 2007
2:45 PM
Anonymous writes:
Of course she has to, she is more man then her girly FemDem husband. Pathetic luntaic lefties. You can say you support the troops all you want, but your actions speak louder then words loony leftties
September 14, 2007
2:50 PM
Dems suck writes:
Democrats snugly under the ultra-left wing. This has become a truly anit-American dictated to bunch.
September 14, 2007
2:56 PM
No longer Republican writes:
Reminds me of those Swift Boat ads. Except no one was calling them Un-American
September 14, 2007
3:16 PM
KW writes:
Where did any of them "criticize" moveon? A few said the General doesn't deserve such treatment but I don't see any one of them taking moveon to task for their actions.
I guess they don't want to bite the soros-hand that feeds them.
September 14, 2007
3:34 PM
Hogar De Vuelts العودة writes:
NLR,
So the military service of Kerry and Petraeus are the same thing? How many of MoveOns thugs served with Patraeus?
September 14, 2007
3:41 PM
No longer Democrat(ic) writes:
The Swift Boat Ads were true. That is why John Kerry can't sue them. You can't win against what really happened.
BTW, just when is the "FlipFlopper" going to release his military records to somebody besides the Boston Globe, somebody that might actually look at them instead of shredding them.
September 14, 2007
3:56 PM
shaggy writes:
I see Elizabeth Edwards is out fighting for the breck girl again.
I just couldn't be persuaded to vote for anyone who wouldn't deliberatley come out and demand that this group does not represent them and that they are a disgrace and should be shut down.
I know that real Democrats do not support this kind of thing.
If I were a Democrat I know I would not associate myself with this hate group.
Liberals are getting really scarey these days.
September 14, 2007
4:01 PM
Former Dem writes:
By not denouncing the disgraceful MoveOn ad, Democratic front runners are setting themselve up for failure like Kerry did. It's one thing to talk the talk of a patriot when it is convenient, but actions always speak louder and more convincingly. This is why when reminded of Kerry's disgraceful bashing of Nam soldiers Americans had serious doubts as far as his fitness to serve as President. Now Hillary can claim the same hypocrisy all the way to the primaries.
September 14, 2007
4:31 PM
draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue writes:
20 years of draft dodgers leadership anyone? Our military members, citizens, and the world, deserve much better. Draft dodging isn't a family value and neither is whore-mongering. Based on these 2 qualifications, we are left with Hillary, Dodd, Obama, Edwards, Gravelle, Paul, and ME!
September 14, 2007
4:45 PM
draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue writes:
Rudy's panties are in a tiff because Moveon.org slammed Gen. Betray Us. If you can' take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. Where was this little draft dodging creep when Bush, Rove, and Cheney were smearing McCain (POW), Kerrey (lost a leg a NAM), Daschle, Clelan (triple NAM amputee).
VIETNAM VETERANS sometime eat's their young. It still blows my mind draft dodgers like Bush, Rove, and Cheney were able to asemble a group like SwiftBoatSailors for the un-Truth, where they smeared US Sen. John Kerry. I saw Kerry in NAM. Locally, I'm astonished Skaggs (Chair, CCHE), is allowing criminal illegal Mexicans and Hindu-Indians to steal jobs and contracts from black disabled Vietnam veterans, throughout all State of Colorado colleges and universities.
September 14, 2007
5:00 PM
National Guard Commander writes:
Anyone seen Lieutenant Bush lately?
September 14, 2007
6:26 PM
shaggy writes:
Rudy's panties are in a tiff because Moveon.org slammed Gen. Betray Us.--draft
What is so ironic about this whole thing is that now because of moveon smearing a four star general with a BRONZE star for valor and them getting a discount in the liberal paper allows Rudy to run a full page ad in the NYT for 60% off debunking moveon and the Democrats that don't denounce this group and also letting him have the last word.
Brilliant, simply brilliant.
Can you all say "BACKFIRE".
September 15, 2007
11:56 AM
KW writes:
Anyone else notice the NY Times stock drop since the add was ran.
I believe they have hit a 10 year low... and still falling.
September 15, 2007
1:50 PM
jay writes:
Seriously....is there any question that Tiger is playing as well or better than the famed 2000 season? If he stays healthy, he'll set records that will stand for a century if not longer.
About The Pet...I personally don't see what the problem is....
