I agree with Kerry. We should not be demonizing General Petraeus.

[calteacherguy]

I believe he's a good and honorable man. We need to focus on the policy in the White House, not character assasination of a general doing a good job on the military side. It's the administration that is failing on the political and diplomatic side.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, called the ad "over the top."

"I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.

"I think there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked, a lot of probing that ought to take place; there's a lot of legitimate accountability that needs to be achieved. It ought to be done without casting any aspersions on anyone's character or motives," he added.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/petraeus.moveon/index.html


I'm glad I don't contribute to moveon.org, because it's not the kind of political dialogue I support.

[LittleClarkie]

1. Please don't misinterpret this comment from Kerry as non-support of Moveon.org

As recently as a couple of weeks ago he was working with them to organize protests all over the country against the war.

I posted three times about it. Sank like a stone all three times. Suddenly people give a shit about Moveon. I find it perplexing.

So it's not that Kerry is against Moveon. He just has an issue with the ad as a former soldier, is all.

[PatSeg]

64. Petraeus is yet another stooge

to take the bullet for Bush. It was Bush who betrayed us. Petraeus is a soldier taking orders from his commander-in-chief. I'm not defending him, but once again the blame is being deflected from Bush/Cheney. They don't care how many people they destroy covering their asses.

[goodhue]

2. www.betrayusreport.com

www.betrayusreport.com

[Prince Paul]

3. But he betrayed us

[snappyturtle]

22. I agree! All Kerry would have had to do is say that moveon.org

is an independent organization with a viewpoint....and SHUT up! Without the ad and the protesters who voiced opposition to Petreaus today.....it would have been just ANOTHER hearing....imho.

[sampsonblk]

44. Petraeus works for Bush

The guy did his job. This is a political fight. And we should have fought it here at home. The General is doing his job and should not be subject to political winds.

[Colobo]

4. I agree, cal. It's not the smart thing to do.

[Cameron27]

5. I don't think anyone should be demonized,

but he should be called on his obfuscating testimony. I think Kerry is trying to keep it above the level of name calling and will appropriately go after him in the Senate hearing.

[LittleClarkie]

7. I think he also probably sees it as being part of supporting the troops

As a vet, he's sensitive to that.

I personally cringe at some of the name calling, or the pet names we come up with around here sometimes.

[Cameron27]

13. That's probably right, he's a role model for a lot of young vets.

I think he's coming at this the right way, on the issues. A Senator is just not going to have any credibility if he starts calling people names.

[wisteria]

30. I bet you are right. n/t

[defendandprotect]

47. "Demonized" by one's own words, one's own action -- ????

The Republicans on the other hand have truly engaged in demonizing others --
Daschle being just one such example --

Kerry himself is another --

Let's keep the sympathy where it belongs --
And, let's keep our heads on straight about who the villans are --

[Cameron27]

52. Demonized,

I usually take that to mean something made up to make someone look evil. You're right, he has demonized himself. I don't feel sorry for Petraeus, I can't stand the man, but I want him, Bush and the rest of these criminals taken out the right way, through constitutional law.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with the ad, except for what I said about how the republicans used it at the hearings. But what moveon.org says, or what you & I say isn't what Sen. Kerry should say if he wants to be an effective adversary when it counts.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Sorry, I Cannot Agree With My Junior Senator

This is a war, for chrissake. A staggering amount of blood and treasure has been spent on Bush's insane adventure.

Petraeus is a Bush shill, from his claim that we'd definitely found one of Saddam's mobile bioterror labs to his his testimony today. We know that Bush will not appoint anyone to anything unless they've drunk the kool-aid. Petraeus knew precisely what he was getting himself into and what he would have to testify to when he took the job. The only honorable thing to have done would be to refuse the job. So here he is, knowingly spending more blood and treasure.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Thank you for disagreeing in a civil manner

Much appreciated.

[maximusveritas]

9. MoveOn usually does good work, but this ad stunk

I agree with Kerry. It resorted to name-calling instead of just refuting what Petraeus has said. As a result, it has put us on the defensive instead of on the offensive where we should be.

[karynnj]

18. Not only where we should have been, but where Kerry, Reid and others

worked hard to place us. Last week, Kerry presided over a Senate hearing to discuss the GAO report. The Armed service committee reviewed the Jones report. (There was a third independent report - but I don't remember anything on it.) Those reports showed the benchmarks were mostly not met. It was so bad that Senator Lugar, at one point questioned if the Iraqis even WANTED to meet them.

