Three Former Iraq Commanders Target Bush in New Ad

Via Vote Vets.Org:

In a stunning, new half-million dollar ad series from VoteVets.org being launched today, three retired Generals, two of whom were commanders in Iraq, directly take on the notion that the President listens to commanders on the ground in Iraq, and declares that his plan for Iraq endangers American security. This is the first time in the history of the war that former commanders are taking to the paid airwaves to challenge the President, and push Members of Congress to oppose his policy on the war.

The first in the series of three ads features Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this timeframe, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. ... Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican.


Next week, we’ll launch another ad with retired Major General Paul Eaton. And, after that, the campaign will wrap up with a powerful ad from former NATO Allied Supreme Commander, General Wesley Clark. Help keep our ads on the air. We’re trying to raise $100,000 to get these ads on nationally. Help us spread the word click here to donate.

< Keith Olbermann to Get Molly Ivins Award | Update on Action Alert: Restoring Habeas >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    wow. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    this is the next video
    to go on my website, as well.

    the facts are damning. . .

    solid -- dense, in fact.

    and pretty hard to "just drive
    on by
    . . ." -- though
    that will be bush & cheney's
    likely response -- "nothing to
    see here, move along, citizens. . .

    thanks for the head's-up!

    I second that. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    It's up on mine now too. Thanks, Jeralyn.

    cool! (none / 0) (#7)
    by the rainnn on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    good on ya'!, edger!

    s m i l e. . .


    Also (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:07:32 PM EST
    Blue Girl has put it up on ProctoringCongress

    Batiste... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by desertswine on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    is a very effective spokesman.

    The Iraqi Parliament is about to speak out as well (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by conchita on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:30:16 AM EST
    Not much mention in the MSM though.  Looks like they might have to develop an advertising campaign to be heard too.

    Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation

        By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 9, 2007.

        More than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected for the first time on Tuesday the continuing occupation of their country. The U.S. media ignored the story. On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

        It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).

        Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.

        What is clear is that while the U.S. Congress dickers over timelines and benchmarks, Baghdad faces a major political showdown of its own. The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or supporters of the Iraqi government and "anti-government forces," nor is it a clash of "moderates" against "radicals"; the defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the United States and Britain.


    Vote Vets ... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Sailor on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:41:21 AM EST
    ... is paid for thru donations.

    Here is the board.

    Here's what they stand for:

    Founded and supported by Veterans, VoteVets.org PAC views defense policy as an American priority. The goal of the VoteVets.org PAC is to put Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans in Congress who are critical of the execution of the war in Iraq and representative of the principles of VoteVets.org PAC in the US Congress by:

    Providing their campaigns with early candidate training, financing, messaging, web and field training from the top professionals in the field
    Fostering policy and message unity regarding U.S. foreign and military policy
    Making direct contributions and independent expenditures to benefit their campaigns
    Ensuring current members of Congress are held accountable for their votes on Iraq and Veterans' issues by taking them to task for votes and positions that harm America, and its troops and Veterans.
    Providing the credibility and support of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans community. An attack on an individual is an attack on us all. We are united in supporting our fellow veterans.

    And anyone who was actually interested in the debate instead of swiftboating them could have found it in 2 seconds via google.

    Sailor (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:20:37 AM EST

    Now. Who is paying for them?

    Anybody got a list and how much was given?

    Follow the money.


    ppj is implying the military is corrupt ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    ... and lying abouot how f**ked up the war and bush are.

    Great way to support them!

    Nice try at distracting from the content of the message by your continual trolling about 'who paid.'

    Got anything to say about the ads?


    Oh Ouch, Double Ouch, Triple Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:35:21 AM EST
    These ads will have a devastating affect on the last military hold out Bush worshippers.  It is one thing to have your Generals sign letters that newspapers report on but when they start making television ads in protest people are going to start yelling at all sorts of things and each other on Army posts and military bases in all sorts of places.  Honestly these ads will shock my husband and he thought he had seen it all since Bush took office.  When Generals get this ticked off that they break this broken with tradition you have achieved an unheard of level of ticked off.

    What difference does that make... (4.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:59:49 AM EST
     ...in terms of the substance of the remarks?