Petraeus really did betray the troops and the citizens of the US when he refused to base his conclusions and subsequent strategic decisions on non-cooked data. I certainly understand the need for the candidates to distance themselves from such a public denunciation of this traitorous behavior...but I don't think that takes away from the validity of Moveon.org's point.
When Petraeus refused to hold the troops' best interest above his boss's political machinations...he opened his credibility and motivations up to truthful criticisms.
At least one top general is willing to tell the truth...no matter how damaging such behavior may be to The Legacy Project.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/14/pace.iraq/index.html
by the way KW...how is the NYT's stock doing when compared to the stock of newspapers nationwide?
I haven't looked at the data...but I would have to imagine that most of the paper in the country are seeing similar drops due to the increasing popularity of getting one's news on the internet.
September 15, 2007
2:03 PM
KW writes:
Hey jay - Turns out moveon (do they have ADD??) didn't coin the phrase Betrayus. Your buddy Olbermann did.
Hasn't helped his ratings any though. Still in the toilet.
September 15, 2007
2:36 PM
jay writes:
I guess I for one would be more interested in the validity of the message....than the ratings of the messengers
September 15, 2007
2:59 PM
Former Dem writes:
MoveOn's self appointed position as consciousness of the left, and by extension every Democratic candidate for president, has royally backfired. Now each Dem flipflopper will be spinning so hard there will be a cooling breeze everywhere they appear. This momentum will only build as we approach the primaries and the issue will dominate the debate to the exclusion of most other intended messages.
Great job Democrats. Another victory snatched from the jays (I mean jaws) of defeat.
September 15, 2007
3:21 PM
jay writes:
"MoveOn's self appointed position as consciousness of the left, and by extension every Democratic candidate for president, has royally backfired"
This is yet another strawman argument.
You're about as much of a former democrat as I am a former Nebraska fan.
September 15, 2007
5:32 PM
jay writes:
By the way...just to put the "backfired" talking point in perspective...
According to the Fox News poll on the matter....many more Americans believe that The Pet's testimony was "slanted toward the policies of the Bush Administration" than believe it was truthful...and thus didn't represent the best interests of the troops. Add to that the fact that several credible gov't agencies have all compiled similar data on the "surge"...and all are at odds with The Pet's cooked books...and you gotta wonder....
How agreeing and representing the majority of Americans and holding the troops' best interests at heart is going to "backfire" for the Dems...
September 16, 2007
4:07 AM
Anonymous writes:
Actually Petray us is really saying stay the course.
Just like Colin Powell who testified before the Un about Iraqs wmd and the imminent need to go to war.
They really did let us down by not telling the truth. And both Dems and Pubs are letting us down now.
McCaffrey, Franks, and others are now speaking the truth about this war. Its not pretty.
September 16, 2007
10:27 AM
Anonymous writes:
The ad calling the general a liar, compounded by Hillarious Clinton's political double speak which amounts to the same thing will follow the dems all the way to the November elections. General Clark's endorsement of Clinton is impotent in restoring any perceived credentials she may have manufactured as a competent Commander in Chief. His creds on that matter were jettisoned last time around when he ran as a military dove.
Cherry picked polling aside, Americans want and have always wanted a strong CIC; one unafraid of flexing military muscle when it is needed. Democrats only talk the talk and stumble on the walk.
Delicious.
September 16, 2007
2:20 PM
shaggy writes:
"Seriously....is there any question that Tiger is playing as well or better than the famed 2000 season? If he stays healthy, he'll set records that will stand for a century if not longer."---jay
WOW, We have found a middle ground on something that we agree.
Can you believe all the low scores being shot.
Looks like breaking 60 is not to far away. Not sure of the slope of this course but a few of them are eating it up.
Former Dem, I agree with you, the Dems are going to be flopping like a bunch of fish on a dry bank trying to distance themselves.
Did you see where when Billary returned the money she included a note saying you can re-send it if it comes from their personal account.
It is still dirty money.
The Dems greed is going to be their demise. He He.
September 16, 2007
3:08 PM
Mitch writes:
I think the abject silence coming from the likes of Howard Dean, and all of the Dem presidential hopefuls proves Former Dem's statement that the looney far left has hijacked the party at present. Unfortunately they will all pay in short order as the Repubs predictably will take the gaffe and run with it. It will suck the air out of the room until some "leader" in the Dem party steps up.
September 16, 2007
7:16 PM
It's True writes:
NLR,
So the military service of Kerry and Petraeus are the same thing? How many of MoveOns thugs served with Patraeus?