Yesterday, Kerry on This Week spoke of how we shouldn't get fooled when they tried to substitute some military tactical victories for the benchmarks the Iraqis set for themselves. He warned of shifting goal posts. Biden, Reid, and Durbin all spoke late last week or yesterday making similar or related points.

That was the Democrats worked for going into this discussion. But, what is the big story - this idiotic ad and the summary of what Petraeus said. Instead of the solid case the Senators made the Democratic side is this ad. So, it was stupid politically.

[Cameron27]

20. I watched the hearing, and the republicans used that ad

to try to tilt the hearings to a defense of Petraeus before he even opened his mouth.

[karynnj]

26. Ithink you're right - where the dynamic could have been the surge is on trial

[cui bono]

46. That's the only problem I had with it.

Took the focus away from where it needed to be and gave the Repubs something to use to go on the offensive, when they should have been on the defensive.

[beachmom]

71. I noticed Petraeus on the defensive, though. That was kind of

interesting. How many times has someone on the Right gone on the defensive before speaking? Thing is, I am against name calling, but OTOH, Petraeus has only appeared, as far as I know, on two media outlets: Hugh Hewitt radio show and Fox News. That speaks for itself.

[snappyturtle]

23. Has everyone forgotten the "Swift boating"? THEY weren't nice.nt

[BigBearJohn]

57. I agree 100% and Kerry did not stand up to their attacks like he should have.

I think it cost him the election.

Now he wants MoveOn to play nice?

[dugggy]

61. Major diferences between name calling and witnesses

coming forward WITHOUT calling Sen Kerry vile names.
One action is childish, immature, lacks civility and
respect for OUR miltary leaders. Other action was
differences on how fellow soldiers recalled Kerry's
actions. The swiftboaters did not prove anything in a
court. They practised "politics" in a civil manner.
One can believe or not believe their attacks.

[snappyturtle]

69. Two things: I do not have loads of respect for our military.....the military

big wigs that is. They have become puppets. They're playing with lives. This is no time to play pattie cake. Number two...I haven't heard anything "vile" from either side. Maybe we differ on our definition of that. imho

[dugggy]

95. Peace n/t

[Wesman 85]

93. Name calling and mud-slinging are two of the biggest problems

that contribute to not much of substance getting done. I find it childish and view those who participate in it as lacking any substance to the positions they are taking. It is just like listening to two children standing on a playground and saying "I know you are, but what am I?".
If you don't have something intelligent to contribute, stay out of the debate. It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and prove that you are.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. General Petraeus is prostituting himself for Bush, and is the cause of LOTS of innocent dead. nt

[Breeze54]

11. The critics should actually read the AD!

Gheesh!

[xchrom]

12. indeed.

[karynnj]

19. The small print does NOT add up to the BIG GIANT PRINT

which is all many people will see - and it was designed to do just that.

[TankLV]

41. Indeed!

[xchrom]

14. two things -- playing nice ALWAYS plays into the republick party hands -- and second

you should REALLY check out the outrageous lies told by this ''honorable'' man.

there is no honor in cooking th damn books and lieing and getting people killed to get your way.

[wisteria]

32. Playing stupid does too and this ad was stupid. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

56. Absolutely, there's nothing "nice" about continuing a bloody occupation in the middle of a civil war

How many more must DIE before you think we should DARE breech your tea-party version of "political etiquette" and SPEAK OUT through protest and non-violent resistance?

Oh, how many more THOUSAND of our young people must die before we get ANGRY? That's all the right wing understands. Why? They love war and are vicious in their politics.

If we wish to save lives of our troops, we must get "in their faces." If you don't have the courage to be an activist, then consider "holding your tongue" while the rest of us kick open the door.

p.s. You're welcome. ;)

[Nutmegger]

15. Disagree with Senator Kerry.

This is far tame than what the Reupkes dish out. Senator Kerry knows all about that.

Petraeus is a putrid son of a bitch and deserves nothing but condemnation.

I have more respect for the CodePink protesters who told it like it is today than some ribbon-ridden, pro-war, lying Bush hack.

I'm a proud MoveOn member. I will donate some more money to them when I get a chance.

[LittleClarkie]

16. Kerry supports moveon.org too

He helped them with their protest organization a couple of weeks ago.

[robinlynne]

17. This good and honorable man swore to the weapons of mass destruction, remember?

What is good or honorable about him?