      Again you are playing the game of your enemies here by pretending that you don't need to respond to the content of something if it comes from the "other side."


    Decon (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:22:47 AM EST
    Nope. My question is simple. If we know who paid for the ads, we will know a great deal about the organization that isn't available on a website.

    That's all well and good,... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:48:48 AM EST
     but so what?

     Let's assume the donors include George Soros, Barbara Streisand and the Karl Marx Foundation(I'm making up the last one). Let's also  assume the motives of the donors are purely partisan political advantage.

      That doesn't mean they can force the generals to say things they don't believe to be true or that they aren't true.



    Decon (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:49:06 AM EST
    I haven't said that.

    I'd just like to know who is paying for the ads.

    Seems like a simple question. Why would anyone resist in that being public??


    I'm not resisting it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 10, 2007 at 09:10:36 AM EST
      The United States Congress, at a time controlled by Republicans, chose not to require  § 501 (3) and (4) groups to  disclose donor information so I have no ability to tell you who are the donors. I also would not be able to tell you who the donors are to  conservative § 501 (3) and (4)groups.

      Is it any real surprise that politician like keeping the  flow of money as concealed as they can possibly can? It's sometimes more a case of the politicians against us than the Republicans vs. the Democtrats.



    Decon (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    I didn't say that them not disclosing was against the law.

    I just asked if anyone knew.


    Question (1.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    I wonder who paid for the ads??

    paid for (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Skyho on Wed May 09, 2007 at 11:40:56 AM EST
    I heard it was SBVfT.

    What did you hear?


    It's just not the same warm fuzzy (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 10, 2007 at 01:39:46 AM EST
    military huh?

    What about Patreaus? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Wed May 09, 2007 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    It is his plan that is currently being implemented.

    He was confirmed by the Democratically controlled congress to implement the very plan he is currently implementing.

    If they didn't like the head general, or the plan why did they confirm him?  Why didn't they confirm General Batiste to be the general the ended the war in Iraq if that's the policy they prefer?

    I know the answer.  They want to use this as a political tool to win the Whitehouse in 2008 not because they really want to end it and they're taking us all for a ride.

    Also what is Batiste's plan?  To implement Patraeus' plan or to pull out?   The add doesn't mention it.  Is his plan to move operating bases to Saudi Arabia, Guam or the Phillipenese?  He doesn't mention it.  What is his plan to deal with the hundereds of thousands of refugees and murders that result from a true civil war that will start the day after we leave?  The add doesn't message it.

    I'm sure he's a smart guy and is rightly pissed about the poor handling of the war up to this point but a 30 second add that states that he doesn't think Bush listned to him isn't very convincing, unless of course you want to leave tomorrow.

    You're right Slado.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed May 09, 2007 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    The Democrats, deep down, love the occupation too.  Their problem is that it is Bush's policy, so they have to oppose it, all while not really doing anything concrete to stop it.  

    The overall tone of our psuedo-imperialist foreign policy hasn't changed all that much in 50 years, regardless of whether a D or an R is in charge.


    Yesterday would be better (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:50:02 AM EST
    than tommorrow.

    So why didn't bush listen to the generals ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Wed May 09, 2007 at 05:08:36 PM EST
    ... in January when they told him and the world the surge wouldn't work?
    Barry McCaffrey said "I personally think the surge of five U.S. Army brigades and a few Marine battalions dribbled out over five months is a fool's errand."
    Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former head of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, which includes the Iraq theater of operations, urged a full pull-out of U.S. forces from Iraq, saying "In the Marines, we say, 'When you're in a hole, stop digging.'"

    sailor (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    Could you provide a link to Hoar's comments??

    Yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    More (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    From 3 years ago:
    "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss," General Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief of US central command, told the Senate foreign relations committee.
    eneral Hoar was equally scathing about the calibre of the Bush administration.

    "The policy people in both Washington and Baghdad," he said, "have demonstrated their inability to do a job on a day-to-day basis this past year."

    Sailor - Some perspective (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:55:11 PM EST
    there is no perspective ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:38:47 PM EST
    ... gained by quoting a wrongwing blog.

    You asked for a link and I gave it to you.

    And that how yet another psychotic episode of It's All About Jim happens.