Posted by Hogar De Vuelts
If you recall, the men who served with Kerry denounced the Swift Boat ads as cowardly and completely inaccurate. I was especially impressed by the man who was fished out of the water and his life was saved. He was disgusted by the Swift Boar lies. (not to mention Bush's disappearing act) Dark days of Rovian politics
September 17, 2007
8:10 AM
JW writes:
I love the hypocrisy...
Some whacko leftist organization decideds to call Petraeus "Betrayus" all on their own, and you wingnuts crucify WHO? Dem candidates?
The BUSH TEAM actually did this same thing with the "Swift Boating" of Kerry (among other totally bs underhanded and straight immoral campaign tactics), and you chumps did what? VOTED FOR HIM?
And above and beyond all that, this is just more "they are wrong because they are bad" bullshit. Not one discussion of policy. If you didnt learn by voting for this IDIOT twice because he had an (R) in front of his name, and he pimped Christ the best, you never will.
You people really are lucky breathing is involuntary. Too bad for the rest of us.
September 17, 2007
8:43 AM
Hank writes:
Moveon.org has its name rooted in in its founder's (two Berkleyites) "move on from the Clinton scandals" agenda. This same crowd, led by hate-America, socialist and robber-barron, George Soros "bought and paid for the democrat party." They own Reid and Pelosi's butts. So why should we be suprised by the "Betray Us " ad when the very same crowd "High-5s" each other every time a U.S. Marine takes a hit?
September 17, 2007
9:02 AM
Anonymous writes:
Try thinking outside the box Hank. (pull your head out of your butt)
September 17, 2007
9:07 AM
JMH writes:
Whaa...
Listen to all the Neo-Con crying on this post... Ohhh... "The Dems aren't playing nice" whaaa...wahaa...
I guess Adm. Fallon is a traitor and un-American too because he sees "General Betray-us" the same way most of America does - nothing more than a ass-kissing "chickensh*t" !
Too bad all you Neo-Con punks have been supporting a bunch of draft-dodging chicken-hawks for the last 6 years, maybe your opinions would matter now if you didn't.
Nothing but failure for the last 6 years and you want us to be nice about it? Screw you wussies ! The fact is Bush changed generals like most people change thier underwear until he found one that was dumb enough to carry water for him. Wasn't Patreaus the one who was supposed to train the Iraqi troops a few years ago? Ya, great job on that one too...
But because he has a few medals on his chest, we aren't allow to question his motives, fuzzy math, etc? Ya, right...Keep crying like the little scared girls all you Neo-Cons have proven to be. After 6.5 years of dirty tricks and character assassination from the Neo-Cons, I just have one thing to ask... "How does it feel?" Well, now I think I know... whaa whaa... Don't dish it out if you can't take it!!!
Funny, I don't remember all you Republican tools so upset when Republicans went after Sen. Max Cleland, comparing him to Osama bin Laden. The guy lost his arm and both legs in Vietnam for this country and he is compared to bin Laden, but you have the balls to cry about us questioning the "fuzzy math" used by Patreaus?
Ohh... poor 4 start general... We might hurt his feelings... whaa whaa... Is being a total hypocrite a requirement to being a "good Republican"?
September 17, 2007
11:01 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
You said it, JW, I can't believe the whining: "Oh no, some political action group is heavily criticizing our side, and making capricious arguments to do it! That's not FAIR! Only the GOP should be able to do that!"
Hell, you don't even have to mention the Swiftboat folks. Look what happened to McCain in SC in 2000. Look at Armstrong Williams being paid to spout nonsense with tax money. In fact, mention just about anything Rove's been doing (or that he's endorsed), and you'll see similar tactics and worse.
I don't think it's very useful to talk of "betrayal" like MoveOn did. But hell, now that you Pubes are getting some of your own shit thrown at you, you can't hack it, and start raving about anti-Americanism and traitors and vast conspiracies. Douches.
Incidentally, if Pelosi and Reid were in Soros' pocket, they would have worked harder to end the war NOW, rather than put forth funding bills without timetables, and Pelosi wouldn't have forbidden any bills concerning impeachment to come to the floor.
Lastly, regardless of whether MoveOn's tactics are good cricket or not: there will be no blow-back. Unless the situation in Iraq dramatically improves (I hope so, but I doubt it), nobody will remember or be upset by attacks on Petraeus' report, because all his comments on "progress" will be moot and inapplicable.