[TankLV]

42. Exactly.

Kerry should have kept his mouth SHUT...

He is wrong AGAIN unfortunately...

[IndianaGreen]

21. Petraeus is another goddamned William Westmoreland

How many names are on the Vietnam Wall because of Westmoreland's folly? How many names will go on a future Iraq Wall because of Petraeus' folly?

Even the GAO report said that there was no measurable progress brought by Petraeus' surge!

Petraeus is the White House's errand boy. His claim of success predates the surge: the arming of Sunni militias in Anbar province.

[snappyturtle]

24. And I heard nothing today (could have missed it) about the

money paid to tribes in Anbar to help fight al Quaeda. BIG omission to me.

[robinlynne]

25. I want to be clear here. Petraus swore that there were mobile labs full of biological

weapons, KNOWING that to be false. He is a PROVEN liar, and that one lie caused thousands of deaths. Why do you call him honorable? Just because he is in the military? He is not honorable.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Petraeus is known as a political general.

Keith O. showed clips of Petraeus talking about a trend of lowered violence Anbar two months before the surge started, and today testified that the drop in violence was a result of the surge.

IMO he is just another hand-puppet for this administration and that is flat-out wrong.

[beachmom]

74. And Brandon Friedman of VoteVets.org echoed that view while

saying the moveon.org ad was over the top.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/11/23754/4895#c82

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Attacking moveon and defending Patreus, cal?

;)

[TankLV]

43. No surprise there - considering many of his other posts...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Exactly what I was thinking

;)

[wisteria]

29. I agree with you and with Senator Kerry. This ad was counter productive and gave the Repubs

something to use as a distraction and to drum up support for Petreaus. Personally attacking soldiers and military personnel is just wrong even if you do not believe what they are reporting. Senator Kerry has been a victim of these types of personal attacks in the past usually initiated by Republicans. Just because Republicans are low enough to regularly use these types of personal attacks doesn't mean we have to stoop to their low vile level to make our points. We are better than that.

[antiimperialist]

33. So we should make sure Republicans won't use our ads as a distraction before airing them?

That seem like absurd logic to me.
Republicans would use anything as a distraction.

[wisteria]

49. They wouldn't of brought so much attention to an ad that challenged Petraeus' assessment

of the situation in Iraq.
This personal attack ad on Petreaus helped the Republicans change the subject.
And, we don't need to "check with Republicans' before placing an ad, we should think ahead and consider how well an ad will be received and how it could be challenged.

[cui bono]

31. Honorable men don't lie about serious things that are killing our kids

and putting our nation, let alone the whole world, at greater risk. He is not being truthful, he took this job as a yes-man and that's what he's doing.

He should be being called out by more than just Move-On. Where are our representatives??? Time for the charade to end!



You need to watch this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x53256

[wisteria]

36. What if he really believes what his report says?

Just because you don't think he is telling the truth doesn't make it right to attack him personally. Go after his assessment of the situation.

[cui bono]

40. Did you go watch that video?

Have you read the article that describes how they are assessing the violence in Iraq?

"If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

How about him saying the WH was not involved in what he was reporting?

With the microphone finally fixed, it quickly became clear. Petraeus tried to square a circle in his very first two paragraphs.

In the first, he thanks the committees for the opportunity to “discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward.” Then he stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point—at least for me:

“At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.”

Is not the Commander-in-Chief in Petraeus’s chain of command?

As Harry Truman, D-Missouri, would have said, “Does he think we were born yesterday?”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/091007a.html

He no more believes what he's saying than cows can fly to the moon. Just like Gonzo.


Check these out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/05/AR2007090502466.html?nav=hcmodule

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/10/surge-next-summer/

http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=282187&

http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=282206&

[wisteria]

48. I watched the hearings today and I have done my own research on the surge and this

terrible war. I believe there are military accomplishments in Iraq, but that would be expected with our fine military and the current amount of troops deployed there. And, actually the military victory only offers some of the necessary security so that the Iraq government can begin the political process. What is needed is a political solution and that has not happened. Petreaus is only responsible for the military aspects of the surge so in his POV this surge has been successful. I am not saying he is right in his assessment or even that he hasn't cherry picked what he wanted to say, but IMO Move-on was wrong to attack his character. They should have questioned the so called improvements and challenged his assessment of the situation.

