home

The Move On Ad

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:02:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Speaking only for me of course

I have not been shy about the need to demythologize General Petraeus as the "honest broker" who will provide an independent assessment of the Surge. I wrote:

[T]his is not meant to doubt General Petraeus' integrity or competence. It is meant to treat him for what he is - not an infallible disinterested observer, but a soldier who believes he can accomplish an impossible mission and will view events in a manner that most favors that belief. This is to be expected from ALL human beings
What I must condemn is the use of the phrase "General Betrayus" by Move On in its ad today in the New York Times. This inexcusable use of the detestable Republican tactic of labelling those who disagree with you as "traitors" is something I have long objected to and I must, in good conscience, strongly condemn Move On's use of this deplorable tactic. Moreover, not only was this morally contemptible, it was political idiocy as the coverage of the ad clearly demonstrated. There is a way to take on the Petraeus myth. Glenn Greenwald demonstrated how to do it. And he is featured here showing how again:

Open Left has a petition you should sign.

< There Is No Immigrant Crime Wave | Hillary's Campaign to Return $850k in Hsu Related Contributions >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Move On Ad | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I see your point but ... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    I didn't like General Betrayus but Glenn Greenwald talking for over 5 minutes (5 minutes!) isn't the way to go either.  I got through about 2 minutes.  Dynamic he isn't.

    Well . . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:42:21 PM EST
    Just trying to make a counterpoint.

    There are other ways.

    Parent

    I get your point and I like it. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:56:35 PM EST
    But I see a fundamental difference between republicans labelling those who disagree with them as "traitors" and Iraq occupation/Bush-Cheney-Neocon opponents calling things as they see them - which is what I think the (natural?) corruption of "Petraeus" into "Betray-Us" (as a descriptive) is. He has taken it upon himself to be one of the people doing everything he can to further the Bush admins agenda by repeating and furthering the lies used to justify the invasion and occupation that have caused so much damage to America as well as Iraq.

    I don't think the tactic should be used simply to smear and demonize. Truth should be used.

    Parent

    Greenwald in a nutshell (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:16:20 PM EST
    I love Greenwald, but concision is not one of his virtues. Here, in his own words is the argument in a nutshell:
    O'Hanlon does, however, address one of the most incriminating actions Petraeus undertook -- namely, publishing a highly controversial and highly optimistic Op-Ed in The Washington Post just weeks before the 2004 Presidential election, in which Petraeus made one optimistic claim after the next about Iraq ...


    Parent
    I'm all cool with that music too (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    If that's the Greenwald thinking music like we have the Jeopardy thinking music that's swell.  His thinking music suits his personality.  I max out though at four Greenwald points per video and turn the mic up ;)  We all want to hear you with our ears on video, even though we usually consume Greenwald with our eyes.

    Parent
    disagreements (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by diogenes on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:05:26 PM EST
    Isn't it possible to disagree with someone without ad hominem attacks?  If Obama wins, it will be because people won't think he'd use such tactics and because people can like him even though they disagree with his policies.

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:14:29 PM EST
    Far be it from me to disagree with soemone who appears to be agreeing with my post, but there are ad homs and there are ad homs, and the traitor card is beyond the pale.

    Parent
    Meanwhile, Kos is engaging in (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    cooptation:

    KOS ON DODD

    Parent

    but.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by selise on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:37:27 AM EST
    the moveon ad did not call the general a traitor.

    Parent
    A Betrayer (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:40:48 AM EST
    Soooo much better.

    If you really think this ad was smart and acceptable, then we have little to discuss on the issue.

    I doubt a discussion will be fruitful.

    At the least, I would hope you could see it was supremely stupid.

    Parent

    it depends... (none / 0) (#51)
    by selise on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    it depends on the betrayal. what betrayal is he being accused of?

    here's an example. if he had betrayed an oath to tell the truth at these hearings, that wouldn't make him a traitor... just a liar.

    traitors have betrayed their country, but a betrayal doesn't make one a traitor - except in a very small number of situations (none of which petraeus was accused of).

    i think you have accused moveon of doing something they didn't do.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    I have accused them of two things, calling Petraeus a betrayer. You choose to try and parse a POLITICAL ad for some benign meaning. That is incredibly absurd in my opinion.

    Second, I accuse Move On's ad of being incredibly stupid.

    Do you deny that?


    Parent

    Dealing with the ad (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by pioneer111 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    BTD, I'm not sure if it was smart to run the ad or not.  I don't think it was stupid, but even if it was, it is done.

    I think there is merit is having the Republicans trumpet all over RW radio that Petreaus may not be a reliable objective source of information.  They are always angry with Democrats but now they are making Petraeus' remarks questionable.

    I have gone through the threads and still don't understand why you think this is dreadful.

    What I think is worse is us publicly dumping on moveon.org.  There has to be a way to finesse this to our advantage.  
    Splitting the ranks is not helpful, even if they did go overboard.

    Although I have to say I kind of like the sensationalism in this case.  

    Nonetheless beating up on moveon.org doesn't serve us either.  I would like to have some good brains reframe this for public consumption.  
    I was peeved at Kerry for making them wrong publicly.  That is what Democrats do.  It doesn't help our cause.

