Elizabeth Edwards praises MoveOn.org, but criticizes "General Betray Us" comment.

[jsamuel]

Elizabeth Edwards, in a new interview:

MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us” in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.

“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

...

An Edward supporter writes in and notes that Elizabeth's comments aren't surprising considering her upbringing as the daughter of a Navy pilot and points out that Elizabeth goes on to praise grassroots organizations like MoveOn.org in the original article.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/elizabeth_edwards_hitsmoveon.php

She is right. MoveOn was right about the point of their ad, but saying a general is a traitor (while not using that word) is going too far. Mostly, it is just unnecessary to call him names to make the point. This is very consistent of her since she criticized Ann Coulter for name calling as well.

[rateyes]

1. Yeah, he shouldn't be called Betrayus...

I prefer what Admiral Fallon called him. AKLC.

[Richardo]

2. She read my thread!

:hide:

:applause: Elizabeth! and kudos to you, jsamuel :patriot:

[jsamuel]

3. thanks!

:patriot:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richardo]

44. Yes, by all means let's have a war purity test and kick out those who don't pass

That'll get us down to 15% in no time!

[cali]

61. Just for you:

The Purity Brigade Oath:

I do solemnly swear that I, ______________ will never cast a vote for anyone who does not agree with me on every single issue, no matter how minor. I will oppose any democrat to the right of Dennis Kucinich, and I will make NO exceptions for states with a large conservative electorate, otherwise known as red states. I promise to vigorously oppose any democrat who does not meet my standards.

Deport Edwards? WTF is wrong with you?

[Justitia]

4. WTF? Who used the word "traitor"? I don't see that anywhere but in your comments. -eom

[Richardo]

5. You can't define 'traitor' without using the word 'betray'

It's not a stretch at all.

[Justitia]

6. Again, who called him a "traitor"? I didn't ask you to define the word. -eom

[Richardo]

9. You do recall 'Betrayus' right?

:shrug:

[Justitia]

11. Are you claiming MoveOn called him a "traitor"? Because that is a bald-faced lie. -eom

[Colobo]

15. Do you know what the verb "to betray" means?

[Richardo]

18. I'd say: no.

[Justitia]

19. Of course I do, and it is not at all the same thing as calling someone a "traitor".

Calling someone a "traitor" means they have committed treason, which is a VERY SPECIFIC crime against the nation. Using an arbitrary verb to describe criminal behavior is not the same thing as accusing someone of a SPECIFIC FEDERAL CRIME.

What the hell is up with everyone here today, throwing around the word "traitor"?

Some people believe Bill Clinton betrayed the trust of his office, would you call him a "traitor"?
Hell, by that definition, every elected representative who disappoints us could be called a "traitor"!

This is ridiculous extrapolation of a very inflammatory term.

[Colobo]

22. The dictionary disagrees with you

http://www.answers.com/topic/betray
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=betray

[Justitia]

26. Why are you obfuscating the question? I asked you who used the word "traitor"? I didn't ask for a

definition of some other verb.

[jsamuel]

28. Be-Tray --- Trai - tor

They come from the same base word for crying out loud. Tray and Trai

Traitor - one who betrays
Betray - what a traitor does

[Justitia]

31. So, are YOU calling Gen P a "traitor"? Cuz you'd be the first to do it. -eom

[Colobo]

33. Nah. Those who accussed him of betrayal did it first.

[Justitia]

36. Yeah, right - total bullshit. The only one tossing around "traitor" is YOU. -eom

[TankLV]

69. He is "Betrayus" - he's a fucking LIAR...FUCK THE GODDAMNED ASSHOLE!!!!

Why are all you crybabies so quick to join the repukes!!!!

I am so sick of spineless idiots...

[Colobo]

32. Why are you obfuscating the question??? LOL!

[Justitia]

34. Again, are YOU calling Gen P a "traitor"? Hardly a laughing matter. -eom

[Colobo]

37. I'm not. Those who accussed him of betrayal did.

[Justitia]

39. Bullshit. Don't put loaded words in other people's mouth. Only YOU are using "traitor".

[Colobo]

40. I guess you don't understand what "betrayal" means.

[Justitia]

41. Willfully obtuse. Anyone who says MoveOn said "traitor" is a LIAR. Why don't you look that up? nt

[Colobo]

45. They said "betray us". What the hell does "to betray" means?

[Justitia]

46. MoveOn never said "traitor" - that's YOUR word. -eom

[Colobo]

48. To betray means...? Can you answer that?

[Justitia]

51. Quit fucking around, did MoveOn call Gen P a "traitor" or not? - eom

[Colobo]

52. They accussed him of betrayal. Those who betray are...

[Justitia]

53. So, the answer is NO. If you say MoveOn called him a "traitor", then you are a LIAR. -eom

[Colobo]

55. They acussed him of betrayal. Which means what?

[Justitia]

56. Figure it out on your own, buddy. But, don't claim to speak for anyone but yourself. -eom

[stimbox]

59. Why are you repeating a RW talking point?

HUH?