[defendandprotect]

34. That's crap -- !!! Petraeus is not being "demonized" except by his own record/lies ---

Petraeus is not a "good and honorable man" -- and if Kerry is saying this he must be delusional!!!

[defendandprotect]

37. "This administration is not to be trusted" -- that was made clear by the opening statement ---

Don't know where the thread went to and can't think of the Senator's name at the moment --
begins with an L/Edited -- LANTOS. . . . SENATOR LANTOS . . .
-- but he made clear that this administration is to be treated with suspicion --
and that includes all their appointees --
One of the websites had a link to his comments -- can't find it at the moment.

How many Generals has Bush been thru before he got someone who would lie their ass off for him????

Again -- Kerry is wrong here -- he's wrong about Petraeus and he's wrong about Move On!

And, why would Kerry be speaking up for a party which has done nothing but engage in organized lies to get us into an "illegal" war -- ???

What is it with Kerry--????

[TankLV]

38. Totally spot on.

But the vichy dems should keep on telling us how horrible we are - maybe I'll contribute another hundred bucks to moveon.org...

[defendandprotect]

45. Did you see this -- ?????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1776815&mesg_id=1776815

Didn't get any attention --
I probably should redo it with a new title --
How about . . .

"Will Pelosi allow Bush's new $200 Billion funding for war to come to the floor -- ?
If she does, it will pass -- "

[2rth2pwr]

51. I had a post on the same thing- same response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3508902&mesg_id=3508902

[ProudDad]

63. It's Representative Lantos

He's the congresscritter representing San Mateo, California and Israel...

[pink-o]

76. Tom Lantos is actually a Rep, not a Senator

...his district is the Southern part of San Francisco and San Mateo County in California.

But he's old and hawkish, I'd be very surprised if he said anything against BushCo.

[jillan]

35. Agreed.

[TankLV]

39. He's a fucking PROVEN LIAR - just like POWELL...

He's a DISGRACE to the uniform...

Kerry couldn't be more wrong on this one...

[followthemoney]

50. If only Kerry stood up for himself as much as he does for Betray-us

I would respect him a lot more.

I'm ready to respect Smedley Butler right about now. Is his reincarnation here yet?

[ShortnFiery]

53. So true! Our Congress-critters are profoundly "out of touch" with the will of the American people.

:(

[ProSense]

58. Yeah, especially the one(s)

setting a timetable for withdrawal, sponsoring a bill to cut funding, working hard on host of other issues --- the one(s) working hardest to hold the Bush administration accountable.

How's your candidate doing in all these areas, and how much support/press does he/she have/get?

[ShortnFiery]

55. "I believe he's a good and honorable man." So was Julius Caesar.

:nuke: Don't be wowed by "the stars" or the obscene number of badges and medals hanging from General Petraeus' uniform, Betrayus is a morally bankrupt ass-kissing General Officer who does not serve his troops NOR the American People. Betrayus serves only HIMSELF and his Civilian/Corporate Masters within the Military Industrial Complex. He proved that today and will continue to do so tomorrow.

[Murdock]

59. I agree..

Well said, Sir.

[Bluebear]

60. 'I believe he's a good and honorable man.' - based on what, just curious?

[ProudDad]

62. How can a cold blooded state murderer

and apologist for the terrorist rogue government of the United States be a "good and honorable man"???

Screw that!

He's a shill for the war machine...

:nuke: him...



I consider the women of Code Pink to be 100 times more "good and honorable" than that deadly, beribboned piece of crap...



And as for his "tesimony", it was Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11, Iraq, Al Qaeda - 9/11

In other words, the BULLSHIT bushie propoganda redux...

[johnnydrama]

66. Patreus

I agree with all the negative things said about Patreus. But Patreus is not the issue. If Patreus stood up 6 months ago and said I don't agree with the surge, there would be no Patreus, and we'd all be talking about the General XYZ report today, and how General XYZ is misleading us.

Patreus has to look at himself in the mirror every day, but no matter what he might have said to Bush in the past, it would be of no consequence to the war.

[Skittles]

65. ARE YOU F***ING KIDDING ME ???

DO SOME G.D. RESEARCH - PETRAEUS HAS BEEN A REPUKE WHORE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. He serves bush, NOT the American people or the troops.