    My question is what to do next?  The ad is there.  Done deal.


    Parent

    I dump on MoveOn (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    when they do something wrong as I do with Dems.

    There is too much not criticizing of each other on the Left when we do stupid things.

    I am not part of any Left based nonagression pact.

    I have written on this often.

    Parent

    I get your point (3.00 / 1) (#83)
    by pioneer111 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    However I also like good strategy after a bad move.  I am focused on how to get out of Iraq.  That is why I usually like your focus.

    You think that Moveon.org damaged the Democratic activists message.  That may be so.  But my point is that we will make errors.  How do we use them to still propel us towards the objective?

    I believe we need to get better at not sinking into the fray when one of our side makes a dumb move.  But maybe there is no recovery.

    I ask the question of you because sometimes your creative thinking gets us past the fog.  I think you did that with the defunding the Iraq war.  But there are skirmishes all along the way.  Maybe all we do is bash Moveon but I would like to be more creative, no, actually I was hoping for YOU to be more creative.  You have a bigger voice than I do.

    Parent

    This is the smart move (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:29:54 PM EST
    Denounce the ad.

    And keep going as I have done.

    Parent

    Could you explain this? (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    I think there is merit is having the Republicans trumpet all over RW radio that Petreaus may not be a reliable objective source of information.


    Parent
    Sometimes in objecting (none / 0) (#80)
    by pioneer111 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:11:21 PM EST
    to something you pass a message along.  Eg.  In being outraged that he is being called a "betrayer" people wonder why that happened.  The secondary message becomes that his information is slanted to please the WH and is unreliable.  

    E.g. if you get outraged about the fact that someone is accused of being a thief before trial, you find out that something was stolen and who was likely to have done it.  Or look at the Larry Craig case, even a defense  of possible entrapment, makes the point that his behavior and character is suspect.

    The RW media is broadcasting doubt about Petraeus' report.  It is a good thing.  They hate Democrats anyway, but this makes Petraeus not so hot either.

    Parent

    you wrote something else... (3.00 / 1) (#57)
    by selise on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    i never claimed a benign meaning.

    you wrote:

    the traitor card is beyond the pale.

    my comment was directed at this statement you made. i don't think the traitor card was played because i don't think the accusation of betrayer rises to that level.

    please don't read more into my comment than was actually there.

    Parent

    As I said (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    You are parsing.

    betrayal-stab in the back- traitor.

    This is ridiculous imo of course.

    Parent

    Bush is the Commander-in-Chief (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by joejoejoe on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:25:01 AM EST
    MoveOn missed the mark because Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, not Gen. Petraeus. Since it's clear from recent reports Gen. Petraeus briefed President Bush and Bush accepts his briefing as gospel then it's BUSH who becomes responsible for the figures through the order of command. MoveOn should have shown Bush in a flight suit, called him Commander-in-Chief in the ad and made the same arguments about the reliablity of the numbers and message.

    I contributed to the ad (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Dulcinea on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:28:50 AM EST
    in the hope the truth would save one or more lives.  The Republics have spewed venom ad nauseum for years to keep the war going and to undermine democratic policies.  The truth is the general and the ambassador are betraying us by not speaking the truth as they know it.  I find that reprehensible.

    If the Republics and their functionaries (Gergen, Matthews, Fox, etc.) didn't have the ad to "oh, how vile" about, they would have had something else.  

    And when did those protesting the shameful war and its consequences deserve threat of prosecution by Shelton while the warmongers are at liberty to lie, lie, lie.

    John Dean is so right-"we have a broken government" and if the Republics continue to rule it's all over. Then we can say at least the loyal opposition was civil while it lasted?  Get real.
     

    Beautifully said (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:11:51 AM EST
    If the Republics and their functionaries (Gergen, Matthews, Fox, etc.) didn't have the ad to "oh, how vile" about, they would have had something else.

    Thanks for pointing this out.  Seems like a lot of people in their haste to see who can out-pontificate who, have forgotten this simple truth.

    Meanwhile, the war continues.  But nothing vile about that.

    Parent

    Something LESS effective (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:24:23 AM EST
    Ridiculous argument.

    Parent
    There is what is politically "smart" (none / 0) (#78)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    And then there is what is true.  The Ad was not "smart."  And yet the bodies continue to pile up while we worry over "smart."  Petraeus is Powell and the Tubes Part Deux.

    And BTW, it would be fair to question what the "my good friend on the other side of the aisle" approach, Smart as it is, has really accomplished.  You know, in terms of results.

    You write "ridiculous argument" so offhandedly, as though you had something figured out. Many of us would like to know exactly what the fu%# you and the other smart guys have figured out. As meanwhile the bodies pile. What have you figured out, beyond how to congratulate yourselves on how savvy you are, that is.    

    Parent

    So your response to (none / 0) (#27)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:15:57 AM EST
    years of venom ad nauseam from the right is to fund it from the left?

    I'm not seeing how this helps.