In the meantime, all the major GOP candidates for Prez are talking about "victory with honor." They have at once tethered their campaigns to thus far failed policy, and have launched a pre-emptive campaign to suggest that our "loss" in this war is because the press and the American people stabbed the troops in the back, with no mention of policy mistakes. I can't think of an adjective that conveys the depth of my disgust at such tactics, particularly as they're going to work with those 27%ers.
September 17, 2007
12:12 PM
Uncommon Sense writes:
Whatever your opinions of the war, Democrats or Republicans, one thing should still be abundantly clear- this was a truly boneheaded move by moveon. They don’t need to further impress any of the people who might like that ad (those folks would already be solidly in the moveon camp- so they’d only be ‘preaching to the choir’), but they did manage to put the dem presidential candidates in a tough bind (and none of them need any help in that department), further alienated the middle, and gave more blathering talking points for the right. Nice going moveon, perhaps you could start burning some flags to really finish off the week strong.
Sad thing is, now the validity of the actual point they were trying to make (that the pentagon numbers are a bit fishy) is now completely off the political table since even bringing it up now would mean being lumped in with the first-grader-like moronic message of the ad and would be political kryptonite. So they got the benefit of calling a general a name (and not even a clever one at that), and gave up any credibility about their central argument while simultaneously hurting all dems currently campaigning.
From a strictly political point of view, this was a remarkably stupid thing to do. If they want to change the course on the war, this only emboldens their foes and weakens their supporters. If they want to get dems elected, this will hurt that effort too. If all they care about is their name being on TV, they did wonderfully. Selfish, stupid and short sighted- nice trifecta.
September 17, 2007
12:18 PM
history buff writes:
More prelude to what will undoubtedly be a Presidential campaign highlighted by the constant hurling of invective by America's most skilled assholes.
September 17, 2007
12:36 PM
Anonymous writes:
Like it or not, MoveOn's ad has worked, in the sense that this thread is still going strong several days after the fact, and everytime any pundit or even candidate rants about it (including Elizabeth Edwards) the 'controversy' remains in the news cycle -- "Is it wrong to imply that a decorated general is lying to America?" versus "Is this administration playing fast-and-loose with the facts once again?". If anything, it -is- a signal that left-wing groups have learned and are employing the tactics honed by the right-wing: attack the opponents 'apparent' strength' by sowing doubt and division, for the purpose of prolonging public attention on the -doubt-. The 'swift-boating' of Kerry is the template for this, for better or worse, so none of us can be surprised that the other side has adapted.
And for all the discomfort of the Demcratic candidates trying to distance themselves from it, the only reason there -is- a controversy that keeps people talking is that this administration's credibility is of foremost concern among most Americans...even among conservatives (such as those who didn't want Bush to go on the air -after- the images of Petraeus were associated with the message of progress in Iraq). If most Americans felt like the administration had been straight with us over the past 6 years over numerous issues, this would just raise a collective 'huh?' and disappear. Compounding the credibility issue is how the administration has in the past cloaked itself in military imagery (the 'jaunty' Bush in flight suit, etc) to cover its own shortcomings in military strategy and execution.
Most Americans are displeased with an incompetent commander-in-chief (see Carter), but displeasure turns to disgust if they think a president is using decorated officers to hide that incompetence. Whether or not that is occurring here is besides the point -- MoveOn's ad simply taps that viseral emotional response...and the more right- and left-wingers talk about it, the more that emotion works its Rovian-magic.
September 17, 2007
1:02 PM
Uncommon Sense writes:
The anon post below misses some key points (in my opinion). The fact that they are still in the news doesn’t mean they are winning anything. Brittany Spears and OJ can dominate a news cycle, it doesn’t mean you want them standing next to you while campaigning.
The repubs (Rove in particular) were diabolical masters at manipulating the news cycle with the same simple minded stuff that move on does. Here, however, is the key difference. They were able to get the media to ask the question they wanted (regardless of its truth or merit). Move on did the opposite. The question they wanted was “Are Patreus’ numbers credible?”. The question asked was “Do you denounce Move on?”. How does that question possibly help any democrat?
They got nothing out of this, and the fact that it drowns out any of the dems talking about anything else, is a real backfire. You could argue it energized their base, but Bush already does that every time he speaks. Bad move.
September 17, 2007
1:36 PM
KW writes:
Dirk - No whining here. I can't speak for the rest of us anti-lefties here but I for one am very glad moveon made such a bold move.