[ShortnFiery]

72. True, he not only serves Bush-Co, the troops disdain him almost as much as they did Rums-FAILED.

Ask a troop who has been rotated to the M.E. at least twice or was forced via the "back-door" draft to re-enlist what they think of General "Peaches" Betrayus? :thumbsdown:

A very giving and sweet fellow parishioner and co-volunteer has lost her beloved husband because of these Mad Warmongers' insatiable quest for endless war profiteering and stealing our tax dollars for a budding American Fascist Empire. Stop it before it's too late ... it's almost too late. STOP THE FUNDING FOR WAR NOW!

General Betray-US? INDEED!!! :grr:

[Skittles]

99. THE TROOPS KNOW THE SCORE

they know the REAL generals were FIRED by that piece of shit bush

[BootinUp]

67. unpopular wars and unpopular Generals

Its what happens when you are in the hot seat and he wanted the job apparently. Then its probably true that we legitimize Bush's tactic of hiding behind the General when we attack him politically. We should save the attacks for Bush.

[cyclezealot]

68. Demonizing it out. Calling to question his assertions is not

His report is not in keeping with the GAO report of Iraq sectarian violence. He is Bush's latest yes man. Just because he wears a uniform does not necessary mean he is no politician. But, do it with class. As to Move On. Maybe this ad needed another edit? But, Move On is vital in order to fight GOP dirty tricks. Were you not upset with the GOP attack ads on Max Cleland. We can't fight fire with fire. Unfortunately its why we loose in the present corrupt campaign system. Until it is reformed. We have no choice. The Swift Boaters are out there and waiting to go into action. We need get more involved with Move On, not less. The Democratic party has not enough moxie. Move On does.

[GeorgeGist]

70. Your beliefs are well founded ...

if treason is good and honorable.

[Netbeavis]

73. attack the message...not the messenger or else we look like Swiftboaters.

[ShortnFiery]

75. Yes, the instigators of "The Boston Tea Party" looked like comical Indians - but effective!

It's also the LACK of integrity in these warmongers that must be addressed.

At some point, if we want to reclaim our Democratic Republic we must HOLD THESE IMMORAL PEOPLE accountable! That's not swift boating, that's the realization of *justice.*

[SIMPLYB1980]

78. There is nothing wrong with calling a Facist names.

Especially when they are accurate. General Betrayus has betrayed, his oath, and lied to the American people. He deserves all the ridicule that he gets.

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

He's following the President's orders alright, to bad he has totally Betrayed the American people in regards to protecting us from domestic threats. The destruction on the Constitution is O.B.L.'s greatest victory.

[Netbeavis]

80. I disagree.

[SIMPLYB1980]

83. Thats your right. I disagree with you to.

Happy internet democracy! Now we should apply that to the real world.

[Netbeavis]

84. happy days. n/t

[Netbeavis]

79. you can not condemn that which you practice yourself.

I personally get great satisfiaction in flaming my GOP friends with such things as facts. When they start the name-calling and spewing the latest Malkin talking points, I know I hit I'em good.

[ShortnFiery]

81. That's the point - we must gel as "a team" - it's going to get nasty, no doubt.

[Didereaux]

77. hmmm, did you know the good general ;borrowed; his Iraq Plan?

Here is an explanation for Gen. Petraeus's Iraq Plan. It is adopted from a former Generals plan. To find out who the general was, what his plan was, and who tipped Petraeus to it. Just go to this link:



All seems perfectly clear now, doesn't it? heh

more can be found at this link as well:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12461951@N03/

enjoy ;)

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Attacking the messenger is GOP tactics...

And would should be using them, especially when we complain when they do it.

The ad should have been more substanitive, discussing the particulars of what he said and how he manipulated evidence. leave it up to individuals to read the text and decide he betrayed us, instead of just hurling insults.

[ProudDad]

85. Attacking US is "freeper" tactics

Why don't you read the ad? The ad IS "substantive, discussing the particulars of what he <will said, who he is> and how he <will> manipulate evidence."

At the very end there's one sentence fragment that the right-wing (and you) seem to have latched on to to beat us over the head for being "name callers":

"Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

ABSOLUTELY what happened at that farcical theatrical production called a "hearing"!!!

---------------

And, bye the way, I NEVER complain when the RW calls us names, etc. I remain steadfast in the knowledge that they are ignorant, deluded and WRONG...



Well, there was a bloody great headline too -- Loved it!!!

[Milo_Bloom]

87. Its the HEADLINE that is the problem!

http://pol.moveon.org/content/pac/pdfs/PetraeusNYTad.pdf

Big Bold Letters: General Petraeus or General Betray Us at the top.