[jsamuel]

10. someone who "betrays us" is called a "traitor"

[Justitia]

12. That's your ludicrous leap. Don't put words in people's mouths. -eom

[Colobo]

17. Do you know what "to betray" means?

[Justitia]

21. Yeah, and I'd say you're betraying your party's goals by doing RWers work for them. -eom

[Colobo]

24. No; I'd say Elizabeth Edwards is right, and MoveOn is wrong.

[Parkerlane]

27. MOVE-ON RIGHT - EDWARDS ALWAYS WRONG

May God Damn John Edwards for being responsible for the needless deaths of nearly four thousand American soldiers, over 25,000 seriously wounded soldiers, and God only knows how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. This is ONE of the things wrong with the Democratic Party: Democrats should be holding accountable each and every Democrat who (unconstitutionally) gave George W. Bush the faux authority to attack, invade and militarily occupy sovereign nation Iraq.

Without this accountability, the Democratic Party cannot stake any claim of honor, respect or sense of justice. Without this accountability, there is no "lesson learned." In fact, if these guilty war-assenters are left scotfree and unchecked, we are doomed to repeat history again. Instead of holding John Edwards accountable for his co-sponsoring and voting for Lieberman's war bill and sending our troops to kill and die in a needless, unlawful war, Democrats are rewarding treasonist Edwards with cash and their support. I'm waiting for our entire political system to implode from the injustice, hypocrisy and ignorance. There is no accountability in the Democratic Party; otherwise, Democrats would NOT be supporting the Democrats who voted to give Bush permission to attack Iraq. Those assenting Democrats are just as guilty as Dick Cheney and George Dubya. Hillary, Obama and Edwards' hands are just as bloodied with the fresh blood of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens as Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley, Wolfowitz, Pearle and all the other cretinous neocon bastards.

Has the Democratic Party no sense of shame, no sense of accountability, no sense of justice, no respect for our nation's great constitution, no respect for life itself?

Democrats ignore and forego all of these things in favor of a pretty face and slick words.

Edwards says he's sorry for voting for the war - to hell with John Edwards - thousands and thousands and thousands of dead human beings don't get do-overs - why should Edwards? Edwards should be hiding in shame and horror at his actions and the result of his actions; but no, instead Edwards is holding his hand ot for a handout from you and me.

Now Edwards says: "It's time to end this war and bring our troops home."
Well, what time was it when Edwards voted to give Bush permission to attack Iraq? Was it time to Iraqis to die? Was it time for American soldiers to die? Apparently so.


Edwards? Let's deport him and Hillary.

[Justitia]

29. I don't give a shit about that. Don't go throwing around the word "traitor", unless you're leveling

the charge yourself.

[TankLV]

70. figures. I support MoveON 100%

They are fighting the WAR CRIMINALS the way I want them to.

Betrayus is a WAR CRIMINAL, just like bush, only slightly less so...

SUPPORTING AN ILLEGAL WAR OF AGRESSION BASED ON LIES AGAINST AN INNOCENT UNPROVOKED COUNTRY IS A WAR CRIME!!!!!!

Betrayus is not a "traitor" - he's a fucking lying REPUKE WAR CRMINAL...

[Richardo]

72. Well YOU'RE not hysterical.

:eyes:

[BeyondGeography]

7. She's right; they did us no favors with that ad

[Catchawave]

38. MSNBC's Chuck Todd said it helped the GOP this week :)

It was the perfect strawman, notice how they were able to avoid commenting on Gen. Petraeus while feigning all this faux outrage.

[BeyondGeography]

43. Yep...too cute by half and our candidates have to take a stand

that comes down to this: is it right to mock a General's patriotism or not? That's what the Republicans have made this out to be and they're winning that discussion hands down. We won absolutely nobody over to our side with this cutesy little play on words (I can just see the wizard who came up with it beaming and accepting high fives) and the Right is having a jolly good time because of it.

[Catchawave]

63. Silence is Betrayal, thank goodness for Elizabeth :) n/t

[madfloridian]

8. It did NOT say he was a traitor. She is wrong, you are wrong.

Our party has gotten so far from honesty and clear speaking that most of them candidates do nothing but spin.

[jsamuel]

13. Sorry if you disagree. It did not call him a "traitor", but it called him "betray us"

I see those as the same thing, so do a lot of other people.