    Parent

    Why is this relevant? (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lespool on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:09:36 AM EST
    MoveOn.org only "succeeded in making themselves the story" because progressives are more concerned about ruffling the feathers of republican flocks than they are outraged at the deceitful tactics used to continue this war. Get over it already! --- Good god, what with levels of pusillanimity intrinsic amongst congressional democrats as it is, the last thing they need is for progressives to question the lack of propriety concerning some "ad."

    Of course (none / 0) (#28)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:19:03 AM EST
    you must be thrilled by the opening of this morning's testimony then -- which is all about Move-on. The ad gave every wing-nut demogogue in the Senate a bone to chew on -- and a distraction to divert attention away from every single real issue that was supposed to be debated today.

    The ad was beyond counter-productive.

    Parent

    It's almost enough (none / 0) (#30)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:20:55 AM EST
    to make a girl think that Move-On has been infiltrated by the wing-nuts.

    Parent
    I don't think they need to worry. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    MoveOn will do the job for them.

    Parent
    The right response to that is (none / 0) (#82)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    GOP Senators, since you've pimped this war from the beginning, you really have no ground on which to be morally outraged about anything.  So unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself, kindly shut your trap.  Now.  Can we please move on (pun intended) to the business at hand.

    That's the right response.  But that wouldn't be smart either.

    Parent

    Clearly (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    You do not care if the war ends I guess.

    Lespool Betrayus.

    Just making a point here.

    Parent

    Such pearl clutching! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Kalkaino on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:51:24 AM EST
    God forbid that we ever ever ever say anything unflattering about a man in uniform, even if that man in uniform is going before Congress to deliver a big steaming pack of lies in aid of the most corrupt, inept, secretive and dictatorial regime in the nation's history. Why, it's "beyond the pale" to question a man's patriotism just because he's sold his soul to the GOP machine -- I mean Jesus, can't you see he's in uniform!?!

    Play it safe at all times, always call a spade the entrenching tool, because otherwise Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and Big Tent Democrat will get big cases of the vapors and make you the story and not what you said.

    Such stupidity (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:02:13 AM EST
    When Republicans labelled Cleland an Osama lover, when I protested, was I pearl clutching?

    Beyond the fact that the ad was incredibly stupid, except perhaps, for Move On;s own selfish ends, to reestablish itself as a "radical" group after its year of sellout on Iraq.

    Parent

    We've been here before (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by notinKansas on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:21:36 AM EST
    Respect for Colin Powell did not serve this country well prior to the invasion of Iraq.  Bush thinks if he trots out a military person to deliver his own message that nobody will dare challenge him.  His testimony needs to be challenged. He doesn't get a free pass because he wears a uniform.

    The message in the ad isn't pretty, but the situation is what it is, and Petraeus is setting the stage for further conflict.

    Parent

    You seem unable to (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:28:24 AM EST
    see the difference between challenging without calling someone a betrayer.

    I can not understand it.

    But let'sw put that aside, the MoveOn ad was monumentally stupid.

    Parent

    Maybe the shoe fits (none / 0) (#56)
    by notinKansas on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    Unable to see the difference?  The stakes are incredibly high.  If we respect the ability of this man, we would have to believe that he is completely aware of the futility of the mission being given to him by this president.  To give testimony that would attempt to justify that futile mission and possibly further expand it is in fact a betrayal.  If the man  doesn't have a clue about what's going on in the region, then I suppose it wouldn't technically be a betrayal.

    Parent
    Maybe the shoe fits? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    I assume the GOP would use the same defense when they question the patriotism of Democrats.

    I do not know what to say about this thread.

    Parent

    What to make of the thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    I assume the GOP would use the same defense when they question the patriotism of Democrats.

    They would definitely say it.  But that wouldn't make them right, now would it?  

    I do not know what to say about this thread.

    What you should make of it is the same as what you should make of what MoveOn did. It is that people are frustrated with this war and the pimps who are selling it.  That it isn't always easy to muzzle the Truth for the sake of what might, perhaps, if everything falls right, prove expedient.

    Parent

    apples and oranges (none / 0) (#52)
    by selise on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:27:31 AM EST
    cleland was not an osama lover
    petraeus is lying

    Parent
    Petraeus is liar (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    IF you say so.

    But the ad says BETRAYUS.

    Parent

    I have no problem with the naming (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:04:45 AM EST
    for a couple reasons.

    First, the nickname "Betrayus" was and is the one used by his brother officers for him.  If that's what his brother officers are calling him, they got a reason.

    Second, when I first heard the the nickname "Betrayus" applied to this General, what first came to mind is "that's the nickname he picked up as a plebe."  Army officer cadets at West Point (and, I assume the same obtains for Navy and Air Force cadets, too) pick up nicknames from their fellow cadets within the first months of their service - be it a nickname which is a play on their name, a personal habit, or whatever.  Those nicknames are, IIRC, often applied to the plebe by upperclassmen.  Regardless, they stick.  For the rest of their career.

    In my service I knew someone who said, in a moment before a test:  "I'm gonna max this."  More than a quarter-century later, he's still called "Max".  It's how it is.