Stupid move, but a bold one none the less.
September 17, 2007
1:45 PM
Anonymous writes:
The question they wanted was “Are Patreus’ numbers credible?”. The question asked was “Do you denounce Move on?”. How does that question possibly help any democrat?
I agree and disagree: in a more ideal, healthy democracy, the overall debate could/would focus on comparing the numbers Patreaus reported in his testimony and those reported from other sources, including the military. In which case, MoveOn and Democrats would benefit from a thoughtful ad raising the question in thorough, but likely uninspiring, small-print fashion (with the equivalent entertainment value of a NPR monotone). Personally, given what we've seen over the past 6 years, I think it is naive and unrealistic to expect the current media or man-in-the-street (or on-the-blog) to take the time to weigh input from many sides and have critical discussion over the matter. At least for swaying political opinion, sound-bites matter more, and sound-bites that stir controversy and emotional unease work even more so.
I disagree that Dems are in a tough position on this: look at Elizabeth Edward's response to a 'do you denounce Move-on' question -- seems a no-brainer:
“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards.
Citing her father, she of course denounces it...making her (husband) appear, by golly, moderate (!) and not at all like those radical MoveOn types. That is exactly the challenge the Dems face in pulling over right-leaning independents and moderate Republicans. But note how she repeats the offensive and effective hook "Betray Us", cheesy as it is. One more time, the press runs a simple, negative message that ultimately raises more direct doubts about the current administration (given their track record) than any Dem candidate, who are a couple of steps removed, or in fact tsk-tsking MoveOn.
Compare this to the question: 'are Petraeus numbers credible?' ...the answer is too easy to spin...one expert says not at all, the other side, says they are spot-on, etc etc...the debate fogs over must peoples minds, and ends in a draw.
In this case, I think MoveOn's point was to make Bush's overall credibility the issue, by raising the spectre of deception and exploitation of legitimate military types. The Petreaus testimony, and any possible inaccuracies, was just a vehicle for doing so...his truth or falsehood is completely besides the point, sad to say.
So by playing the bad cop to the now-appearing 'moderate' good-cop Democratic candidates, MoveOn has lured in the Republican candidates to defending Petreaus and his rosy predictions. And sadly, given how many other times we've heard 'Iraq has turned the corner' smart money is that conditions will prove to be less rosy in the coming 6 months than the earnest general has outlined. In which case, Bush's credibility problem gets ported to the Republican candidates.
Again -- this tactic s nothing new, just interesting to see it applied by the left, and the various reactions to it. And the right wingers should learn from what happened with the swift-boaters...the more you keep the story alive, the more people start wondering whether we in fact -might- have an incompetent commander-in-chief who hides behind the skirts of the real men in uniform.
September 17, 2007
2:06 PM
Dirk Gently writes:
Very thoughtful analysis, 1:45. However I would still suggest that overall this move hasn't had an overall positive effect. Here's why:
Although the Dems can seem moderate by distancing themselves to the ad, and the GOP noise machine is inadvertently tying itself to failed policies in their over-reaction to this ad, the actual phrase "General Betray Us" links the general himself too close to the bad info, rather than linking the info with the White House. The WH already did the groundwork here by helping to spread the consensus notion that Petraeus is a man of character. Now his character has been called into question, rather than what they COULD have run with, which is this: he's a man of such character that he's been forced to go to Congress and put lipstick on a pig, the pig being Bush's shitty policy.
What MoveOn has done is make Patraeus into a martyr for the right while reinforcing the facile notion that liberals hate the military. What they COULD have done is make Patraeus a martyr for the left and finally call out any GOP candidates who think that throwing good money and men into the inferno is "supporting our troops."
September 17, 2007
2:15 PM
Victory writes:
Let's stop arguing about all the pretexts that enabled this slaughter of the Iraqi people. To achieve victory, we need to possess, control and defend Iraqi oil as if it were our own. It is the only objective for which we can achieve a victory. Forget about uniting factions that cannot be united. We need to concentrate on our objective and take measures, step by step, to take control over all of Iraq's oil. We have weathered the storm of world criticism over the war. Surely, we can weather criticism for acting on our true objectives. We can move forward and do what is in our national interest. We must control the scarce resources of this world to perpetuate our our way of life.
September 17, 2007
2:23 PM
"Success" writes:
"Victory"
Sorry, maybe you didn't listen to the President last week, but you've been replaced. I'm the new kid in town.