That is idiotic name calling and NOT necessary. They should know better.

Just like the RW wackos, it appeals to the idiot in people, instead of the sense and only works to divide people by attacking the messenger with name calling, instead of the facts.

Simple change, General Petraeus, please don't betray us would create the association without idiotic name calling.

[ProudDad]

88. I'll meet you half-way

I think they could have been more creative...

MoveOn sort of walked into the jaws of the abattoir with that one...

It's NOT inaccurate.

That blood-stained apologist masquerading around in his clown suit did BETRAY US and the Peoples of the Earth by fronting for the insane war machine of the Empire in that dog and pony show mislabeled a "hearing"...

But, telling truths in police state fascist Amerika IS a crime...

-------

On Edit: I don't know if you've seen it but all of the latest research shows that during political conflicts and elections, appealing to the idiot in people is the main thing that WORKS...

Rational argument rarely causes people to vote a certain way -- it's usually an appeal to emotions and prejudices that works. That's probably why MoveOn chose the headline -- to appeal to the emotional responses of the 60+% who are against this war.

The headline could have been a little more creative and less fact-based...

[Milo_Bloom]

94. Its about name-calling.

And now matter how you look at, that is what is sticking in people's mind and playing on their emotions. If you are generally "for" the troops, you think it is horrible to call a general names. If you are "against" the war, you don't see a problem with calling out reality. The problem is there was some bleed between the two groups. For the first time in a long time people who are "for the troops" are against the war. HOWEVER, that has been hurt by this message because those "for the trooops" are not going to want to be associated with name calling of a 4 star general.

Everything about the ad, EXCEPT for the headline and last line is great, but the entire message is lost as all the focus becomes about the name calling.

So tell me, which way do you think this ad cuts? Does it take people who are the yellow ribbon support the troops types who are turning against the war and make it more or less likely for them to be against the war? What "emotional" reaction do you think wins? I think it pushes some people who may have been on the fence back into the pro-war camp, because they don't want to be associated with people who call a 4 star general names suggesting treason.

I am very surprised at Moveon for making this type of mistake and not coming up with a title that got the same message across w/o supplying the other side with such an easy attack and dividing the anti-war crowd into being for/against the military.

[ProudDad]

100. That's why as far as the long term is concerned

I'm extremely pessimistic.

I think you're right, the objection of the majority of the folks who say they are against THIS war is probably a mile wide and an inch deep.

The next time they (Dem or puke) want to hold another fucking war the sheeple will blindly, emotionally go along again.

In this particular case, yeah the unfortunate headline probably ruffled the feathers of a few of those Johny Come Latelys as they have no real objections to war just to unsuccessful wars.

I truly LOATH this absurd idolatry toward the military. It makes it so easy to make war.

I've been in the military. The objectives of military training are SHIT and their "values" create a bunch of deviant proto-killers in order to carry them out.

The military represents the ABSOLUTE WORST that humans can be and performs acts that are the WORST that humans can do...a rather crappy deity to worship...

Piss on all Flags and piss on all armies...

[democrat2thecore]

104. Bingo - would have been perfect. -nt

[ProudDad]

86. You can't "demonize" a demon... (n/t)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Fuck that bullshit.

Petraeus is a liar. A warmonger. And a disgrace to his uniform and his country.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. I'm afraid I don't agree with "good and honourable".

I think that Petraeus is deliberately and knowingly endangering the lives of the men serving under him, not because he thinks that doing so may achieve success - I don't believe anyone who's examined the situation in Iraq could believe that - but for political reasons.

And I find that contemptible.

[MadHound]

91. I will unapologetically criticize anybody whose actions result in the ongoing deaths of thousands

Whether it is the President, a general or any other private or public enabler, including Dems, 'Pugs and independents.

People are fucking dying over there, and it amazes me how many want to play by Marquis de Queensbury rules, asking polititely if we can protest, as long as we're quiet and out of sight, and not outrageous:eyes:

How the hell do you expect to stop a war by being polite:banghead: It has never worked before, it won't work now. Look at each and every single peoples' movement, from labor to anti-war. They did not achieve a damn thing by being meek, they were loud, proud and in the face of their opponents and oppressors every single minute.