    That such a derogatory nickname as Betrayus gets used by his brother officers when he's a four-star, tells me it fits.  They'd never dare to utter it otherwise.

    Which brother officers? (none / 0) (#46)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:12:33 AM EST


    Parent
    None on the record (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:18:50 AM EST
    And some anonymous backroom name calling hardly makes this ok.

    You second point is also off the mark. Assuming your story is correct, and frankly, I have never heard it before, nicknames among fellow soldiers used in private is not comparable to an ad by an activist group in the NYTimes.

    AS for the rest of your comment, I do not see your point at all.

    Parent

    Well, to his face, his boss called him (none / 0) (#127)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    an "...a*s-kissing little chickensh*t".  In front of others including, probably, his own subordinates. (the only military associates a 4-star has are equals and subordinates;  in a meeting of two 4-stars, everyone else would have been a subordinate).

    In any environment, that's pretty severe.  In the military, where the subordinate has to sit (or stand) there and take it without protest, this was brutal in the extreme, and calculated to humiliate him before his subordinates.  

    Read this extended article on what a political wh*re General Potemkin has been - one doesn't become one overnight.  The personality traits are there from an early age, and that inevitably led one of the wags among his fellow officers to pin the Betrayus nickname on him.

    Parent

    You had asked for backup on my (none / 0) (#128)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:32:34 AM EST
    point, that it was his brother officers calling him Betrayus.  Here's some, coming in.  As I get more, I'll post more.

    Parent
    Grow a spine pal? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    Scribe, that is teetering on a violation of the site rules.

    It would be as if I responded "grow a brain."

    Check yourself please.

    I stand by every word. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:00:19 AM EST
    The Democrats and their sheer ninny-ness in confronting these thugs are a pure embarrassment.

    And, for those unwilling to acknowledge that breaking the Rethug grip on the levers of power will be a nasty, rough business, or unwilling to accept that it will take giving some of their front men rough handling in the public arena, they should go home.


    Parent

    ...............................on the same side. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:34:22 AM EST


    Parent
    You guys are............................... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:33:48 AM EST


    Parent
    You know????? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:34:48 AM EST


    Parent
    YES?!?!? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    ^^
    OO

    Parent
    Betrayus (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    Does not add up to treason. If you insist on traitor it is a weaker form of the word not meaning treason. The rhyme is grade school stuff and true in that he is lying to Americans.

    On the other hand I am sad to see what a waste Moveon has become. Over bloated and ineffective IMO.

    The Difference (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Kalkaino on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    The difference: the assertion that Cleland is an "Osama lover" is an obvious and ridiculous falsehood.

    The suggestion that Petraeus is 'betraying us,' by lending his uniform and its prestige to the insistence that the WHIG's totally prepackaged, blatantly misleading snowjob is his own candid and truthful view of the situation in Iraq, is entirely reasonable.

    One charge is clearly false; one charge is clearly true. That, BTD, is the substantial difference, and the point, which had I thought I pointed the reader to, with old saw of libel law: "truth is a strong defense."

    Does that clarify any?  

    Of course (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:23:32 AM EST
    the phrase "Osama lover" is not stated literally, it is the crass implication.

    Just as saying BetrayUs has its obvious but denied implication, that he is a traitor.

    that is false. Bot h are false. Both are offensive.

    Now the more interesting question is why did one work and why did the other not work.

    Cleland was a pol, not a military man. Clelalnd ran in Georgia. It was 2002.

    Idiotic work by Move On. And offensive work.

    Parent

    Betrayal is not treason (4.50 / 2) (#79)
    by Kalkaino on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    Sorry, but "Osama lover" is blatantly false, "Betray Us" if understood properly is much more apt.

    You're allowing the wingers to define the terms in a prejudicial way. Treason is of course a betrayal, but not all betrayal is treason.

    When Alberto Gonzales lies to Congress and the country he is betraying the public trust, "betraying us," but he is not committing treason. When Petraeus lies to Congress and the country, as he did profusely, he is betraying us in precisely the same way. It's not treason, but it is betrayal.

    This is the clear sense of the Move On headline, not an accusation of treason, per se.

    I really, really don't understand your confusion here.

    Parent

    I suggest you (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:24:08 PM EST
    stop the attempt aat parsing.

    To commit treason is to betray your country.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:28:20 PM EST
    But to betray Americans is not treason more than 99% of the time. The pols do it on regular basis.

    And I am not defending the ad. I have not seen it but believe that it was stupid from what I have read.

    Parent

    A military man (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:38:59 PM EST
    discussing a war the nation is engaged in certainly hurts your argument as the context is such that it does suggest treason.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:06:51 PM EST
    Obviously it does to you, I do not doubt your sincerity although I did at first think your take regarding treason more rhetorical than sincere.

    To me Patraeus seems more like a PR guy than a general. He has been called out many times for being merely a shill for the WH. Was that calling him a traitor? Treason is so far out of the picture for me because by now we expect only BS and call it such, even before it is delivered.

    Were this a war that had some ethical basis and not based on piles and piles of lies maybe I would feel the same way as you do.

    The ad was stupid for resorting to a schoolyard taunt. A waste of   money and political currency.