Seems the Boss needed a more ambiguous goal for this war, and I fit the bill better than you.
No hard feelings, I hope. Maybe next war we'll need your services again.
September 17, 2007
2:35 PM
Victory writes:
Success,
I know what the Prez said. But why pretend we don't want the oil when we do? If we are true about our objectives, we will succeed and be victorious, then both of us will be happy.
What we are doing is kind of like being Senator Craig. Sure, we like to succeed, but we risk having our true motives and true selves exposed. Why go through all the deception and be labeled hypocrits? If we are honest, we don't have to cover up the truth. We don't have to pretend that we give a rats ass about the Iraqi people.
September 17, 2007
2:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
Dirk -
Only time will tell on this one, but I just doubt that the Patreas-as-marytr trend will take Republicans very far. Those that buy into it are likely the most die-hard supporters of this war, in light of the very mixed results (by any standard).
I suspect the on-the-fence types will see the General for what he had to do, no more or less. Who has not had a job where they had to grin-and-bear-it on behalf of the boss? His 'report' as hyped as it had been over the past several months will be generally forgotten in the coming six months as American soliders keep getting picked off, without a clearly defined mission. (remember the 'benchmarks' from 6 months ago? Most Americans don't) My guess is that the chronic doubt of Bush (and by extension, war-hawk Republicans) will grow, and the MoveOn ad debate will have played a small role in cultivating that doubt.
Gen. Patreaus had a bit part in the larger political strategy, namely to buy Bush some more time so as to hand this war off to someone with the capacity to conclude it.
September 17, 2007
3:38 PM
Success writes:
I know what the Prez said. But why pretend we don't want the oil when we do? If we are true about our objectives, we will succeed and be victorious, then both of us will be happy.
Alas, my dear cousin Victory, while it is nearly impossible to have Victory without Success, our Boss knows it is easy to have Success without Victory.
For while I agree that America could choose your way of Victory and claim Iraq's oil, political stability, etc., our Boss merely wants to be Successful...uh...personally. For him, that means heading back to Texas without having to win...or lose... in Iraq.
So, I am here for the duration, Victory. America...umm...at least Bush...with Succeed in Iraq!
Your day may come yet, Victory, but it will be another President who calls you up from the minors, no sooner than January 2009.
September 17, 2007
7:02 PM
KW writes:
"Betrayus," the gift that keeps on giving.
September 18, 2007
8:08 AM
JW writes:
Remember when Shaggy said if Craig was a Dem, the ACLU would be screaming in support of him?
I said they wouldnt, because Craig commited a crime.
Looks like we were both wrong...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/aclu.craig/index.html
I told you Shaggy. The ACLU is non-partisan. They protect EVERYONE's civil liberties.
September 18, 2007
8:17 AM
JW writes:
Oh, and the N. Korea/Syria Nuke unfounded speculation story has made it to both the Rocky, and the BBC now. Looks like Faux's propoganda still works.
September 18, 2007
9:15 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
JW,
It's true, the ACLU is helping the newly outed Democrat Larry Craig.
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2007/09/aclu-is-support.html
September 18, 2007
9:26 AM
K-Dum is a lackey writes:
"Betrayus," the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by KW
You stole this from the GOP Gay sex scandal blog. I don't think most people are blaming Democrats for something posted by Moveon.org. You can hope that they do but only the Bush Boot-licking toadies are buying that.
September 18, 2007
9:45 AM
jay writes:
Remind me again how reaffirming in print a belief held by the majority if Americans is a "backfire"?
September 18, 2007
10:34 AM
JW writes:
"It's true, the ACLU is helping the newly outed Democrat Larry Craig."
Youre just the dumbest chump Ive ever had the misfortune of knowing Hogar, but occasionally you make me laugh.
September 18, 2007
10:39 AM
JW writes:
Check this out jay...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/18/late-edition-wes-clark-talks-to-blitzer/#more-21506
September 18, 2007
10:50 AM
it's True writes:
I think Hogar is taking his cue from Fox News. Whenever a Republican is publicly disgraced, just change the party reference for them. How many times did Faux News put a D by Mark Foley's name. Real classy news (propaganda) station.
September 18, 2007
11:18 AM
jay writes:
great link JW...he's make a great secretary of defense/state.
Here's some of that exchange for the folks at home:
This is an interview between blitzer and clark...and specifically when clark was asked about iran:
CLARK: Well, there’s a lot to talk about [ahmadinejad] and I think he’s certainly willing to talk. If he’s not, other people are. Iran is in a deep hole economically. They don’t have their oil industry in order. Their finances are being constrained. Their neighbors are opposed to them.
They’re surrounded on four sides by either American troops, American forces or the potential of American military intervention. They have regional ambitions but they have a limited time.
BLITZER: So you’re saying that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only one voice there. There are other voices in Iran.
General Petraeus testified, Ambassador Crocker testified that Iranians were helping to kill American soldiers and Marines in Iraq. And others are now saying that Iranians are doing the same thing in Afghanistan, trying to send in their improvised explosive devices, et cetera. Does that affect your thinking about having a dialogue with Iraq?
CLARK: Absolutely. It makes it much more imperative that we talk because there’s no question Iran is fighting back. From the time we went into Iraq, the Iranians’ understanding was they were somewhere two or three or four down the hit list.
So as soon as we could digest the problem of Iraq, we would knock off Syria, take over Lebanon and come after Iran. That was the sort of loose talk around Washington and, of course, they understood that.
So their first line of defense has been to — and it’s not just military aid inside Iraq, by the way.
It’s political engagement. It’s economic support. It’s medical support. It’s education support. It’s a continuous dialogue of people. This is their nearest neighbor, and they have a vital interest in Iraq. And so, yes, they’re engaged. And we need to talk to them. That doesn’t mean negotiating anything away. What it means is real, hard-headed dialogue about what their aims are, what our interest and aims are, and see if there’s any common interest at all.
BLITZER: Here’s a quote from the book, your new book, “A Time to Lead.” And you write this: ” ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years!’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran. It was straight out of Paul Wolfowitz’s 1991 play book, dressed up as the search for weapons of mass destruction and the global war on terror.” Now, that jumped out at me. Explain to our viewers what you’re referring to when you make a very serious charge like that, that this whole war in Iraq was basically built on a lie.
CLARK: Well, not exactly a lie. But a theory about how to deal with terrorism. It was the “drain the swamp” theory that emerged after 9/11 and people talked about it. But before that, in 1991, I remember being in Secretary Wolfowitz’s office when he was the number three guy in the Pentagon.
And he said, yeah, the Gulf war, well, we didn’t get rid of Saddam, but what we did learn is we can use military power to clean up these old client states. We’ve got maybe five or ten years to clean them up, Syria, Iran, the rest of them, before the next superpower comes along.
I said, five or ten years? You mean, China and — the discussion sort of wandered off. But it was one of those nuggets you remember. And then I’m in the office with this senior general in the Pentagon, and he says, well, he says, sir, I just — this is after I’m retired. Sir, I just got this memo down from the office upstairs. He’s pointing upstairs. And they’re on the second floor, and the civilians are on the third floor.
And he says, seven countries. I said, is that classified? And he read the countries. I said, is that classified? Stop. He was going to show it to me. I said, don’t show that to me. I don’t want to see that. And so it wasn’t a plan. Maybe it was a think piece. Maybe it was a sort of notional concept, but what it was was the kind of indication of dialogue around this town in official circles, just like unofficial circles, that has poisoned the atmosphere and made it very difficult for this administration to achieve any success in the region.
-------------------------------------------------
The Pentagon doc he's referring to is here:
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
September 18, 2007
11:54 AM
JW writes:
Yea, I like Crooksandliars...but you have to be careful with them. They are rabidly left. If you start discussion there, you get the same thing we get from wingnuts here, emotional stances based on no info. They think Im a wingnut half the time. Just like these wingnuts, they have no real concept of what the political spectrum actually is, just the labels, and so they misuse them regularly.
September 18, 2007
5:21 PM
Anonymous writes:
As the pressure mounts, the presidential hopefuls and the party fuhrer is AWOL. I think it is a mistake to think that by remaining silent the problem will just fade away. MoveOn in now the self-appointed conscious of the Democratic party and is practically daring Howard Spleen to challenge their authority, which of couse he has not the stones to do.
The infighting is escalating and pretty soon we will see the wheels start to fly off from this spinning mess.
September 18, 2007
5:38 PM
Mitch writes:
That NYTIMES ad of Petrarus with the "Betray Us" tag will follow Obama, Billery, and Edwards everywhere they go. It is the gift that will continue to give all the way to the Nov. elections.
Good show!
September 19, 2007
9:06 AM
Anonymous writes:
That's all you got mitch? Good luck getting elected dog catcher