Geez, the stupidity of this sort of stance just amazes, almost as much as the fact that some people are so serious about it.:crazy:

[Jed Dilligan]

92. I don't understand the conflation of top brass

with the troops on the ground. A very, very few general officers in history--the Duke of Wellington, Julius Caesar, and a handful of others--have been figures of love and identification for their rankers. This is because these men were such brilliant tacticians that they actually SAVED LIVES, and no one knew it better than the soldiers. We simply don't have a general like that in Iraq, obviously, or perhaps we do but it is not a situation to be dealt with by generals.

In a "clusterfuck" like Iraq the high ranks are despised by their men, who--believe me--are feeling more "BETRAYED" than DU. The few you see at photo ops might be starstruck by his persona and taken in by the rhetoric that we (anti-war people) are the betrayers. But I'm sure the vast majority feel betrayed by their leadership, starting with Bush but including the officers.

As for myself, I couldn't care less what goes on in the general's heart, whether he is a "good man" who feels deeply wounded by his nickname or a bad man who wants more war or a scared man who's been told his loved ones might be hurt if he doesn't bark like a dog. The point is that he is reading administration-enabling garbage to Congress and, if they and we the people buy it, thousands if not millions more will die. That is enormously more significant than how one man or even a hundred men might feel because of an ad in a newspaper that soldiers probably don't even read.

[Moderate Dem]

96. I couldn't agree more

MoveOn was definitely over the top.

[Bucky]

97. He has served his country honorably up till he got into a policy position

He's politicizing his office and his uniform. I don't think we should demonize him. I think "Betray Us" is a cheap shot that only makes his critics look bad. But at the same time, he's gotten sucked in by the Bush political agenda. Military officers aren't supposed to do that.

[ProudDad]

101. Sorry, Bucky, that ain't the way it works

You have to kiss a lot of ass and sniff a lot of butts to get 4 stars.

Generals are the WORST of a bad lot...

And they're 110% "political" and anything BUT "honorable" nor are they worthy of any "honor"...

Just look at colon powell -- from the Mai Lai Cover-up to lying to the United Nations -- doin' the dirty work and kissin' ass...

[LittleClarkie]

106. Would that include Wes Clark

?

[ProudDad]

107. It's probable...but there are exceptions to every rule (n/t)

[fujiyama]

98. I don't see anything wrong with Kerry's statement

Kerry is sensitive about this, because of his own encounter with the Swift Liars. Granted, I doubt the Move On ad is anywhere near as disparaging as those despicable ads.

And besides, Petreas is irrelevant. Few people believed him beforehand. Few will now. People already understand that he was going to shill for Bush.

[ProudDad]

102. I'm afraid he wasn't "irrelevant"

He gave * a bump just like ollie north gave ray-gun cover during Iran-Contra...

There was a poll just mentioned by Mike Malloy (I didn't get the web site for the poll results) but basically that pig in uniform caused about a 10% bump in Dem opinions and 20% bump in puke and "independent" opinions about whether "objectives have been met in Iraq"...

I guess they don't understand that he's just a shill...

So just like ollie north's lying, colon powell's lying, this prick Gen. Betray Us' dog and pony show worked again... The sheeple just don't know shit...

Mainly 'cause they believe in spite of all evidence that proves the contrary that the military is "estimable"...

[fujiyama]

103. OK, maybe he had some effect...but I still think it was negligible

but my basic view is that most people at this point people have given up on this war anyways and are pretty skeptical of anything coming out of anyone's mouth in this administration (or someone doing the bidding for them). Just yesterday morning, before the report came out, a majority were saying the report was unlikely to say anything new or useful or change their minds.

And also keep in mind, that the Petreaus report is a very small story in the long run. People are barely paying attention to this. Hell, I pay more attention to most, but I don't know Petraus' partisan history (just seen a few references here and there on DU) - but just that Iraq is such a catastrophic mess, that I couldn't be convinced otherwise (after all they're having the equivalent of several 9/11s a month)...

As I was saying though, Kerry is likely sensitive on this issue for obvious reasons and he probably doesn't believe the ad was the most effective way to question the report itself (and placing the attention on the ad may possibly be counterproductive). Either way, I have not seen the ad myself so I'm not sure what it was actually saying, but I do know the mainstream "news" outlets like to attack Move On ads whenever they get a chance.

[ProudDad]

108. Yep, the "bump" won't last long

but unfortunately the Dems still ain't gonna end the war...

Especially if one of the corporate types gets elected in '08...

[Jim Sagle]

105. Nor should we be apologizing on Republican demand. Ever.