    Parent

    MoveOn says (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Dulcinea on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:54:50 PM EST
    "P.S. Yesterday, MoveOn members sponsored an ad in the New York Times debunking Petraeus' claims. Click here to see the ad--and the evidence to back it up:
    http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html?id=11221-3196355-W_Hpt7&t=4

    The ad stirred a controversy on Capitol Hill--it accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books." And it charges that Petraeus is betraying the American peoples' trust by spinning the facts to support the White House. Some Democrats were uncomfortable with such strong language, and Republicans attacked MoveOn.

    We're sure if we'd run an ad debunking Colin Powell's testimony in 2003, they would have done the same thing--but sometimes it's important to set the facts straight."

    OF course (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:56:37 PM EST
    that is quite a dishonest e-mail.

    The problem is cimple - BETRAYUS.

    If they had called Powell BertraUS it would have been criticized.

    But criticizing Powell? No.

    This is nonsense from Move On, intentionally avoiding the issue.

    Parent

    Would that (none / 0) (#117)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    MoveOn had simply stuck to setting the record straight.  Raised questions about the data and methodology.

    No.  They practically wrote John Cornyn's remarks for him today.

    Big help. Huge.  just not for our side.

    Parent

    No (4.00 / 2) (#1)
    by afox on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:18:19 PM EST
    Greenwald's comments are germane, articulate, intellectual. They don't grab the gut.

    We have won those arguments. Now politeness, given the death and mayhem, is not as important as busting the bubble around Bush.

    Saturday, at a forum with my progressive Representative, the primary debate was only about how to stop the war. We need an aggressive response now.

    Bravo to MoveOn.

    Truth Is A Strong Defense (4.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Kalkaino on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:17:54 AM EST
    So good of BTD to come to Max Cleland's defense when those nasty Republican's said rude and false things about him. Otherwise, he might have lost the election.

    I don't quite understand why BTD doesn't quite understand that calling Cleland an Osama lover (blatant falsehood) and calling Petraeus "Betrayus" (a snarky way of making an absolutely valid point) are essentially indentical expressions. "Scribe"  seems to see the difference, and actually provides some useful intel here. How refreshing.

    I do see them as identical (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    Precisely why I criticze both.

    You then says scribe sees the difference.

    I do not see how scribe sees the difference or even argues about Cleland at all.

    What is the difference (of course I find it hard to see how you can say they are identical then argue they are different but perhaps you can straighten that out now.)

    Beyond that, I hope we can stipulate that it was supremely stupid of Move On to run that ad.

    Parent

    So much for freedom of speech. (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Dulcinea on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    I did not think the ad was stupid.  

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    My speech is a threat to freedom of speech.

    You must be joking.

    This is an infuriating comment because it is so uninformed.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dulcinea on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:18:50 AM EST
    the ad is being discussed because according to many, MoveOn should not have exercised their freedom of speech.

    Parent
    We are not talking (none / 0) (#118)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:00:57 PM EST
    about free speech here.  We are talking about stupid speech that of course is protected by the first amendment.

    We are talking about how effective that free speech will be in reaching the stated goals of MoveOn to end the war.

    It was an ineffective ad because the only people it appealed to were people who already support their organization, thus preaching to the choir. Except they probably lost some choir members today thanks to the ad.

    It was a stupid ad becuase it made an ad hominem attack on the man instead of a principled attack on his assumptions, his facts, his data and his methodology...thus arming MoveOn opponents with material to divert attention away from that same assumptions, facts, data and methodology.

    Parent

    Dem Senators (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    An anonymous Democratic Senator told the Politico, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us."

    So, have any Dem senators called Moron.org to account?

    That anonymous Democrat (none / 0) (#29)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    was either non-existent or goes by the name of Lieberman

    Parent
    Support the troops? (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Slado on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:45:22 AM EST
    The add and the responses by most on hear show that democrats are only concerned about one thing.  The defeat of America in Iraq.

    No other consequence is acceptable and the MoveOn add is just another sign that dems don't care about the troops, out security etc...   They want out of Iraq for political reasons.  Period.

    No thought to what will happen if we leave, no thought to what it will mean if we fail and most discouraging they are forced to question an Amercian general in wartime because their political wants outweigh reality.

    The surge is working.  If you think it doesn't matter in the long run that's a point worth making but calling him a liar or questioning his motives shows the dems will except no news that doesn't conform to their preconcieved notions on this war.

    It's disgraceful and it is why the dems continue to lose on this issue.  

    The dems will not stop the war.  Get over it.  How much more can the progressive movement do?  They have resorted to publicly disgracing an American General in wartime.   What other ammunition do you have?

    What other ammunition do they have? (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    Nicely put but....

    You aint seen nothing yet.

    The ad is just the natural outgrowth of the Bush Derangement Syndrome and the feedback it generates.

    There is a pathology there of out of control anger that mounts and mounts until an attack must come to provide a release.

    And the RNC is saying, "Give us more. Give us more. Tell us how you really feel."

    Parent

    And your point is??? (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 07:03:29 AM EST
    Let me see.