[madfloridian]

14. The same old apologetic fearful Democrats.

Got to stop it.

[jsamuel]

23. Oh I see... your saying that they are "giving in" to the repubs or something like that.

I know what you are saying now. Look, we have to FIGHT them every time we are RIGHT. We should fight, but when something is wrong and we know it, you can't fight for it. This was a bad statement by MoveOn in my and Elizabeth's opinions. She isn't being weak here by saying that the line was wrong. She is saying what she thinks is right.

Also, she didn't volunteer this. She was asked about it in an interview. She either answer it truthfully or try to wiggle out of it. I would rather her answer it truthfully. None of the others are sticking up for MoveOn.org. None of them are saying anything at all.

[Colobo]

20. Someone who betrays is a...?

[Larkspur]

16. MoveOn DID NOT label Petraeus a traiter. They ASKED A QUESTION

to the reader and then with facts and quotes from Petraeus informed the reader that Petraeus is a willing Bush tool.

[stimbox]

60. It's obviously a question.

"General Petraeus

OR

General Betray Us?"

wtf is so hard to understand about that?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adelante]

35. Stop spamming the fucking thread

And welcome to DU :hi:

[Bluebear]

42. Holy trolly!

[cali]

66. No kidding.

I smell the blood of a......

[Adelante]

47. I don't see where she praises MoveOn

But I don't think the ad was wise or even useful. It served to divert attention away from the report and complicate what should have been a clear-cut issue for the Dems. Everybody's talking about the ad and not talking about the report. I was hoping this controversy was dying down by now. Personally I would have preferred something less fraught with interpretation, such as what Gen. Clark said at YearlyKos: "President Bush, stop hiding behind General Patraeus!" I think a message something like that wouldn't have become so twisted and diverting.

[jsamuel]

49. here

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/NEWS/70914014/1001/LIFE

Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by simply using Petraeus’ own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.

She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says.”

I should have included that in the op.

[Adelante]

50. I wouldn't call that praise

But I don't have a problem with what she said. Thanks, jsamuel.

[mdmc]

54. whatever

Her hubby helped get us into Iraq. Helped keep the anti-war voice quiet through 2005.

[beaconess]

57. I agree - the namecalling was childish and set up an obvious strawman - stupid move

[ShortnFiery]

58. By all means let's keep decorum while our troops are fighting and dying in an illegal occupation.

:eyes:

[cali]

62. One more time

It has zilch, nothing, Zero, Nada, to do with decorum. It has to do with framing. It has to do with outsmarting them. It has to do with saying it in a way that doesn't hand them ammunition. This has been a stupid distraction.

[ShortnFiery]

65. No, when you have NO forth estate (free press) - it's better to figuratively lock and load

and fire away. Only "the outspoken" have a ghost of a chance to catch the attention of the Corporate Media and wake up the GUTLESS Democrats. If they continue to pander to this immoral occupation, they best not depend on liberals to suck-it-up for the team and vote *party.* :grr:

[beaconess]

68. Who's talking about decorum? I'm talking about effective persuasion!

What possible good does calling Petraeus silly names for our cause? Will childish taunting bring one more soldier home one day sooner? No. It just distracts attention from the real issue and makes our side look ridiculous.

The substance of the Moveon Ad was very good. But most people - the people we really need to reach - did not see anything about the substance in the fine print. All they saw were those huge letters bleating out a distortion of Petraeous' name like foolish schoolyard bullies do when they can't make their point in any coherent way. The only thing missing was "NAH NAH NAH!"

We are on the right side of this. We have an incredibly strong argument against the war and what this president, Petraeus, et al are doing and saying. We should state that argument clearly and logically so that the people we are trying to convince will be willing to listen and learn. That ad, while it may have made our true believers - the wrong audience, since they're already with us - feel good - did nothing to advance our cause with the people we need to convince.

We don't get anywhere with the "you're a poopypants" approach.

[maximusveritas]

64. I'm not an Edwards fan, but I agree with her

As I said before, MoveOn usually does good work, but this ad just missed the mark.
I do think it's interesting that once again, John Edwards sends his wife out to answer the tough questions, while ducking the issue himself. He was asked about the ad yesterday and said he couldn't comment because he hadn't seen the ad. Really? The guy who puts out press releases minutes after news breaks hadn't seen this ad the day after this story blew up.

[jmp]

67. Can we call Bush a traitor?

Or is that out of bounds too?

[TankLV]

71. shhh - got to play nice like the repuke do, you know...

otherwise they might - criticize us dems!!!

shhh...

don't get to uppity...

just be nice and maybe if the repukes are feeling rested or forget, they may actually let us use some of our freedoms...