    Now GFY, you POS troll.


    sailor likes initals (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:50:20 PM EST
    GFY and POS??

    Look everyone. Isn't dear sailor just so clever??

    If you would read something besides Juan Cole, Kos and MoveOn you would discover that the link shows a very large number of ACTIVE duty military sending a petition to Congress asking for support.

    And, of course no one is mentioning that,

    But there is absolutely no bias.

    Have a nice day, sailor. I always enjoy these little encounters.


    Oh - and thanks for the link.


    Anyone who would like to start (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:59:52 AM EST
    a swiftboat campaign is almost sure to find, among the list of donors to VoteVets.org PAC, a whole wack of crazed-eyed liberals.

    Why, you might even find some that are way, way, way out there, like veterans for example. Probably some of them navy veterans - quite possibly an aviator or two.

    Maybe even a few retired Generals and Iraq Commanders... dirty friggin' peacenik hippies.

    Donations can be made here.

    edger (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    So, let's see the list.

    Right (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    edger (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:48:27 PM EST
    No edger. That isn't a list with the name of the donors and he amounts.

    And as far as we know, it could be just one name.

    Do you think they are concerned that there will be some names on the list they don't want anyone to know??

    Come on edger. Inquiring minds want to know.


    What's the problem, ppj? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edger on Thu May 10, 2007 at 03:18:45 PM EST
    I gave you the tools so you could do it yourself like big people do.

    Do you really need a moonbat do do the work for you too?


    Edger (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    Nope. Just a simple statement of:

    I don't have it. They won't release it.

    That would work quote well instead of all the blather you go through.


    As I said above (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:48:37 PM EST
     there is no accessible list. § 501 (c)(4) groups must report the amounts received and the expenditures but they are not required to disclose information regarding who are the donors and what amounts they gave.

      As I also said above, I'm willing, for the sake of argument here, to assume it's the "usual suspects," but so what?

     Conservative § 501 (c) groupss raise money from conservative sources and without disclosing the sources spend the money for their political ads and liberal ones do the same thing.

       Unless, you want to argue for reform of the system-- and I'd be on board--- thatrequires disclosure from all groups spending money for politcal "education,"  the issue is the accuracy of the ads. If you have informatin to refute what these former officers are saying, say it-- or if you want found your own 501 (c) group and raise money from anonymous donors to publish it to a wide audience.


    Decon (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    Careful, you are edging towards where you haven't went before.

    All I have done is ask a simple question.

    You and I both know that it isn't going to be answered.

    But then, that is the answer, isn't it? Seems like someone discovered the ex-planet Pluto by observing actions they could not see the cause of.


    It can't be answered... (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:05:54 PM EST
     and that is why you are asking it. Edger, as you well know,  has no idea what he is taking about, and I thhink getting him to do that is your objective because I assume you are smart enough (as he is not) to understand that you can't google up a list that does not exist anywhere publicly accessible.

      Way to go, you made Edger look ignorant-- as if he needs the help.

      you still keep dodging my question. Even if the people funding the ads are Far Left activists with no goal beyond sticking it to Bush, can you identify in the content of the ad that is wrong?


    Decon (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 05:44:07 PM EST
    Since I haven't seen the ad I can't comment on the content.

    The accuracy of the ad, at least by me, will not be challenged. Or at least I don't plan to.

    My point is that if we are going to have political ads that use the persona of the persons as part of the message, then it is only right that the sponsors of the adds be known.

    That is why I ask. Who gave how much?


    I agree with that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:17:20 AM EST
     and  I'd like to see the laws amended relating to advocacy gropus. But, the bottom line is that despite the benefits of knowing who is behind what campaigns (who  specifically supports Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse?). I can still gernerally reach the undoubtedly accurate conclusions, e.g.,  that liberal people support liberal campaigns, conservative people support conservative campaigns, big business and insurance  groups support  "tort reform" campaigns and "plaintiffs' lawyer groups support consumer the counter ads.

      I won't deny that some degreee of useful information will derive from specifically identifying who is doing what spending or that merely satisfying curiousity should be rendered impossible, but the thing is the ultimate issue should be how accurate or how misleading is the product of any of these groups' campaigns.