    That Peggy N has left the reservation? Note: No one seems to care outside of the Demos.

    A mythological woman from Georgia no longer likes Bush?? I just love unamed attackers used in a national debate. Peggy would have scramed, and probably did when the Left did it.

    That when a former
    team member agrees with the opposition the game is over??

    All of that is so juvenile it is funny. This isn't stickball, Peggy N has next to zero influence and the issue is that MoveOn has released an attack not on Bush, but on an Army General...

    How drool.

    As I said, the RNC is hoping for more.

    And BTW - Using your analogy, check out BTD's comments re the ad.

    Parent

    Amen (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:26:18 PM EST
    What I must condemn is the use of the phrase "General Betrayus" by Move On in its ad today in the New York Times.

    IMO, an example of why this blog has class.

    BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:31:34 PM EST
    There is a difference, most always, between what plays well politically and what is true.

    What MoveOn did is True.  But it was not good politics.  

    Hypotheticals (none / 0) (#18)
    by manys on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:32:22 AM EST
    What MoveOn did is True.  But it was not good politics.

    Come on, at least allow for the possibility that you're wrong about how this will play out. Politics is what actually happens, not how any of us particularly feel about an issue.

    Parent

    Come on (none / 0) (#32)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:22:58 AM EST
    at least allow for the possibility that you're wrong about how this will play out

    Look, I'm no fortune teller, but in terms of this Iraq disaster I, like everyone else in this country with their heads on straight (perhaps like you!), have had little difficulty seeing the cause and effects, calling the next "move," etc.

    Almost a year ago we all said what Petraeus would say.  For example.

    Does this mean we cannot be surprised by this dog and pony show?  Of course not.  But remember: Even if you take them at their word in terms of motive (a dubious proposition, but what the hey)--what they're doing is, treating democratic governance like a chain store you can just open wherever, if the tax breaks are right.  

    That's just plain stooooopid, has been all along.

    Parent

    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#8)
    by koshembos on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:27:25 PM EST
    Suppose everything Patreas said is true. Suppose that the Iraqi military becomes as efficient as the Jordanian military, then what?

    The civil war will continue, the Shia will still want full control, the militias will still control most of Iraq, three million Iraqis will still be displaced, Baghdad will stay 70% Shia while it was only 30% several years ago.

    In other words, even if we achieve all of Bush's goals, nothing will change and hundreds more US soldier will die as well as untold thousands of Iraqis.

    Withdrawal now is best for Iraq and best for us.

    After looking at the ad, I (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:40:20 PM EST
    agree.  The rest of the ad is fine, although I don't see much point ragging on the General when the President will decide if and when U.S. military is withdrawn if Congress refuses to defund. I did think several of the Congresspersons at today's hearing did a very good job of pointing out the General's prior rosy predictions that didn't pan out.

    Bad Bad Rhetoric (none / 0) (#10)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:52:49 PM EST
    MoveOn's decision to go for the too cute by half tag makes their ad more provocative than their argument, which is a stupid way to approach the potential audience for this. Why not compare G.P. to other generals who've offered different, more reality-based assessments, rather than smear him like this? Most of the ad is pretty good, but MoveOn has betrayed itself with this schoolyard taunt.

    Here's Digby's (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:00:00 PM EST
    comparison to another famous General:

    TMCP is a man of unique virtue and goodness who will speak from the heart and tell the truth like his most similar predecessor General George Washington, who could not tell a lie. So I don't care what they say. I'm going to sit back and listen to what the Great Man has to say.

    And then I will make a sacrifice in thanks for his leadership and Godly attributes. A goat perhaps?



    Parent
    very funny (none / 0) (#14)
    by tnthorpe on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 11:20:13 PM EST
    "his most similar predecessor" indeed

    Parent
    Well said, BTD (none / 0) (#17)
    by Beldar on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:16:10 AM EST
    Bravo, from someone on the Right who disagrees with the substance of your position but respects your intellectual honesty and maturity in disassociating your arguments and yourself from the MoveOn.org attack ad.

    I Agree (none / 0) (#19)
    by aj12754 on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:01:16 AM EST
    With this ad Move-On only succeeded in making themselves the story.  It's an ugly and unnecessary distraction from the main issue -- how much does "meeting military objectives" matter when the political goals the objectives are in service of are not only unmet, but show no signs of ever being met.

    It matters not at all.

    That's the issue and it's entirely lost in this small-minded attack on Petraeus.  

    I think Dulcinea (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:41:09 AM EST
      suggests the motivation for the ad. Moveon has already become an entity whose primary purpose is-- sustaining itself.  That requires money. Actions designed to keep Moveon in the spotlight and the money coming in may not positively affect policy but they do  keep Moveon able to pay the bills.

     

    I in no way suggested (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dulcinea on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    MoveOn's motivation is to make money.

    Parent
    I meant inadvertently suggested (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:00:42 AM EST
     by stating you gave money to Moveon.

    Parent
    No one expects (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dulcinea on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    the New York Times to run ads without being paid to do so.  Thus, the contribution.

    Parent
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:23:36 AM EST


    Parent
    "The ad was beyond counter-productive. " (none / 0) (#40)
    by lespool on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    Congress is wasting time discussing an absurd advertisement only because people like you have made it an issue. ---

    "You do not care if the war ends I guess." AND what exactly does this comment accomplish other than insult my integrity as a 65 year old women doing everything I can possibly do at my age to end this war? How dare you.

    Did you miss my point? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    First, you think I have the power to make the Move On ad dominate news coverage?

    Second, your question to me is my point - I ask the same of Move On's ad.

    Parent

    Let me be clearer in case you missed it (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    I do not believe you have shirked your duty on trying to end the war.

    I do not believe that my language was acceptable or productive.

    I equate what I did to you to what Move On did to Petraeus.

    Move On's ad was offensive and supremely stupid.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    Getting attention is what you want an ad to do.

    But it has to be the right type of attention.

    Not the type Brittany Spears got for her recent performance. Move On got Brittany attention.

    Parent

    Uhh... (none / 0) (#77)
    by lespool on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    Yes, I do think you have the power to make MoveOn dominate news coverage especially when you encourage people to sign a petition to Congress, espousing disapproval for an advertisement rather than disapproval and outrage at the war.

    Since you came on board, talkleft has became a favorite of mine. So yes, (albeit narcissistic) because I enjoy reading your post, I'm assuming you have the ability to influence others. Of course, I haven't a clue as to the number of people you've inspired (--- or not) to sign said petition. But even one person IMHO is one too many. --- With democrats so easily distracted, why make MoveOn an issue when lives are at stake?

    The death toll continues to rise and people are suffering unthinkable horrors --- that Petraeus deems acceptable. So, please forgive me for not making his "hurt feelings" --- or MoveOn's ad my priority. Indeed, the only thing I deem
    "offensive and and supremely stupid" at the moment is the war in Iraq.

    Click the link (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    The PEtition is not about Move On at all.

    Parent
    Boy, is my face red. --- Oh well, never mind... (none / 0) (#122)
    by lespool on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:33:58 PM EST
    Please forgive me. I offer my most humble apologies for making assumptions and spouting my mouth off foolishly. Without so much as one click, I didn't even bother to follow the link that you graciously provided. Instead, I jumped to an unfair conclusion much to my chagrin (--- and I just hate when people do that!).

    But you can be rest assured that from now on before recklessly commenting, I will follow your judicious links. --- My only concern was ending the war so thank you for providing an excellent petition --- that I wrongly accused you of not providing. Needless to say, I was delighted to sign it after commenting derisively about
    "Betraeus" (--- just kidding, it's not my style, I assure you). Thanks again, BTD.

    Parent

    I'm trying not to take sides (none / 0) (#88)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:30:55 PM EST
    on this particular issue. But could someone who is defending this ad please explain to me the upside of referring to him as 'General Betrayus' in this ad?

    So far the defence of this ad has boiled down to:

    1.) Republicans do it, so it's ok if we do it
    2.) Betray isn't really such a bad word (weak); and
    3.) who cares?

    But none of these address BTD's point that the term Betrayus is politically foolish. So instead of arguing that the ad isn't so bad, could someone convince me that 'Betrayus' is really a good move?

    Here's someone defending the ad (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    at least sort of - Brandon Friedman (formerly The Angry Rakkasan), who served as an infantry officer in the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq in 2003, when David Petraeus commanded the division:

    So, how do I feel about the MoveOn.org ad that accuses Petraeus of betraying us?  Well, it's pretty over the top.  It's certainly not what I would have said.  In fact, I wish they hadn't done it.  But then, does it make me question my support for MoveOn.org?  No.  And I'll tell you why: Yeah, I think they went too far.  I think MoveOn crossed a line.  But you know what?  I'd rather see my allies cross a line being too aggressive rather than never crossing a line because they're too passive.  Or too afraid.  I'd rather see Democrats overstep their bounds in going at the throats of the people who brought us this war in the first place.  It means they're angry.  It means they care.  It means they're trying to get something done.  Did MoveOn go too far?  Yeah.  But who else right now is willing go after the 28-percenters so aggressively in a full-page ad in the New York Times?  

    Not many people inside the Beltway, I'll tell you that.  

    link

    That's how I see it as well - politically unwise, and I criticize it as such, but I won't condemn the organization for acting as it sees best.

    Parent

    Funnyhow UNaggressive Move On (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    has been on Congress not funding the Debacle.

    Where and when it mastters they are NOT agressive.

    I strongly urge NOT supporting Move On becuase it is stupid, weak, and counterproductive.

    Parent

    It's an organization (none / 0) (#105)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    The organization is a tool that can be applied to many different strategies.

    I agree that its strategies haven't been good. It's the strategies that need to be altered, not the existing organization, and certainly not the caring millions of people it brings into concerted action.

    Parent

    It is a (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    weak and counterproductive organization.

    As long as Matzzie has a strong say in how it is run, I urge NOT supporting Move On.

    Parent

    Agreed on Matzzie (none / 0) (#111)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    He's lacking, to say the least.

    Parent
    I wouldn't go so far as to say that (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    Brandon defended the ad.  He said that he thought it was over the top too but that Move On had not lost his support.  I don't agree that the ad was a good idea and it seemed very out of step with  Move On's past Iraq War postures.  For me there is a huge difference between evil and tactless.

    Parent
    Hence the "at least sort of" (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:03:46 PM EST
    He refused to condemn the organization over it, only its tactics here as being not the greatest of ideas.

    Parent
    "at least sort of" I'm familiar (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    with the dialect.  It comes from being in between a rock and a hard place and needing to please many different people all at once and being unsure how tall they are and how long their legs are that their a$$e$ sit on.  Kissing booty under such stress conditions a person to be very "at least sort of" ;)

    Parent
    Which implies (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:08:32 PM EST
    he supports what they have done on Iraq this year.

    Brandon (or Rakkasan as he was known) is part of a group that plays an important role, VoteVets. VoteVets' focus is helpful in that it is the soldiers' perspective and thus its lack of focus on pressuring the Dems in Congress is neither surprising nor particularly negative.

    Move On is something else altogether. Its IMAGE is practically Code Pink but its actions are so uneven, so inconsistent, so counterproductive as to leave it an organization without a role, except as shepharder for the Dem Establishment of the "Left," a role it seemingly can not play particularly effectively at the same time it decides to be Code Pink.

    The former role is one I abhor personally and the latter is contradictory to the former role.

    Move On is in a full blown identity crisis.

    Parent

    I hate to dismiss (none / 0) (#112)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    an organization that can channel grassroots efforts the way it can. It has done things this year that have made me absolutely cringe - e.g., over the supplemental - but you don't throw away the hammer just cause it lands on your thumb sometimes.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    Tell me what nails have been hammered?

    Accountability for all.

    Parent

    The virtual phone-banking 2006 (none / 0) (#116)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    I'm big on infrastructure, and potential...

    Parent
    ...kinda like the Big Blogs "Netroots" (none / 0) (#113)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    have been this year?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 02:36:22 PM EST


    Parent
    You are known by the company you keep. (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:45:39 PM EST
    I think MoveOn crossed a line.  But you know what?  I'd rather see my allies cross a line......I'd rather see Democrats overstep their bounds in going at the throats of the people who brought us this war in the first place.  It means they're angry. It means they care.

    BTW - When you start talking about going after people's throats the talking is over and you must be able to carry out the threat. Rhetoric is fine, but it best to figure out who it hurts before you toss it out there.

    Parent

    Metaphor, Jim (none / 0) (#124)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:49:11 PM EST
    Unless you think those nasty libruls might be planning on doing people in with a newspaper ad (death by a thousand paper cuts?) or sending bombs via email.

    Come to think of it, maybe you better just back away and turn off the computer. Just to be safe. :)

    Parent

    Speaking only for myself... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    I've always seen the nickname as a way of trying to put him in the position of having to try to defend himself and explain why what he does is not betrayal.

    We even called the Democrats cave on the supplemental "betrayal".

    Parent

    Capitulation was better (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    But even that phrase in that context does not imply being a traitor to the country.

    I'll give you an example, I did not call Brian Biard a traitor, I called him wrong and shallow.

    Parent

    Hmmmm. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    I see what you mean, I think. I look at the use of the term more the way Squeaky described above: to betray the trust of Americans rather than being a traitor to the country.

    I'll have to think about it some more though, your reply to Squeaky gave me pause... and I think your point was good too.

    Also "politically" is it expedient? Does it produce a desired result? Is it helping? It doesn't look that way so far...

    Parent

    Either (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    Move On did not understand how the phrase would be portrayed, making them stupid, or they did, making them stupid.

    Parent
    Warren Terrer (none / 0) (#92)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    First of all, congratulations on the best moniker of them all.

    Second, what you represent here

    1.) Republicans do it, so it's ok if we do it
    2.) Betray isn't really such a bad word (weak); and
    3.) who cares?

    Is decidedly NOT the only defense that has been made.  Many, myself included, have expressed appreciation for it on the grounds that (gasp!) the Ad is True.

    Still, your request that

    someone convince me that 'Betrayus' is really a good move?

    is hard to fulfill because technically, after all, it probably wasn't a good move.  What is true doesn't play well when it comes to Iraq, as with most things in politics.

    Parent

    Contrary to what (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    a poster stated above, truth alone isn't a good defence in the context of political speech.

    I happen to think it's very true that George Bush is a POS, but I think an ad in the NYT saying that would be politically indefensible.

    Parent

    Truth alone (none / 0) (#99)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    Won't cut it, this is true.

    Sigh.  Be nice if a bit more were allowed into the discussion every now and then, tho.

    Parent

    Move on, Talk Left. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    John McCain is "up" now at the hearings.

    Well I agree (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:45:52 PM EST
    I avoid at all cost calling anyone the same name that Neocons call them!  I just haven't found myself to be observing good form when I've found myself mimicking Neocons.

    Please lose the insults (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:30:40 PM EST
    Big Tent is right, that is close to a site rules violation.

    The Move On Ad | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment