Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

MoveOn.org: Momentum or Menace?

The biggest news yesterday came before General David Petraeus or Ambassador Ryan Crocker uttered a single word in the hearings on progress in Iraq.And it came in the form of a newspaper ad, paid for by MoveOn.org.

The ad, which accused Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House", was roundly condemned by Republicans who time and again in the hearings held up the ad in the New York Times and called on Democrats to condemn it. The statement from RNC spokesman Mike Duncan was typical of the rhetoric: "Will Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the rest of the Democrats make it clear that they support our men and women in uniform by denouncing the MoveOn ad, or will they once again bow to the radical liberals who now seem to be controlling the Democrat Party?"

"Simply put the MoveOn people are a gift to the GOP," said Republican direct-mail consultant Dan Hazelwood. "MoveOn are heirs to the same people who called the 19-year old soldiers drafted into Vietnam 'baby killers'."

Democrats pushed back that Republicans were trying to drum up a controversy by focusing on MoveOn rather than the substance of Petraeus' testimony. But, privately, the controversy over the ad highlighted the real disconnect between how the party's base views the war and how the party establishment sees it.

Time and time again, Democratic lawmakers have acknowledged that many in the party's base expected or believed that the day after the party regained control of the House and Senate, following the November 2006 election, the U.S. would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. That, of course, is impossible given the rules of the Senate where 60 votes are required to close off debate, and Democrats remain unable to garner that sort of support for any legislative vehicle. (As California Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher told me last week: "We have a Senate that has difficulty getting 60 votes to go to lunch on any particular day.")

Of course, explaining the arcane rules of the Senate -- and the need to invoke "cloture" -- don't quiet the rumbles on the left for movement and action on the war from their own party.

This episode is simply the latest in an ever-changing relationship between the party's liberal base (as symbolized most vocally by MoveOn) and its establishment (as represented by people like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi).

At the start of this decade, the relationship was testy. Party leaders watched as Republicans used MoveOn's alleged opposition to the war in Afghanistan as a club against Democrats in the 2002 election, radicalizing the party in the eyes of many independent voters and leading to Republican gains.

But, as MoveOn proved itself a fundraising dynamo with significant support within the grassroots of the party, it found more and more access to the inner sanctums of the Democratic party. As the war in Iraq grew less and less popular with the American public, MoveOn's early and outspoken opposition to it became more and more of the mainstream Democratic position -- making it easier for Democratic leaders to embrace the group and be rewarded with money and support from the grassroots.

This latest ad by MoveOn, however, shows that the left's goals and the party's goals are not always in coordination. There's no question that yesterday was a GREAT day for MoveOn; its ad was shown and referred to not only in the hearings but on the wall-to-wall cable television coverage. And, the ad accurately reflected the sentiment of its consitutency; liberals do not trust Petraeus and view him as yet another tool of the Bush Administration's attempt to deceive the American public when it comes to the conditions on the ground in Iraq.

It was not such a great day for the Democratic Party as the ad gave Republicans a chance to play offense of the war. Republicans have been back on their heels for months (if not years) when it comes to Iraq and the combination of Petraeus' plan to draw down 30,000 troops by next summer and the MoveOn ad gave Republicans a foothold to get back into the debate.

It's politically dangerous for Democrats to have the Iraq debate shift -- even for a day or two -- from a referendum on President Bush to a referendum on Petraeus; most Americans -- including many independents and even some Republicans -- disapprove of the job Bush is doing in office, particularly when it comes to Iraq. But Petraeus remains quite popular. A USA Today/Gallup poll in the field on Sept. 7-8 showed 52 percent of those polled views Petraeus favorably while just 17 percent viewed him unfavorably.

As the 2008 campaign continues, watch for more examples of the Democratic base getting out in front of its political leaders. Will the eventual presidential nominee embrace MoveOn as a force for good in American politics? Or will he/she seek to create space with the left, allowing it to drive messages to motivate its base without alienating voters in the middle who might disagree?

Keep watch. It's a crucial question awaiting the eventual Democratic nominee.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 11, 2007; 12:40 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hollywood Players Form Political Production Company
Next: Fix Picks: Understanding Matt Drudge

Comments

**Oh my. So many shocked sensibilities. Your government is killing your sons and daughters, looting your treasury, pollluting your country, and you get squeamish over a newpaper ad? WAKE UP PEOPLE! WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND, well you know how that ends.

Posted by: greylox | September 22, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn.Org lost its credibility with their ad against Gen. Petraeus. I considered myself somewhat open to their views, but no will no longer give them credibility.

Posted by: Rocky | September 21, 2007 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Remember that (1) Gen. Petraeus wrote an op-ed just before the 2004 elections and (2) made the talk-show rounds before testifying to Congress. He made himself a political advocate and can be criticized for that. Couldnt you look at the NUMBERS and see if they had any basis in reality? No information on the basis for the numbers was release, and I believe 3 other organizations (including the Pentagon) have different numbers. There's plenty of reason to believe the data is being massaged, and no reason to believe anyone the Bush Administration is relying on so heavily.

Posted by: oldpunk | September 19, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Moveon.org...a better name would be Mindless Dummies following Other Mindless Political Dummies. UGH!!! I am sorry to say I even took a look at this site. Anyway, to anyone that wants to answer my post you can rest assured I won't be reading it. This site is full of crap and I am sorry I ever looked at it or read what any of you mindless followers had to post.

Posted by: Gail | September 15, 2007 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Hi,

Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:

NEW moveon,org TV ad coming out on monday sept 17th...basically calling president bush a traitor.

Catch it here:
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/2007/09/14/908/


For general david betray us fans or not:
http://davidbetrayus.com/


Have a great weekend!
Steve

Posted by: Steve Johnson | September 14, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Hypocrite gop. Practice what you preach. At least tehy got a picture of bohner crying again at www.crooksandliars.com

"Rhetorical question, I know. Kombiz at DailyKos wonders where the Republicans so eager to call out Democrats for the MoveOn ad are after Boehner's bone-headed remarks about the "small price" he's willing to pay for "success" in Iraq.

John McCain has already called on Boehner to retract his remarks, but not apologize. Will Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani rebuke House Republican Leader John Boehner's hurtful remarks?

And while we're at it, let's put EVERY SINGLE member of Congress on the record. Will they condemn this disgraceful talking point that minimizes the sacrifice of those risking their lives in pursuit of a failed policy?

"

Posted by: rufus | September 14, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The great divider(RNC)at work. It was okay with their despicable Swift Boat Veterans fo BS ads, so what's the news here, oh yeah, let's divert attention to something meaningless instead of focusing on the RNCs' failures. Where was everyones outrage from the Right when Kerry, who served for his country, was belittled ?
Not like the two cowards in the White House. No arguement here, so quit blowing air, it's a waste.
Neo-Conism at it's finest.

Posted by: jime | September 14, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Move On for forcing yourself out of the shadows and into the spotlight so that mainstream America can see who is really behind the Dems. Now that they know - We get a Republican in office for the next 8 years. Thank God!!

Posted by: Libshavenoclue | September 14, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Thanks a lot, MoveOn. Only idiotic, slanderous movements like this can distract the voters from this disastrous war and who's responsible. I'm a lifelong Democrat; are you, MoveOn? You couldn't have represented the Republicans political interests any better.

Just move on -- to another country.

Go Demos, Go Patriotic Americans in 2008.

Posted by: Louis Winthorpe III | September 14, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

BTW - C-Span now allows anyone to search their video of government business and use it anyway they want.

Time to pull out all the republican trashing of witnesses [including soldiers] at the House hearings on the waste, fraud, and abuse of this republican administration.

Start with Rep. Issa - CA - the rich Republican who doesn't like any democrat-called witness.

Go to www.c-span.org

Posted by: worried in Ohio | September 14, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

C-Span did a 30 minute call-in today about the NYTimes - MoveOn ad price and the NYT's ad policy.

The MoveOn ad was farther back in the paper than is Rudy G's strange whiney hypocritical rebuttal ad today. He attacks the NYT, MoveOn and Hillary - GOP Trifecta!

Quit making a mountain out of a molehill.

Republicans don't like the NYT so they attack them on how much ad costs? MoveOn paid $65000 for a last-minute, no guarantee placement ad.

BTW - Rudy wants donations to fund his ad. A website is at the bottom of the ad.

Posted by: worried in Ohio | September 14, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I'm reaching for my checkbook to give more $$$ to MoveOn. that ad is the closes thing to truth we have had in this mess. More of the same and maybe we will get out of iraq in this century.

then we can prosecute those warmongering Bushies and make them own up to their horrendous decisions that has cost us in death, poverty and destruction, never mind the trillions of dollars we could have used in our own country.

Keep it up, MoveOn, and look for my check in the mail.

Posted by: jett1 | September 13, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Besides questions of campaign finance, the deep discount could also raise questions about the fiduciary duty owed the NY times shareholders. Another issue is whether the NY Times discloses these discounts in their financial reports to the SEC." - bradcpa

Brad, campaign finance is not an issue here. MoveOn is not a campaign organization. So, there is no in kind contribution.

The question about the discount for MoveOn.org and the fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders is a good question; but one that applies to every single business where management gives different deals to different customers for any number of reasons.

The Times probably reports in as much detail as the SEC requires, as I'm sure Ruppert Murdoch does. BTW - Does a pro-Rudy headline in the NY Post constitute an in kind contribution to his campaign?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Headline currently on the Post's website: Now, It's Gen. Petraeus'War

Thank you MoveOn, you allowed responsibility for the war to be shifted from where it really should be.

I was amazed at the "free pass" which MoveOn got from quite a few of the regulars here, simply because they are MoveOn. As if they are exempt for responsibility for what they disseminate.

It was a nice touch for Chris to follow that thread with one about Drudge.

"There's no such thing as bad publicity" may be good for Hollywood agents, but that doesn't fly in politics. See John Kerry (Swiftboats), Howard Dean (Iowa) John McCain (South Carolina 2000), Mike Dukakis (Willie Horton) and Geroge Romney (brainwashing) just for starters.

It will get back to being Bush's War, as it should, when Gen. Petraeus is back in Baghdad and the President is still here. But the focus never should have changed at all.

MoveOn screwed up, and it's showing.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Chris-

In a post on rightwing blog a great point was made about the Times ad sold to Move-on. I know that Newspaper ad rates are hard to understand but can you chase this down. I tend to agree with the bloger who said

According to Jake Tapper at ABCNews, the ad cost MoveOn.org approximately $65,000, running in the "A" section of the paper.

And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales, their own rate card (PDF) seems rather specific that Advocacy ads, which the MoveOn.org ad most clearly was, are sold at $167,157 for a full-page, full-price nationwide ad.

...

If true this raises some interesting questions. Is the Time making an in kind contribution to a political group? Giving away ad space is different from giving away news coverage. Besides questions of campaign finance, the deep discount could also raise questions about the fiduciary duty owed the NY times shareholders. Another issue is whether the NY Times discloses these discounts in their financial reports to the SEC. Perhaps someone will scan their 10-K.


Posted by: bradcpa | September 13, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

It's not hard to tell who's side Hillary and Obama is on. If they are against the United States of America helping a country plagued with terrorists who also had weapons of mass destruction and are buddies with the Castro brothers Fidel who ordered innocent pilots shot down in un armed airplanes, and sent all of his mentally ill and harden criminals to South Florida in the late seventies and early eighties and Raul who is a child molester and has raped young children mostely boys since Fidel took control of Cuba in the early sixties and so many more crimes against humanity these two sick brothers of Cuba have commited and Hillary and Obama are friends with these sick evil brothers and they also want to end the work my fellow country men and women have died for and are still fighting for a freedom in Iraq then what exactly do these individuals have in store for the future of our great country America. The idea that they are in the government at the level they are is a scary nightmare, and for them to even entertain the idea of being a commander and chief is obsurd. In my opinion they should be charged with acts of treason. Thanks and God Bless the true American's

Posted by: John Buck | September 13, 2007 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Rufus, demconvert, shut up idiots. Seriously, here you are calling anyone with an (R) after his name scum of the earth. Where's your evidence? Demconvert, get a life. Look at the way you cloned gopconvert's post and handle. Aren't you ashamed of being so pathetic?

Rufus, thank you for your service, but it doesn't keep you from being an idiot. Where's your evidence of this "blood for oil"? Uh-huh, that's what I thought. And don't give me some link to a lefty hate-site.

I really think I'm going to give up blogging because it really brings out the idiots, from both sides of the aisle, actually.

Posted by: pcon-T | September 12, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Two bit on Petraeus report:

Petraeus report written by WH:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&track=mostviewed-storylevel

Petraeus provides GOP caucus-only briefing on Iraq in April 2007:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-petraeussecretbriefing

If Gen Petraeus is going to behave as a partisan, his report should be treated as a partisan report.

But why would you expect anything less from the totalitarian-wannabees in the GOP?

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | September 12, 2007 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm through with the republicans, I have been voting for the gop since I was 18 but no more. They have been hijacked by the fundy loons, and for them to accuse an honorable man like take your pick -- Clinton Kerry etc -- of betraying the U.S. is just deplorable. I thought the gop was party that was going to unite people, instead they decided to make treasonous remarks, manufacture failure for profit, and further divide us. (etc ad nauseum)

Posted by: demconvert | September 12, 2007 8:27 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHHAHA.

LIke you needed the moveon ad to vote republican. Let me ask this. Do you have any of the same resentment for the republican's calling John Murtha (war vet) a traitor and sayinf he is anti american?

What about Coulter calling Mr. Obama a terrorist and edwards a fa**ot?

I'm just asking. if One ad, by a group not affilieated with the dems, gets you this angry. What about a channel commiting itself to attacking liberals?

HAHAHHAHA. Nice try. Why to try and sway a vote or two on this site. Only republican sell-outs would fall for that trick.

And I was Army infantry 11B. You people are trading my brothers and sisters blood for oil and stock prices. MAy all gop'er sell-out traitors fascists rot in hell.

Posted by: rufus | September 12, 2007 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm through with the democrats, I have been voting for the dems since I was 18 but no more. They have been hijacked by the MoveOn.org loons, and for them to accuse an honorable man like General Petraeus of betraying the U.S. is just deplorable. I thought the democrats were party that was going to unite people, instead they decided to make treasonous remarks and further divide us. I find it extremely disappointing that so many people are questioning the motives and integrity of General Petraeus. I have no doubt that most if not all of those questioning his integrity have never worn our country's uniform. He has devoted his entire adult life to the service of his country, going into harm's way on numerous occasions. What service have his detractors provided? I'm sure the answer is, in the vast majority of cases, none.
They run their mouths while he gets the job done. It's one thing to disagree with his positions, that's fine it's another thing entirely to assume he is being disingenuous. Shame on MoveOn.org and shame on the democrats for supporting this organization. Good luck to the GOP in 2008 you have just picked up two votes from this household.


Posted by: gopconvert | September 12, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Forget it, Blarg. You're not worth it. I'm done with you.

Posted by: pcon-T | September 12, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"Dems balk at MoveOn censure resolution
By: Steve Benen @ 5:21 AM - PDT The far-right Washington Times reports this morning that Republican demands for a resolution condemning MoveOn.org are being ignored.

Democratic congressional leaders and the party's presidential candidates yesterday refused to repudiate a liberal group's ad questioning Gen. David H. Petraeus' character.

Capitol Hill Democrats rejected a call for votes in both chambers to condemn the attack newspaper ad, run by MoveOn.org, saying Republicans are trying to take attention off what they call the president's failed Iraq policy.

Good. MoveOn is not the problem. If the right took coming up with a coherent Iraq policy half as seriously as they take some intemperate newspaper ad, the nation would be far better off.

"

www.crooksandliars.com

Posted by: rufus | September 12, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

It's not a threat to say someone should suck a machine gun? You said that a MoveOn ad calling a general a liar was "a vile piece of garbage". But when Nugent says that he wants to stick his gun in Barack Obama's mouth, that just makes him an idiot performing stage theater. Calling someone a liar is that much worse than threatening to kill someone? (And no, I don't believe Nugent seriously intends to kill Obama and Hillary, but what he said was still a threat.) You also said that we don't see the same capitulation from Republicans towards the radicals on their side. Tell me what Republicans castigated Nugent for what he said. And no, you don't count.

You also said that prayer in school isn't a problem, because different religions are all expressions of the same ideas, and we all believe in the same god. But Hinduism isn't an expression of the same ideas as Christianity, and Hindus don't believe in the same god(s) as you. The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with this; the discussion was about prayer in school. Drindl's point still stands: If you're going to have prayer in school, you need to pick which religion's prayers you use.

Posted by: Blarg | September 12, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

and, for the record, I'm a former Army Sergeant. it's amusing how the party of Never Served Always Swerved thinks they own the military. They don't.

Time to bring them home. Less talk. More action.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 12, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Typical Red Bushies ... bringing a knife to a shotgun fight ...

Look, it was a very effective ad. It got you talking about it, it blew out the Red Bushies lies about Iraq off the talk sphere, and it basically said to any Dems that if they don't do something like refuse to fund the Iraq War in the appropriations bill, they are subject to the same kind of thing.

Which part of 80 percent of America wants out of Iraq don't you beltway boys GET?

Just ask the 70 percent of Iraq that wants us out what they think.

The Dem base (not that there is one) has changed. We rip out Red Bushies guts and laugh in your face now. It's the only thing that works with you traitors on the Red Bushie side.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 12, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,

NO IT'S NOT ENOUGH OF A THREAT FOR ME. Do you think I'm an idiot, Blarg? I KNOW the video you're talking about; it's been played out endlessly. Those were no more threats than countless comments made by the far Left virtually daily. Ted Nugent was an idiot for saying crap like that, and I condemn it as hate speech designed to rile people up, as he admits it was intended to do, just "stage theater". But a THREAT? Hell no.

And I know that Hindus worship different gods, as do countless other religions and cults throughout the world. But here's what secularists--and I don't know if that applies to you--don't understand. Although the Declaration of Independence doesn't carry the weight of law it IS this nation's mission statement, fair enough? It states that we were endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can define your Creator HOWEVER you want, but without this Creator our rights are only as inalienable as the next strongman who comes around to choose our rights for us. Calling our rights inalienable because they are ENDOWED to us by a source higher than man means that, logically, NO MAN can take them away from us, and we are therefore expected to defend them to the death. But if our rights were merely given to us by man, who's to say another man doesn't have a better and wiser moral code for us all?

Again, define the Creator as you want. You can worship the Judeo Christian god, the colorful characters of Hindu theology, the universe, the holy Cabbage, whatever. And atheists would NEVER be obliged to participate, I can assure you. But our society benefits from the concept that our rights are larger than us because of their unimpeachable source.

No need to get too carried away with the specifics beyond that, OK?

Posted by: pcon-T | September 12, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

blarg, i'd tell the Hindus and the atheists to suck it up and deal just like everyone has to do with numerous other things in life where they hold beliefs different from the norm around them. I have few if any liberal beliefs yet I had to put up with the school mantra that FDR was the greatest president since Lincoln, that the New Deal saved the world and having my money being used for the FDR Memorial in DC. It does not mean that I need to convert to being a liberal. It's simply a part of life you deal with.

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

pcon-t, you're assuming that everyone worships the same god as you. What about Hindus? Not all religions are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There's no way to have a prayer non-denominational enough to incorporate everyone's religious beliefs. And that's without considering atheists, who have no religious beliefs, and thus don't want to take part in any prayers.

Ted Nugent's threats against Democratic candidates took place August 21. He told Barack Obama to suck on a machine gun, and Hillary Clinton to ride a machine gun. Here's a link that includes the video. Is that enough of a threat for you?
http://www.prefixmag.com/blog/ted-nugent-threatens-hilary-clinton-barack-obama/7036

Posted by: Blarg | September 12, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Publishing an ad like they did will get MoveOn publicity, including negative (people talking about how low it was). MoveOn shot themselves in the foot with this ad by alienating a number of people who opposed the war. A majority of people oppose the war, but I am skeptical that more than a small minority share MoveOn's views of General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker.

Posted by: Louis | September 12, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA ,
OK, I'll bite:

When will Ann Coulter be arrested for threatening physical harm against a Democratic presidential candidate? When somebody in the law profession decides that a law has been broken. Maybe the Democratic presidential candidate should press charges? You seem to be suggesting a double standard and I think you are correct. If Ms. Coulter had crashed into the Capitol in the middle of the night, high on perscription drugs, the result would not have been just rehab and expressions of sympathy by DC police.

When will Ted Nuggent be arrested for threatening physical harm against a Democratic presidential candidate? See Answer to Q1.

When will Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air for consistently smearing and lying about Democrats, Liberals and Progressives? About the same time as Keith Olbermann which should be never. I am shocked, shocked to find out there is fibbing going on in the political arena! And I am surprised that you wish to curtail the first amendment. Is that a Democratic, Liberal or Progressive position on that?

When will the radical far right neocon enablers of the White House be held up to the same standards as Democrats, Liberals and Progressives? What standards are those? Seriously. If you can tell me the high standards that the D,L,P is being held to, i'd be able to answer this one.

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Kevin Schmidt, slightly above, says that the juvenile name that Move On smeared General Petraeus with was funny but true. Why is it true, Schmidty? (For that matter, why is it funny?) Is it true because Petraeus has showed some support for Bush as a president in general? So that must mean that he's automatically a lackey for the administration, and MUST be willing to throw away his entire reputation, after decades in public service, on a political whim for somebody else? Or do you have some other evidence to support your slander of this fine man? Where is it?

That's leftism for you. Facts and evidence be damned, and let's say and do anything to get our way. Destroy the messenger when we don't like the message.

More garbage from the Schmidtster:

"When will Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air for consistently smearing and lying about Democrats, Liberals and Progressives?"

#1: WHAT smears and lies? Name them.

#2: "Taken off the air" by WHOM? By the leftist Thought Police? I thought you were supposedly the ideology about "civil rights and freedom of expression". More leftist hypocrisy.

Ann Coulter and Ted Nugent threatened "harm against a Democratic presidential candidate"?

When? Cite it.

Posted by: pcon-T | September 12, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Drindl writes this drivel:

"What if there's prayer in schools? What will the prayer be? Who will choose? To which God? I'm belong to a Jewish Reconstruction Temple. I'm sure you won't mind if we use one of my prayers, right?"

Drindl, Drindl, Drindl.

Get a clue. Why should we believe in different "gods"? I thought the entire Judeo Christian theological philosophy was monotheism, and ETHICAL monotheism at that. Different religions, including moderate Islam, are just different communal expressions of this same concept, theological differences about the nature of Jesus Christ and the sanctity of the Koran aside.

Have you ever heard of the idea of non-denominational prayers? Isn't that what we mean when we communally say "In God we Trust" and "God Bless America"? Of course it is. Get over yourself.

Posted by: pcon-T | September 12, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Moveon.org called a general a funny, but truthful name. So what?

When will Ann Coulter be arrested for threatening physical harm against a Democratic presidential candidate?

When will Ted Nuggent be arrested for threatening physical harm against a Democratic presidential candidate?

When will Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air for consistently smearing and lying about Democrats, Liberals and Progressives?

When will the radical far right neocon enablers of the White House be held up to the same standards as Democrats, Liberals and Progressives?

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | September 12, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's the deal--My Democratic Party lied to me when they said they would bring our troops home...this would all end tomorrow if the only money in the defense bill was to fund withdrawl from Iraq and bring our troops home..Pelosi, Reid, Bush...they are all of the same cloth..liars...

Posted by: The Truth | September 12, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Bush is setting the Democrats up for a 4-year failed presidency term. No one will vote republicans back in in 2008 if the war is still on. Democrats will have a hard time getting out of Iraq in 4 years. Experts say it will be 10-15 years more. And Bush will probably invade Iran next year.

After the Gulf war, and end of the Cold War, Def. Sec. Cheney implemented a 10-year plan to downsize the military. New Def. Sec. Rumsfeld's first order of business in 2001 was to make the military leaner and more efficient but forgot that plan after 9-11.

The republicans blamed Clinton for dismantling the military in the 1990s. Cheney left the Humvees and other equipment in the Middle East and when it came time to use it in Iraq, we find out they didn't have the right armor or spare parts. Now the military is near breaking [March 2008] and more funds will be funneled into war machines at the expense of our future citizens. The republicans will be more than happy to put the blame on the democrats again.

Posted by: worried in Ohio | September 12, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I am a supporter of Moveon and will continue to be because I believe in our goals, strategy and tactics. Petreaus showed his partisan colors when he wrote an Oped piece supporting Bush prior to the 2004 election. We said he would tell Congress what Bush wanted him to say. And he did because he knew that to do otherwise would cost him his job. Bush whacked the careers of other officers when they criticized his war and Petreaus did not have the guts to be honest He loves the media attention and played along with the entire Bush strategy from day one. I suggest that critics of Moveon look more carefully at the record of this officer.

Posted by: David Talbott | September 12, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The democrats are wimps again. Why don't they fight back against the GOP attack on the MoveOn ad with videotape of the republicans [Rep. D. Issa - CA for one] who question the integrity, patriotism, and professionalism of all the witnesses [including former soldiers and government employees] brought before the committees investigating: the outing of a CIA agent - Valerie Plame, the Iraq contractor boondoggles, the lost military arms in Iraq, ETC. Republicans are hippocrites. The Daily Show last night proved that Gen. Petraeus used the same words that Pres. Bush has used - and he said he wrote his own testimony.

Posted by: worried in Ohio | September 12, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

How far MoveOn.org has come! Formed to get focus off of Bill and Monica (hence move on) to sliming a distinguished member of our armed forces. Oh but hey, at least General Petraeus was referred to as a baby killer.

What will MoveOn do when Bush is no longer President?

MoveOn clearly states in their own rules for blogging at their site that anyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job will be banned from posting. Of what are they afraid?

What will be the MoveOn complaint of the day if the Democrats gain the White House in 2008?

Posted by: zzx375 | September 12, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Correction to my previous post: In the first sentence, I should have (and meant to) say numerous times instead of countless times. I apologize for the error.

Posted by: Jason Platt | September 12, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

If the Republicans were truly offended by the Moveon.org ad, why did they hold it up countless times for the C-Span cameras? To me if they were TRULY offended by it and thought it was in poor taste, they wouldn't give it free publicity by holding it up for the world to see. My own view is that I disagree with negative personal attacks, but where was the outrage from the Republicans regarding the totally unfair and outrageous Swift-boat personal attacks on Sen. John Kerry during his run for the Presidency?

Posted by: Jason Platt | September 12, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

JEP,
"Is it possible the surge was actually created just so the Republicans in Congress and the Republican presidential candidates would have an illusion of "pulling the troops out" before the next election?" So let me get this straight. If the R's pull the troops out, that's wrong. If the R's don't pull the troops out, that's wrong. It seems like this should be an easy win/win situation for the Democrats THAT ARE CONTROLLING CONGRESS and should be leading on this issue since it is (so i keep hearing) the reason they got elected in the first place. What's the problem then?

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

JEP,
"...use that designated prayer group to establish social cliques that discriminate against other schoolchildren." There are literally HUNDREDS of things that cause social cliques that "discriminate" against others in both schools and life in general. Why pick on just religion? Forming cliques is what people do, especially young school kids. Don't you think that the Jocks "discriminate" against the the people on the Math club?

And yes, i actually do browse MoveOn so i am not unaware of the content. But your phrases "promote justice during the Clinton impeachment scam" and "illegal war" leads me to believe that you are not looking at them from a centrist point of view. Similarly, a southern right wing social conservative would look at Ann Coulter and ask what the hubbub is all about...

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Friends,
There are many innocent people who need basic quality of life support in Iraq. A Civil Military Affairs Operation Center operates a medical/dental clinic at Radwaniya on Camp Victory, Baghdad.

This clinic reaches out to over 1200 Iraqi women, men and children each month providing basic medical and dental services, hygeine, medical and school supplies, clothing and shoes. All of the supplies are provided by volunteer donors like you.

The medical and dental staff are service members who donate time and skills along with other service members who help sort and give out supplies.

What can you do? Organizations and individuals can send supplies to the Multinational Corps Chaplain's office who take the donated items to the clinic for distribution.

They need supplies. You can send presorted or bulk supplies at your own expense. Enclose kit items in heavy duty Ziploc-type bags.

Hygeine kits: soap, shampoo, lotion, doedorant, powder, toothpaste, toothbrush, dental floss.

Feminine hygeine: Pads, etc. fem. hygeine products
Medical kits: Prenatal vitamins, children and adult vitamins.
Infant packs: diapers, wet wipes, lotion
Medicine: Ibuprofen, diflucan, naproxen, children's tylenol.

Shoes: tennis shoes and sandals, youth, women and men's work and athletic shoes (preferably new, not expensive)

School kits: Ruled paper, rulers, pencils, crayons, childrens stickers, glue sticks, construction paper, backpacks, blunt end scissors, compostion books.
Soccer balls, send uninflated

If you would like to help "Hearts for Baghdad" box up your supplies and send them via US Postal Service to:

MNC-I Chaplain
Attn: Hearts for Baghdad
Unit 42014
APO, AE 09342

For information contact:
heartsforbaghdad@iraq.centcom.mil

Thank you for helping give them a hand!


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 12, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"The big question in my mind is, how many of the 65% who want us out (the number is from a post above, I don't know how accurate it is) will shift when the President announces his "pullback" plan tommorrow?"

Anyone want to bet that entire pullback p[lan hinges on July 2008? And what does July 2008 represent in the timeline of Iraqi history?

Nothing.

But it is the beginning of the 2008 election scramble here in the USA.

Which suggests to me this surge is purely political just a dead pig, swallowed by a python, with neocons at both ends of the process.

Is it possible the surge was actually created just so the Republicans in Congress and the Republican presidential candidates would have an illusion of "pulling the troops out" before the next election? And also as a warning to Democrats that, if THEY try to stop this war, BUSH WILL SEND A LOT MORE OF OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS OVER THERE!

THE SURGE AS PURELY POLITICAL?

SURELY NOT!


Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

In the 1960s we had the John Birch Society, the right-wing group that said liberal Democrats were ruining the country and ran ads accusing them of betrayal.
In this decade, we have MoveOn.org, the left-wing group that says conservative Republicans are ruining the country and running ads accusing them of betrayal.
So what else is new?

Posted by: Diogenes | September 12, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Dave;

you obviously only know what someone else tells you about Move On. Have you ever really looked at their work?

Their very origins were to promote justice during the Clinton impeachment scam, and their one primary task now is to hold the Dem's firfeet to the fire to end this illegal war.

I don't think I have ever once seen them promoting Karl Marx, they spend most of their effort defying Karl Rove.

But, like so many right wingers, "Dave" just accepts the "MoveOn's a bunch of commies" propaganda, and probably has never looked at their site.

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

The GOP cranks up the Fake Outrage Wurlitzer once more.

The shorthand version is this: some damned liberal said something, and now we're so pissed off we that we are justified invading yet another country.

The GOP puts itself in the role of an abusive and insane parent. If the kid says the milk you poured on his cereal is sour, a month old, and lumpy, tie him to the radiator for the weekend, duct tape his mouth shut, and burn him all over his body with cigarettes. How DARE he complain! Clearly he brought it on himself.

Posted by: Burford Holly | September 12, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

JEP - I'm not so sure Chris is wrong. I think that the Republicans can get back into the debate by using "begging the question" tactics with ammo such as MoverOn provided.

I also think that it won't have a very long lifespan and people will focus again on the mess which we have.

The big question in my mind is, how many of the 65% who want us out (the number is from a post above, I don't know how accurate it is) will shift when the President announces his "pullback" plan tommorrow?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"The problem here was MoveOn's lack of judgment, and how it actually helped the people they oppose."

Repeat that often enough, you may even believe it yourself.

Its just more propaganda, Move On has gained more PR and the peace movement many more adherents because the Republicans so giddily took the bait, and now they have propelled Move On into international prominence.

If the R's had kept their big mouths shut about Move On, the only people it influenced would have been the ones who read the ad.

No one else would have even known about it.

So, a big thank-you note from the managers at Move On might be in order, to the many Republ;icans who provided them a billion bucks worth of free advertising.

Move On could never have accomplished this much influence without help from the very Republicans who trash them.

As far as the chess game goes, Move On can claim check and mate. The Republicans have rocketed them into international notoriety. And the more they acxt like crybabies about it, the more the Republicans look like sore losers, and bullies who can't stand the heat.

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"the combination of Petraeus' plan to draw down 30,000 troops by next summer and the MoveOn ad gave Republicans a foothold to get back into the debate."

Did Drudge give you that angle on it, Chris?

This is propaganda, mothing more than cocktail weenie crowd wishful thinking.

Thr Republicans can only re-enter this debate on the other side of the argument, until they give up their ghost, the Republican-owned media will continue to promote the Republican line.

Chris, it won't be Petreaus' plan or MoveOn that gives the Republicans any foothold, that will be done exclusively by propagandizing poundits like you and Drudge and Hannity, et al.

And this series of posts is a great example of just that.

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

It's been over 24 hours of discussion and people are still defending MoveOn.

Let me reiterate what only a few posters cogently noted.

Thinking that they were being cute with their ill-advised play on words, MoveOn actually did the White House's work for them.

Think about it!

MoveOn took the focus off Bush and put it on Petraeus. The White House would like nothing more than to have somebody other than the President taking the heat for the war.

Bush's staff should send a Thank You gift to whoever at MoveOn came up with that headline. It saved the White House a lot of difficult work.

This is not about free speech or MoveOn's positions. The problem here was MoveOn's lack of judgment, and how it actually helped the people they oppose.

On this one, MoveOn = Menace.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

JEP,
"Move On has ALWAYS been about Peace and Justice, anot about promoting a left-wing agenda." I want some of what you are smoking. Are you actually typing that with a straight face?

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Prayer in school is up to the individual.

It should never be a "sanctioned event," prayer is between the person and God, and Jesus was not fond of "making long prayers just for show"(sounds like a televangelist to me).

Too often, local "Mean Girls for Christ" and "Bullies and Jocks for Jesus" use that designated prayer group to establish social cliques that discriminate against other schoolchildren.

I would guess Jesus Himself would have been rejected by those same little cliques, as just another dirty hippy.

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

11:06 - it'll take four months of draftees before the invasion level strength is reached.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Jane,
"Lieberman just can't wait to get us into WW3." I did not get the full exchange so i am not sure of the context but simply asking someone a question to get their views on the subject does not necessarily imply what the person asking the question believes. I ask my wife things like "So you're heading out to get a $50 pedicure?". Don't jump to conclusions on how i feel about that!

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Many of Move On's managers proudly claim the Lefty label, and rightly so.

But Move On has never been, essentially, a Lefty Blog, not by any means.

Move On has ALWAYS been about Peace and Justice, anot about promoting a left-wing agenda.

If you consider Peace and Justice "liberal talking points" you're probably a loyal Republican.

This administration has trivialized both Peace and Justice, symbolically and by every real measure.

I find it curious, Chris that you follow this piece with a Drudge genuflection.

Your true colors are peeking through again...

Posted by: JEP | September 12, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"I guess they start drafting tomorrow if they want an invasion Army in 10 months."

It was less than six months from the day I received my draft notice to the time I set foot in Vietnam. (Less than five months from Induction)

That included Basic Training, Advanced Training and three weeks of leave. When they need bodies as cannon fodder, they don't waste any time.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I have been watching a live feed from the WaPo of a news conference by Gen. P. and the Amb., that started a little after nine this AM, and from the media blitz by these two, plus GW will be talking to us tomorrow night. Al Quida in Iran keeps coming up in each of these. The trip to Iraq by GW is now beginning to make sense now that GW is reported to be going to follow the plan as presented by the General. BTW, it is the same plan.

Posted by: lylepink | September 12, 2007 11:04 AM | Report abuse

drindl,
"No one I've met wants to force anyone to have an abortion." I'm not saying that its forcing people to HAVE abortions. It's forcing people to support and in many cases fund something that goes against the moral fibre of that person as well as (in their view) the constitution. All your questions on prayer in schools are valid but there is no reason that they can't be addressed by the particular school/system/community/etc as opposed to the Federal government banning everything, including silent prayers or non-demoninational ones (this is in reference to the "NOT allowed" contention by Bokonon). I would have no problem with Jewish Reconstruction Temple prayers. I take the view that whatever your religious affiliation or lack thereof, it's an aspect of everyones life and people need to be exposed to it (and what better place than at a school?) at somepoint, just as they are environmentalism, conservativism, liberalism, patriotism or any other isms. Jewish prayers would not alter my beliefs but would make me think critically about religion and the role it plays in the world. And if it did alter my beliefs then they weren't very strong to begin with. But then i wasn't going to get into discussion of the issues :)

Now i think that we both would have a major issue if the Feds tried to legislate that Jewish Reconstruction (or any other religion) was the official religion of the US. But that is a far, far cry from prayers in school. My point on the post was that liberals like to think that they are the ones that are not forcing things on people. I submit that any policy, including but certainly not limited to, liberal policies, forces things on people and in many cases, sets up the "Don't" or "Can't Do" limits that Bokonon talked about.

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I guess they start drafting tomorrow if they want an invasion Army in 10 months.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind.
...
Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: the american college today | September 12, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

Germany -- a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States -- notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

Posted by: sure enough, here we go... | September 12, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

'Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) doesn't think Gen. Petraeus has enough war on his hands. The senator (changing the subject from Iraq with "I want to go to Iran...") asked Petraeus if he wanted "the authority" from Congress to "pursue the Qods forces into Iranian territory." Petraeus, for some reason, politely declined to start a third contemporaneous U.S. war.'

Lieberman just can't wait to get us into WW3. The man is insane.

Posted by: Jane | September 12, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

ANTIOCH -- Coming on the heels of two high-profile suspected hate crimes, the East Contra Costa community is reexamining the region's level of tolerance in the wake of a weekend attack against a group of hearing-impaired people.

Posted by: the american north today | September 12, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

'Ken Ballen, the group's president, said the poll was the most worrisome of 23 it has conducted in the Muslim world over the past three years because of the anti-American, pro-bin Laden feelings it found and the unpopularity of Musharraf, who leads the only Muslim nation with nuclear weapons.

"It's disturbing. It's almost like a perfect storm" of distressing findings, Ballen said.'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mochila.php?articleId=8935553&channelId=73&buyerId=talkingpointsmemo_com400732&buid=

Posted by: the real front on terror | September 12, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Only a quarter of Pakistanis support their military working with U.S. forces to pursue terrorists inside Pakistan, and even fewer favor letting American forces mount such operations on their own, a poll released on Tuesday said.

In a broader measure of America's unpopularity in its erstwhile ally against terrorism, 19 percent of Pakistanis see the U.S. favorably _ half the number with a positive view of India, a bitter rival Pakistan has fought in three wars since 1947. The U.S.-backed Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is less popular than Osama bin Laden, though both are far better liked than President Bush.

Posted by: so much for allies | September 12, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Just came across this -- MoveOn is a 'menace'? You mean like 'terrorists'?

Did Mr. CC ever call the Swiftboaters a 'menace'? I'm just asking. Since when is free speech a 'menace'? Since when is an advertisement paid for by a group of citizens a 'menace'?

The media in this country is truly pathetic--worse government lapdogs than Pravda ever was.

Posted by: Pete | September 12, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

2 of them are dead, and one was shot in the head before the op-ed was finished.

that op-ed figured in the questioning of petraeus by hagel, who was a tough interrogator.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK The Op-Ed by seven active duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq questioning the war drew international attention just three weeks ago. Now two of the seven are dead.

Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance Gray died Monday in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad, two of seven U.S. troops killed in the incident which was reported just as Gen. David Petraeus was about to report to Congress on progress in the "surge." The names have just been released.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

'LOGAN, W.Va., Sept. 11 -- A 20-year-old woman was held captive for more than a week in a mobile home, where she was raped, stabbed and tortured by at least a half-dozen people, the police said. Sheriff's deputies rescued her on Saturday, and she remained hospitalized Tuesday in stable condition.

"I've been in law enforcement for more than 30 years, and this is the first time I've ever seen anything of this nature," the Logan County sheriff, Eddie Hunter, said.

Six people, including a mother and her son and a mother and her daughter, have been charged in the case.

The police said the people charged, all of whom are white, yelled racial slurs at the woman, who is black, during some of the attacks. The woman endured horrific torture, according to court documents. She was raped by multiple men, some of whom poured scalding water on her during the assaults, according to the criminal complaints.

She was forced to lick up blood, eat animal feces and drink water from a toilet, the documents said, and she was also stabbed repeatedly in the leg and was told that if she tried to leave, she would be killed.'

Posted by: the american south today | September 12, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I agree with your point that a unified foreign policy would be more respectful of the Baghdad govt. I do not buy the risk analysis - but it IS the kind of strawman that opportunistic political opponents - in your hypothetical, opponents of HRC - raise ALL the time.

But I will still root for any TX indie to get the deal over EXXON, even if the 'catter is HRC's buddy.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"American kids are dying, supposedly for a unifed Iraq, at least that is today's rationale, and American corporations are making deals that undermine that goal."


Sounds like something that should be addressed in the next funding bill.


.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

'In the context of furthering US goals of Iraq - one of which is a stable Fed gov't - shouldn't we consider their opinion before allowing such deals? Should US policy be 'hey, whatever deals our companies can sign - great' or should US policy be 'The Maliki gov't is the official government of soverign Iraq - deal with them, not with the Kurds, not with the Sunni, not with the Shia'.'

Thank you bsimon, that is precisely my point. American kids are dying, supposedly for a unifed Iraq, at least that is today's rationale, and American corporations are making deals that undermine that goal.

And again, I repeat, so no one would have a problem if one of Hillary Clinton's buddies cut a deal that undermined our 'mission' in Iraq--and therby put our troops at greater risk?

Posted by: drindl | September 12, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

bsimon - YES. That's the part of drindl's argument I can buy.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

JD - Schlumberger is run by a Houston family named Schlumberger. They have been in TX a long time. One of the Schlumbergers invented wireline well logging. When I was at Rice, the Schlumbergers owned an estate in River Oaks with a private zoo. Not really French, TX French.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

' suspect that your concern is not the legality of the deal, but rather the fact that one of Bush's friends will make some money, and you hate Bush... well, that seems like an issue you need to come to terms with yourself.'

How typically and gratuitously nasty. Say it was one of Hillary Clinton's personal friends and contributors who got a plum deal in Iraq. I guess that would be fine with you, right?

Posted by: drindl | September 12, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

'Did we get Drudged or what?'

I suspect because there were so many rightwing nutcases on, that because the piece was about MoeOn, it was linked to by some farr-ight hate site.

Posted by: drindl | September 12, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin writes
"if there is no Iraqi "oil law"
then there is no illegality dealing with the Kurds who have passed provincial oil laws that recognize the revenue sharing that the "proposed" Iraqi oil law encompasses. The Iraqi govt. just seems to be jealous that they cannot deal while the local Kurds CAN."


Perhaps that is a reasonable analysis. I'd like to offer a different perspective. What if, (il)legality aside, the problem is merely that last point: the Iraqi govt's 'jealous' of the Kurds ability to negotiate. In the context of furthering US goals of Iraq - one of which is a stable Fed gov't - shouldn't we consider their opinion before allowing such deals? Should US policy be 'hey, whatever deals our companies can sign - great' or should US policy be 'The Maliki gov't is the official government of soverign Iraq - deal with them, not with the Kurds, not with the Sunni, not with the Shia'.

Posted by: bsimon | September 12, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

drindl, if there is no Iraqi "oil law"
then there is no illegality dealing with the Kurds who have passed provincial oil laws that recognize the revenue sharing that the "proposed" Iraqi oil law encompasses. The Iraqi govt. just seems to be jealous that they cannot deal while the local Kurds CAN.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

JD - I thought you would be amused by my invoking "your plan" at 7:26P:

"If GWB were pushing JD's plan - one that makes sense in its own right - that we withdraw from all of Iraq except the Kurdish north, where the Kurds like us, and keep permanent bases in the north, and help protect the oil fields and pipelines, and let the Arabs kill each other south of Kirkuk, then I would connect the dots."

drindl was seeing Hunt Oil getting the right to drill in a contract with the Kurds
as GWB cronyism and maybe an unspecified crime and maybe something that would p.o. the Iraqi govt. and I could agree with #3.

But I sent her the most detailed story on it that told how Ross Perot, Jr. already had a deal, that Exxon and the globals were still too risk averse to bid for deals, and I finally admitted that while "all" TX oilmen were Bushies, but we still Texans rooted for them.

All Texans root for TX indies to do the wildcatting rather than the globals.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

drindl, Kurdistan, for the most part, operates as an independent territory from Baghdad (not just with regard to oil). They've done this for years, maintaining seperate police, government, etc, as part of a federated structure. They clearly didn't want to wait around until Baghdad got their act together, to exploit this natural resource of theirs.

I suspect that your concern is not the legality of the deal, but rather the fact that one of Bush's friends will make some money, and you hate Bush... well, that seems like an issue you need to come to terms with yourself.

Posted by: JD | September 12, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday might have been the nastiest day on this blog since the Virginia Tech shooting. (More specifically, since the 800+ posts about gun control.) Did we get Drudged or what?

Posted by: Blarg | September 12, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

'If you know if anything illegal, please chime in, I'm all ears.'

I'm surprised really, how easily everyone dismisses the Hunt Oil deal. A major contributor to a political party [a 'Super Ranger] and good friend of the president gets a plum deal in a country we are occupying, in a colonial kind of way, while our kids are dying--and for what?

I said it was illegal because that's what the Iraqi federal government calls it. They are livid. Are we supporting them, or are we not? I'm just asking the same thing as George Will. What is the miission? If it is to support a unified Iraqi government, this is a hell of a way to go about it.

When this war started and I said to people that American oil companies would soon be operating in Iraq, I was called a conspiracy theorist. Now that's simiply taken for granted. How things change.

Posted by: drindl | September 12, 2007 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Davel,

What I am struck with in your argument is that you say liberals want to force something on you-- like abortion. No one I've met wants to force anyone to have an abortion. And there is a fallacy in talking about 'allowing relgion in public life.' No, that's forcing your religion on me. What if there's prayer in schools? What will the prayer be? Who will choose? To which God? I'm belong to a Jewish Reconstruction Temple. I'm sure you won't mind if we use one of my prayers, right?

Posted by: drindl | September 12, 2007 8:47 AM | Report abuse

The right wing fascists call Moveon.org radical liberals. What a joke.
Power to the American people!

Posted by: Jimbo | September 12, 2007 8:29 AM | Report abuse

M in A and drindl;

I have no desire to go back and read the hundreds of comments, and I'm going to be out of pocket again most of today. When you gave me the name of the guy, a search on WaPo detailed his deal with the Kurds. Nothing was mentioned about any crime.

Of course, Baghdad probably doesn't like the Kurds doing their own deals, but the fact that an American got the business isn't prima facie that the fix was in. It seems plausible, even likely, that they gave the oil exploration to an American company because they were grateful (as opposed to, say Schlumberger, as a French-dominated company who was buddies with Saddam).

If you know if anything illegal, please chime in, I'm all ears.

Posted by: JD | September 12, 2007 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Just give Moveon the grief that Ann Coulter gets. Thats even.

Gotta luv the liberals comparing Fox news - the Fox crime is their protection of real Americans from the defeatism spouted by PBS, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I see the libs have bought the dem's lies about the 60 vote crap.

Come on Dems, you got the votes, cut the funding to IRAQ, just do it. Go defeatists. End the WAR!!!!

Posted by: M algore | September 12, 2007 4:56 AM | Report abuse

General Petraeus has way more substance then any of those ninnies who pontificated at him. The real shocker is that the New York Times endangered its credibility by accepting the ad. It was something completely irresponsible for the Newspaper of Record. It's something I would expect to see in The Nation or the ISO's little newsletter but it is completely irresponsible for a major news organ to run such a thing.

Posted by: HC | September 12, 2007 4:38 AM | Report abuse

I served in OIF on the first rotation. When I returned from Iraq, I joined the Kerry campaign and spoke out against the strategy we were using in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus was one of the few critics in the upper ranks of the military who had the courage to be critical of the mistakes we were making at that time. He is a very honorable man.

I remember when the "Swift-boat Veterans for truth" came to Chicago. There supports assaulted not only Senator Kerry, but the other vets like me who had the courage to stand up to their libelous behavior as they labeled us "traitors" for challenging them.

I fail to see the difference between the Swiftboaters and Moveon.org I have discontinued the mailings that I get from them. I would hope that many of the 3 million they claim to speak for discontinue their association with them as well. They should be ashamed of trying to discredit a very honorable man like Gen. Petraeus by assaulting his character and labeling him a betrayer of our nation. You can disagree with his assessment, but he has made enormous sacrifices (that have not been equally shared by this nation) and has earned the respect of his troops because he has shown the courage to voice his concerns when we were following a poor strategy. Moveon's target should be the President, not those who are following his orders.

I am more and more concerned with the direction of this nation and the nature of its debates. It isn't just the direction in Iraq, but the entire direction of this nation's policy's and a political system that has been hijacked by the most extreme elements of the right and the left. The middle needs to speak up and insist on a more civil discourse by not allowing a relative minority like Moveon or DKos to act as though they speak for you. They don't speak for me, and the notion that the ends justify the means is the same Karl Rove BS strategy of discourse that this nation keeps saying they don't want to dominate our body politic.

This nation should be ashamed of itself, and they should shame those who are responsible for assaulting our common decency.

Posted by: Chris Lawrence | September 12, 2007 4:17 AM | Report abuse

Moveon.org was essentially correct in their add, however I do agree with most posters about how the right-wing would/is using it in a misleading way. The hearings were at best misleading as to what is actually happening in Iraq according to Govt. reports, as well as what we are getting from the media. The charts were spread over such a long period of time it was hard to get the "Surge" data put in proper perspective. Overall, the report was as most folks that have followed closely expected. I stated earlier my thought about this being a continueing of "Stay the course" and as of yet cannot find anything that would change my opinion. Several top military persons have been so damaged by their loyalty to GW, and others that have served many years had their careers ended when they disagreed. Generals Powell and Casey are examples of each of these.

Posted by: lylepink | September 12, 2007 2:51 AM | Report abuse

Someone way the hell up the thread said this about Hillary:
"She is a closet sell-out republcian."

And I laughed harder than I have in three days. That was choice. And many of your folks are unhinged. Someone talked about the independents, and fear of wild-eyed hippies. That's me, cause I was one. Child of the sixties, communism seemed pretty cool, make love not war, all that. Never been a conservative, don't believe in god, didn't vote for bush or kerry. Just want the gov't to keep the killers away and not tell me how to run my life. If I want to give a buck to a bum, I'll do it myself, don't go putting a gun to some richguys head and take his money to do it on my behalf. Stealin ain't compassion, and if I did that I'd go to jail. So, as a former liberal turned independent, I gotta say there are alot of obsessed folks around here.

Here's a question, if everyone knows Petraus wasn't going to tell the truth, why was he unanimously given the job and asked to come back to talk about it? Congress insisted he report personally rather than a bush appointee, so why do that and then say you aren't going to believe any of it in advance? And what is a govt to do when there isn't any general the president could appoint that congress will listen to, how then do we make decisions if we automatically make up our own facts about the situation we sent the man over to be in charge of? Just questions...but then I didn't hear to many people that really want to get at the truth, unless it's about calling fox or moveon or rush or kos a big poopie head. Don't be surprised if the independent voters decide who runs this country while the two extremes sit around acting like children.

Posted by: freeulysses | September 12, 2007 2:45 AM | Report abuse

Bokonon,
You know what post I'm referring to, no need to elaborate which one. The fact that you don't understand how conservative principles lead to us appreciating our freedoms demonstrates your liberal misguidedness. As I described, conservatism, contrary to leftist propaganda, is the strengthening and responsibility of the more local solution system before the less local one. When these support systems are minimized to shift responsibility--and commensurate power & decision-making--to more distant & bureaucratic systems like federal and international government, we realize just how much freedom we give up in exchange for security.

This is what the Left cannot understand. EVERYTHING in life is a tradeoff. When you shift power and responsibility outward to distant entities like government, BEFORE taking advantage of the more local systems like the individual, family, and private sector community, you've given away more than you get in the form of benefits which you could have earned for yourself.

The western European model or the American model. Respectively, that's liberalism and conservatism. Think about which you'd choose, and why.

Posted by: pcon-T | September 12, 2007 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Bokonon,
Nice post on defense of liberalism. A few weeks ago I was reading a very liberal blog with the topic being what it means to be a liberal and your post was easily better than anything i read. That said, your comments on the problem with the liberal-conservative thing of "I do NOT think there is any value in forcing your beliefs on others, which is the basis of my whole problem with social conservatism" is a little the pot calling the kettle black. Take the big social cons issue of abortion. Either way you go, the other side is gettng something forced on them. If you limit or eliminate abortion, the SoCons are legislating their belief that abortion is murder. Alternatively, abortion on demand legislates the belief that life begins at birth or that the rights of the woman/right to privacy outweighs the rights of the fetus.

I guess i found that post interesting because someone with a conservative viewpoint could take it, substitute the word liberal for conservative, and make the exact same arguement. In their minds it would work. For instance, when you said that conservatives views are largely defined around what's NOT allowed, or 'what we DON'T do,' etc., I found myself thinking, oh really? What about allowing religion in everyday life? What about the second amendment? Anyways, i'm not trying to debate any of these issues - I'm just mulling over your post. I'm almost willing to say that if you believe in the common ground as described by Mark in Austin, you should become a conservative! For the most part, what Mark in Austin said i think would be acceptable to both classical and non-classical (social?) conservatives. So my question to Judge is why is common ground so hard to find?

Posted by: Dave! | September 12, 2007 2:00 AM | Report abuse

Judge, I think the GOP has made Dick Lugar the exception and not the rule. From a common R perspective around here he is a very, very, cautious liberal.

JD is an independent libertarian conservative, who may well vote D for Prez next time, but he is seen by many Ds here as
"reactionary".

drindl, a good friend of mine - retired NASA engineer and an R - just wrote me the news about Hunt which he read tonight. His view, like mine, is we are glad Perot and Hunt are willing to take the risks that Chevron and Exxon won't. We always root for TX indies in the oilpatch against the globals. After all, BP's plants blow up in Texas City, not Valero's.

I guess you could call it -

Texas populism?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin,
I liked what you and Boko had to say but I'll ask the obvious question: are there any classical conservatives left? Has the GOP killed them all off, leaving no one reasonable for a classic liberal to find common ground with?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 12, 2007 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Boko - I'm still awake [da##it]. There are some papers they apparently do not want to release now. I do not know the details.

I think you "live" much closer to classical liberalism than to doctrinaire political correctness.

I suspect that you would think that "affirmative action" should not = racial preferences for groups thought to be disadvantaged by skin tone. But you might favor scholarships for penniless good students regardless of color.

You see a social problem and you think there should be a solution, but I suspect that you do not jump to Federal Government as the automatic first choice to provide the answer.

You seem concerned about personal responsibility as well as the "social compact", as Methodists and Jesuits and Jews, for example, might describe the notion of community obligations.

You probably think that taxation is the price we pay for civilization - everything from highways to Boston's water and wastewater system, to air traffic control; but you get as mad as any fiscal conservative at porkbarrel spending.

The religious right draws your ire because they are bullies who want to control your private life. You probably have many libertarian sentiments. Thus:

You were well matched to answer pcon-T because you are a classical liberal with whom a classical conservative could find some common ground.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 12, 2007 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Mark, thanks for the compliment. I assume you refer to what I was saying to pcon-T in defense of 'liberalism'... the problem with the liberal-conservative thing as I see it (not that you asked) is that because it is in the nature of liberalism to be inclusive and accepting of new ideas, there are not as many "bedrock" principles for folks to rally around, and liberals tend to get overly defensive about those that do exist. (e.g. reproductive choice, affirmative action, alternative energy etc.) Conversely, it seems easier for conservatives to draw lines in the sand around their views because they are largely defined around what's NOT allowed, or 'what we DON'T do,' etc. I realize that in saying that I may anger some cons, and I don't mean to. I do think there is a value in knowing your beliefs and - within reason - being faithful to them... as long as it makes sense to do so. I do NOT think there is any value in forcing your beliefs on others, which is the basis of my whole problem with social conservatism - for that matter, also the war in Iraq.

thanks also for your answer to my Bentsen question, which I did see. It will be interesting when those papers are finally released - by then I'm sure cross-border relations will either be a done deal or even more contentious than they are now. How long do you think it will be before they see the light of day? Do you think anyone in office now, either in Texas or... uh, elsewhere... would have any interest in keeping them under wraps?

Posted by: Bokonon | September 12, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

phak iu, jdb.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Of course, now that I think about it, maybe that's why Hillary's looking to Chinese money funneled through guys like Hsu to help fund her campaign...

Posted by: jdb | September 11, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments on this thread illustrate the problem the Dem establishment have with the hardcore leftists in their party: the left doesn't realize how out of touch their paranoid screeds are with reality. They make Pats Buchanon and Robertson look positively centrist by comparison.

When Hillary Clinton is too moderate/conservative for you, you have problems. The Dems can't win with the radicals' vocal support (which will drive away a lot of the 20% of us that decide elections), but they can't win without their money, either. Catch-22.

Posted by: jdb | September 11, 2007 11:28 PM | Report abuse

What a phenomenal gift the Democratic party are turning out to be. The last few weeks are manna from heaven. Campaign advertising a Republican could only have dreamt about last November. Thanks, suckers!

Posted by: leah | September 11, 2007 11:13 PM | Report abuse

oldhonky,

Between moveon.org and Brian de Palma, I am at a lost for words? It's one thing to criticize those that you don't agree with. To abrogate your responsibily for truth and to incite more terrorists to follow in the footsteps of the 9/11 killers, well... You are right. This left wing tirade will be counterproductive.

Posted by: Almazar80 | September 11, 2007 11:10 PM | Report abuse

General David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, and others all have a delusional boss. Is it better, when one is in that position, to try to keep one's job and introduce some element of reason -- or to take a stand and get fired? Probably the answer is not always the same in every case.

One may disagree with the above folks about ending the Iraq War without slamming their characters -- as MoveOn did with its disgraceful 'General Betray Us' full-page ad in the NYTimes. This ad infuriated Republicans, and made it harder to peel off enough Republican votes to create a veto-proof majority in Congress. It was disastrously counterproductive.

Grow up, MoveOn. Ending the Iraq War in Congress should be handled as a chess game, not as a food fight.


Posted by: oldhonky | September 11, 2007 10:24 PM | Report abuse

By the way, drindl's thought that the Baghdad regime may take double offense that they were circumvented by Hunt, Bush's buddy, is plausible. They may be OK with the earlier deal, with Ross Perot, Jr., but I am speculating as much as drindl.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 10:21 PM | Report abuse

To September 11, 2007:

I don't know how to break this to you, but you republicans need to do better than to run scared and bleat like scared animals in self-righteous indignation about anything movenon.org has to say. You need to provide a match to moveon.org. Don't whine to me.

By the way, your opportunistic use of "September 11, 2007" as your moniker doesn't buy you credibility.

Posted by: ErnieNH | September 11, 2007 10:21 PM | Report abuse

To the poster that stated the MoveOn ad pales in comparison to the Swiftboat ads. Tell me, what is the date of Francois Kerry's discharge from the military. As I thought, no answer or spin. You don't know because he has not released his records as he promised numerous times. If he did, again, what is the date of discharge?

And on several occassions Francois threatened to sue the Swiftboat vets, which they ENCOURAGED him to do. He did not because he knew discovery would prove him a liar and the Vets truth tellers.

Those are the facts, forget parotting the MoveOn BS.

Posted by: SEW | September 11, 2007 10:17 PM | Report abuse

JD - look at

drindl at 6:12P, me at 7:26P, drindl at 7:41P,me at 8:04P, drindl at 8:06P, and me at 9:16P.

drindl thinks Ray Hunt got a windfall because he is a Bushie.

I think every TX oilman is a Bushie, and the Dallas News article says it all, and Hunt is a gambler.

I see no evidence of criminality.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Fact is it truly does take 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. Interestingly enough, if you have followed politics for the last three or four years you know that Republicans tried to end the "60 vote" rule and the Democrats went berserk, but now it seems all Republicans are for it and all the Democrats are against it. It is funny how people in both parties take positions based on what will advance their political agenda rather than what they believe is the best principle.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

wow. i consider myself a political mutt - fiscally conservative and socially liberal. i have no doctrine i adhere to - other than common sense. i came accros this op-ed thru a separate web-link. i thought the content of the article fairly benign and obvious. i was however, shocked... shocked, to read the responses here. my god -- are you people serious? if this is what passes for thoughtful, reasoned debate then we, as a society, have some serious issues. you people are warped.

Posted by: rick | September 11, 2007 10:04 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I've been working my a$$ off the last couple days and honestly I have no idea what you're talking about; my only exposure to news has been the live testimony on CSPAN radio and a tiny bit of Air America.

(Provide a link, please?)

If the answer is: he broke the law, then hang him. Seriously, I'm tired of people skirting and snubbing the laws. If not, then don't.

What else can I say?

Posted by: JD | September 11, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Boko - you are an excellent spokesman.

You asked a question last night about whether any good had come out of our adventure inIraq and I replied this morning:

I think there is only one positive from our invasion of Iraq - Saddam is gone.
That makes constant overflights by the USAF and RAF to protect the Kurds and Shia unnecessary. Replacing constant overflights with an occupation on the ground seems... an unintended consequence.

Also, Bentsen died last year and left his papers to the UT Library. They have not all been catalogued for the web yet, I have been led to understand.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 9:41 PM | Report abuse

moveon.org has a political agenda just like everybody else. Just because you happen to agree with them does not necessarily make them right (or wrong). If you decide that no one is government is to be trusted at all, I suggest you find a hole in the ground and put your head in it for a while. I think that you will find that the earth is still rotating irregardless of your indifference.

Posted by: Dr WU | September 11, 2007 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it--the Democrats--just like the Republicans, are a set of few-in-number-politicos who live in their gated world of Washington DC, not unlike their counterparts running Iraq who live in their gated community, the Green Zone.

Move-On and other large-numbered-citizen-activists have a different take on the war than the gated politicos. Therefore the Petraeus ad in the Times.

They make a lot of sense on the issue of trusting a general:

i.e.

THE NOTION that a general such as David Petraeus might not be trusted has a history to it. General William Westmoreland in Vietnam was the grand master of the "5 o'clock follies," press conferences that emphasized questionable enemy body counts.

More recently, General Colin Powell did a superb job at the UN convincing people that the Iraqis could attack us. Wisdom resides in doubting these generals who, after all, work for a commander in chief who has a definite political agenda.


Posted by: Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers | September 11, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Maria,

You obviously forget that the reason that we have a multi party system is so that multiple viewpoints can be expressed and acted upon. Just because you disagree with a course of action does not mean that the actors are criminals with evil intent. Throughout the history of this nation, mostly civil debate has taken place in the chambers of Congress and throughout the country. It is sad that in today's self obsessed society, only one's viewpoint is of value. Your aspersions of the unworthiness of others only paint to the vacous state of your own mind, your inability to pursue ideas that do not match your own, the need to validate your own place in the universe through useless invectives.

Posted by: Almazar80 | September 11, 2007 9:28 PM | Report abuse

The ad to which this blog entry refers is bi-partisan. It calls on Congress as a general legislative body to enforce its oversight authority over the executive branch.

This attempt to associate MoveOn with Democrats specifically is a sham. Of course MoveOn lines up with the left more, but the call for justice in/on Iraq is bi-partisan.

With a proper dose of reality based thought process, any morally conscientious citizen would agree that the occupation of Iraq is just plain wrong.

The US is in there for the wrong reasons and you don't have to be a Democrat or a Republican to agree. You have to be Human.

Posted by: Robert Whitlock | September 11, 2007 9:26 PM | Report abuse

pcon-T, I'm a proud liberal Democrat, and I swear, I swear, I swear, by all that's good, NO LIBERAL that I know - and I know quite a few - is wishing for the U.S. to "lose." What I and others believe is that Iraq is not the type of conflict you "win" or "lose" - because we are not fighting a "war" against a defined "enemy," but rather managing - and complicating - the most recent stage of a sectarian struggle which has lasted over a thousand years, in various forms. You claim that the "Left" doesn't know ANYTHING about "you conservatives" - and I agree that the conservatism you describe below (an idealized Reagan-ism, if I'm not mistaken) is not what most think of when they hear the word.
However, Reagan's conservatism in and of itself would not have been easily identified by earlier conservatives, if I'm not mistaken... originally, conservatism was an economic philosophy with a strong libertarian streak of "keep the government out of our lives, and out of our pockets." It was Reagan (again, I think...) who began the practice of equating economic and foreign policy conservatism with RELIGIOUS conservatism, and thus conservatives no longer are willing to stay out of the lives of voters, but would rather enforce a sameness on those lives that they find comforting. Curiously, however, despite the platitudes mouthed by our "compassionate" president, public money spent on ensuring and enhancing the common good is now seen not as moral but as wasteful.

Many believe, as you do, that the role which has been played by New Deal/Great Society programs like Medicaid,.Medicare, Social Security, etc. is better served by "encouraging a society where we solve our problems at the more local level before the less local level, and strengthening these levels accordingly." The problem is that in practice, that too often results only in what a community is willing/able to pay for. Liberals believe that the federal government has a legitimate role to play in ensuring, to the extent possible, the equality of opportunities and services available to Americans everywhere, and making sure that this level meets a commonly accepted standard.

Liberals do not, as you suppose, discourage "solving... problems by strengthening and turning to the responsibility of our individual moral character first, then, in order, the sanctity of the family, then charities, faith based groups..." However, because these groups and individuals each have their own agendas and available resources, we believe that it is appropriate for the federal government to play a role, to ensure that recipients of charity, participants in social programs, students in a public school, etc. are given the same or equivalent opportunities in Alabama that they get in California or New York.

You further say that what you describe as "the Principle of Subsidiarity ... leads to more efficient solutions, more appreciation for our freedoms, and stronger, more self reliant individuals, families, and communities."

I find it interesting that you mention efficiency first. America is not a for-profit corporation... we do of course want to be able to spend our money efficiently, but even more important is spending it EFFECTIVELY and FAIRLY. Sometimes that's not as cheap, but that's OK. I find it curious also that you describe this as a situation which encourages "respect for our freedoms." Not sure how... explain?

"Isn't this what we should all want? Notice that we DO consider government as a solution to our problems, but ONLY as a last resort, and even then, in order from the more local level to the least local."

However, too often if there is no "private sector" solution available, conservatives - at least in recent years - have preferred to let the problem go unsolved. (cough, Katrina. Cough, the environment.)

"THIS is ALL THERE IS to conservatism, pure and simple. I swear it."

I believe that you are sincere in saying that, but I do not agree.

Posted by: Bokonon | September 11, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

rufus,

If you are the best America has to offer, well, then the ascendancy of China is assured. Your narrowmindedness and outright belief in the falacious would be funny, except that a lot of people share your misguided sentiments. Learn your history, learn your civics, embrace the differences around you, learn that opposing ideas made and continue to make this country great. You do no credit to yourself and your fellow "believers" in your rants.

Posted by: Almazar80 | September 11, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

All you loser Republican fossils that are waiting for some sort of "condemnation" of MoveOn by Obama and Clinton need to remember back to the Swift Boat days of 2004. MIA Bush and Draft Dodger Cheney had no words of condemnation for that load of B.S. and I am sure you all thought that was just fine. Just like it was just great to have Cleland and McCain smeared by Rove- who spent the Vietnam years hidden in an RNC bunker far away from actual combat. Not that any branch of the Armed Services would have use for such a fat sloth anyway but I digress.....

MoveOn is a much needed counter-balance to the massive Rightie Organizations that have been bloviating in the media for decades- from Heritage to Focus on the Family and all the rest of the pathetic "Think Tanks" that exist to employ the gas-passing, aging creatures of the Conservative Movement. The poor pathetic whining Republicans can't handle a little "free speech" when it is directed at them. Enough with the fake outrage; Petraeus can defend his own pre-election op-ed if he wants to and he doesn't appear to need the help of a bunch of sissy-pants diaper-wearing Senators like Vitter coming to his rescue. You guys need to get your own house in order before you start telling us how to "properly" express our opposition to your bankrupt policies.

Posted by: Maria | September 11, 2007 9:17 PM | Report abuse

I value free speech so much and I am tired of being forced to keep quiet. The speech and thought police have made this country as dumb and mindless as a box of rocks. I am unemployed. but this morning I gave money to MoveOn.org in the hopes that they can be noisey as they need for as long as it takes.

Posted by: oneofseven | September 11, 2007 9:17 PM | Report abuse

drindl, Austin is not an oil city like Houston, Dallas, or Odessa.

Much as I do not like long cut-and-pastes, I offer one here for drindl, from the Dallas Morning News. Also, Petraeus and Crocker will be on Jim Lehrer tomorrow night.
-------------------------------
12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, September 11, 2007

By DAVE MICHAELS and ELIZABETH SOUDER / The Dallas Morning News

Hunt Oil Co. took a leap of faith over the weekend by agreeing to become the largest U.S. energy company to explore for oil in Iraq since the war began.

If all goes well, the Dallas oil company, with its close White House ties, acquires an early foothold in an important oil patch.

"The region as a whole looks very promising," said Jeanne Phillips, a spokeswoman for Hunt Oil, adding that the company does not yet know how much oil its concession could produce.

Hunt created a company called Hunt Oil Co. of the Kurdistan Region to handle the contract. Hunt signed the deal with a partner, Impulse Energy Corp., a private Canadian company that invests in energy companies.

But analysts said things could unravel as quickly as they came together because the Kurdish regional government has raced ahead of the Iraqi parliament. The parliament has yet to approve a national petroleum law governing foreign investment.

Ken Medlock, a fellow in energy studies at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, said Hunt's deal could be seen as a political statement on the controversial question of Kurdish autonomy.

"It is striking from the standpoint [that] there is a lot of risk associated with any deal struck with the government of Kurdistan," Mr. Medlock said.

Hunt's optimism, however, is shared by another Texas pioneer in northern Iraq, Prime Natural Resources of Houston, which sees potential in fields that were neglected by Saddam Hussein's government.

Major oil companies had balked at investing personnel and resources in Iraq, citing sectarian violence and other threats to working conditions.

Nor had they indicated a willingness to negotiate solely with regional authorities, although the Kurdish region has largely been free of violence.

"If the Iraqi government decides it wants international oil companies to partner with them in developing their resources, Exxon Mobil would be interested in participating," said Len D'Eramo, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil Corp.

Mickey Driver, a Chevron Corp. spokesman, said the company has donated equipment for field assessment and sponsored U.S. visits by Iraqi geologists.

But before Chevron invests in an exploration program, "we want to see things probably much more stabilized than they are now," Mr. Driver said.

Many major companies prefer to operate under the framework of a national law. Any new entrants would still need the Iraqi government's permission to export oil, and the region's main pipeline, from Kirkuk to Ceyhan in Turkey, is often shut down because of sabotage.

"Companies might want to see some of those legal and social issues resolved before they feel comfortable," said Jan Veldwijk, chief executive officer of Prime Natural Resources.

Kurdish officials passed their own petroleum law in August. Prime's deal was done before that law was passed. Hunt's is the first deal since the passing of the law, which requires the regional government to share revenue with the rest of Iraq.

Thanks to Prime, Hunt isn't even the first Dallas-based company to bet on northern Iraq. Ross Perot Jr.'s Hillwood Energy is an investor in Hawler Energy, a subsidiary of Prime that is starting seismic work next month on its second block in northern Iraq.

David Pelletier, a Hillwood spokesman, said the company would not comment on its investment in Iraq.

Hunt Oil and Kurdish officials said their deal would stand the scrutiny of Iraq's federal government. They suggested that Hunt's well-known imprimatur may entice other oil companies to negotiate with Kurdish regional authorities.

"Kurdistan is looking more and more like an island of stability" in Iraq, said Qubad Talabani, the son of Iraq's president and the representative of the Kurdistan Regional Government to the United States. "This should get the attention of other companies."

Neither Hunt nor the Kurdish Regional Government would release terms of the production-sharing agreement. Mr. Talabani said Hunt was awarded one block but would not say precisely where in the region called Dihok. More details will be publicized in "a few days," he said.

Hunt said it would begin its geological survey and seismic work by the end of this year and planned to begin drilling in 2008.

"We feel very confident in the laws that are being passed and the government's ability to maintain an atmosphere that is positive for production," Ms. Phillips said.

Iraq's oil production has fallen by about one-third since the United States invaded in 2003, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. An estimated 20 percent of its reserves are in the north, including the giant field of Kirkuk.

It's unknown how much oil might come from unproven blocks such as Hunt's.

"There are a lot of fields that have been discovered and are ready to move forward, but this is not one of them," said Robert E. Ebel, a senior adviser for energy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The majority of reserves are in southern Iraq, where violence has scared away many oil companies. But even companies operating in the north must contend with security risks.

Mr. Veldwijk said his firm hires 150 to 190 peshmerga, Kurdish fighters loyal to Iraqi Kurdish leaders, to protect its two exploration blocks.

"It's not cheap," Mr. Veldwijk said. "It's not so much the peshmerga who make it expensive, but the interface on the managerial side to make sure it works well."

Mr. Veldwijk said it is still worth working in northern Iraq. Production at a nearby field, known as Taq Taq, by a Turkish-Swiss joint venture produced 29,790 barrels per day during a recent field test.

"A lot of that was shut down by Saddam when he was fighting the Kurds in the north," he said. "The expectations are high because this is an area that has produced, and it's still producing."

Dave Michaels reported from Washington and Elizabeth Souder from Dallas.
-----------------------
I ask everyone's forgiveness in advance: WaPo would NOT let me post the cite.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

drindl writes :"Let's talk about the Texas oilman/Bush crony deal with 'Kuridstan' a nation not recognized as such by any other nation, including this one. A major breach of international law and an affront to the idea of a unified Iraq."

- the above is an example of the classic left problem, no one else brings up these inane arguments expept the left, talk about "disconnect" , Drndl, keep it up, you can only help the repubs.

Posted by: alex | September 11, 2007 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

The US Military has been bombing the people of Iraq since 1991. The rationale for going to war again in Iraq was a lie trumped up with information that the proponents of the war knew was a lie.

At every turn, the military brass and the state department appointees of President Bush have said "We are at a turning point -- give us (3 or 4 or 5 or 6) more months and the political situation will be better.

This has never proved to be the case. general Pertraius is like General Westmorland of the Vietnam War era.

He lied and lied and lied and both parties let that war drag on for a long time past any notion that it was winnable.

We will not let the Democratic Party lock arm in arm with the GOP to continue this war.

It is wasting lives, money and our Country's good name.

Get it, Chris...the war is a waste.

That is why I will be marching on September 15th.

End the War now.

Peace out,

Paul Schwartz
Washington DC

Posted by: Paul Schwartz | September 11, 2007 9:13 PM | Report abuse

I want to reaffirm what some have already pointed out: The Democrats in the Senate need only 50 votes, not 60. Without their support, no budget can pass. If the Democrats were united (or had the support of enough Republicans), they could start putting an end to this disaster Oct. 1.

Posted by: Eric | September 11, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Let's talk about the Texas oilman/Bush crony deal with 'Kuridstan' a nation not recognized as such by any other nation, including this one. A major breach of international law and an affront to the idea of a unified Iraq.

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Not George says "MoveOn (and George) would rather take direction from a sworn enemy of our nation (Osama Bin Laden).

Where did 'Not George' find this in my post?

Hence my question: Are you stupid, ignorant, immoral or a combination thereof?

BTW, it's 'their' not 'thier' but I suppose 50/50 is not so bad for a person who cannot correctly interpret what they read.

Posted by: George | September 11, 2007 9:06 PM | Report abuse

ErnieNH... You wrote:

"Moveon.org will do what it does and all need to figure out how live with it. Moveon.org is grassroots speaking, the thousands of people affiliated are liking their voices finally heard, and anyone who chooses to put down moveon.org, for fear of them or whatever, needs to get over it. The fact republicans can't come up with their own version of moveon.org is not moveon.org's problem."

Ernie, don't quite know how to break this to you, but we Republicans wouldn't emulate a 'moveon.org' if we had to. Little things, like patriotism, values, prinicples, and responsiblities would get in the way. And, in listening to the liberal media, it's still clear that many Democrats don't care for moveon either. As a matter of fact, if Billionaire George Soros pulled his money I think it would fold. Face it, it may be grassroots, but the real numbers are not large, and they get their clout from intimidation and brutal media assult.

But, let me not argue too hard... as a good Republican I urge you to keep Moveon going. Thank you!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 9:04 PM | Report abuse

"George" says: "Of course he betrayed America."

It never ceases to amaze me that people like MoveOn (and George) would rather take direction from a sworn enemy of our nation (Osama Bin Laden) than a man who has sworn to defend our nation (Petreaus).

This is how Liberals love their country.
But, NEVER question thier patriotism.

Posted by: Not George | September 11, 2007 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Doctor Jay--"The media in the U.S.A has the memory span of a goldfish and the spine of a slug. They are too busy reporting on a couple random atrocities commited by some of the USA boots on the ground to notice that we are in a WAR. WE are in a war, this war, as seen by the curent state of terrorism all throughout Europe, ..."

Europe is combating terrorism effectively the way it is supposed to be done: as a co-operative police action.

Posted by: roo | September 11, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

The proof of the betrayal by Petraus will be the source of income after his service.

Of course he betrayed America. Of course he and Bush, Cheney et.al. are truly guilty of ABUSING the military. Just ask any anyone. They should be impeached and perhaps jailed - not only for lying to us about Iraq and abusing the military, but for their attacks upon our nation's Constitution. It is unimportant if they are convicted given the Republican cowards in the Senate; but they should be impeached.

A war that we did not need; A civil war that the military cannot settle; An irreplaceable fortune in American lives lost (forget the money - it's just money - but you might ask "where did the money go?"). What is wrong with you people?

Are you stupid, ignorant, immoral or a combination thereof?

God bless America. God bless our military and God bless those who speak truth to power like Moveon.

Posted by: George | September 11, 2007 8:51 PM | Report abuse

My views definitely lean left of center, but I find MoveOn's tactics deplorable. That ad is no different that the SwiftBoat attacks on John Kerry in 2004.

Karl Roves exist on both sides of the aisle. They confuse a few gains with power -- and they all get drunk on it and think they can ramshod their ideas down the rest of our throats.

Radicalism is ugly -- from Democrats and Republicans and Muslims in Iraq. Nasty tactics never work -- not for long. Look what's happening to the Republicans. I only hope that MoveOn shuts up long enough to at least get us into the White House.

Posted by: FemaleNick | September 11, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

So hey, Jd, what did you think of that story of a Texas Bush crony/Pioneer who cut an illegal oil deal with Kurdistan that undermines the Iraqi government?

I bet you don't have the courage to answer.

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

One last comment: I heard on CSPAN radio that Pelosi said that the testimony she heard wasn't good enough, and she is criticizing the prez about Iraq exist policy. Fine; she and her coalition actually have the power to end this war.

Either she needs to find the cajones to do just that, by defunding the conflict, or she needs to STFU. Immediately. She is having fun playing both sides of the fence - one story to the lefty base and rich donors, and another in her actions.

She is prime example #1 of a disgusting politician; no roots, just swaying in the wind and saying whatever necessary to try to get re-elected. Not enough bad things can happen to her IMHO.

Posted by: JD | September 11, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Alex and Jerry, you are sort of right I think. MoveOn.org will be an albatross around the necks of Democratic candidates, and their failure to condemn the ad (and positions) by that group will limit the gains they would otherwise have made in the coming elections.

Unrepentent, you defend that ad. Fine. What's your basis (facts and truth, please) for calling the General a liar? And before he even begins his testimony....

I heard Stephanie Miller et al this morning on the radio continually cite the now disproven assertion by the WaPo and NYT about carbombings not counting in the stats, about rounds to the front of the head vs rounds to the back, etc. Then she goes into how the testimony was written in conjuction with the White House, in directly contradictions to the General's testimony?

Did she provide any proof? No, just emotional blather and snarky asides. I can't say I'm shocked.

I wish the Dems would make an argument based on facts. They have plenty on their side. Use them, not ridiculous ads, untrue accusations, and partisan invective.

Posted by: JD | September 11, 2007 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Man, the sickness of the American right just overwhelms me with its stench of evil.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

BlueDog writes:

"Rightwing-extremist Republicans' goal is to eliminate the U.S. Constitution and institute a Neo-Nazi fascist state in America"

BlueDog, I'm a proud conservative Republican, and I swear, I swear, I swear, by all that's good and holy, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE that I know, wants to do anything like this at all. You embody the sheer ignorance of the Left, which doesn't know ANYTHING about us conservatives.

Here's what conservatism is all about:

Encouraging a society where we solve our problems at the more local level before the less local level, and strengthening these levels accordingly. That means solving our problems by strengthening and turning to the responsibility of our individual moral character first, then, in order, the sanctity of the family, then charities, faith based groups and the overall private sector community, then and only then government at first the local level, then the state, federal, and lastly international levels.

This is called the Principle of Subsidiarity (look it up), and leads to more efficient solutions, more appreciation for our freedoms, and stronger, more self reliant individuals, families, and communities.

Isn't this what we should all want? Notice that we DO consider government as a solution to our problems, but ONLY as a last resort, and even then, in order from the more local level to the least local.

THIS is ALL THERE IS to conservatism, pure and simple. I swear it. See? No fascism, no trampling on civil rights, in fact, quite the opposite.

Learn it. Know it. Live it.

Posted by: pcon-T | September 11, 2007 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I am a Republican. Can Rufus or someone please tell me how to donate to moveon.org? I cannot think of a better way to spend my money to help get Republicans elected in 2008.

Posted by: JERRY B | September 11, 2007 8:33 PM | Report abuse

The best way to defeat the dems is to donate money to "move on", we need to get these guys out front and center, the more america sees of these guys the better for the repubs. If possible, Woopie and hollywood should start speaking up also.

Posted by: Alex | September 11, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

I love how these left-leaning posters are comparing MoveOn with Fox News. That comparison is laughable, but nobody ever takes them to task for it. If you would watch Wolf and Michael Ware on CNN every night like I do, you would see a true propoganda machine. These guys, just like the left are defeatists who didn't see a war they couldn't lose.

Posted by: mikdfour | September 11, 2007 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Moveon.org will do what it does and all need to figure out how live with it. Moveon.org is grassroots speaking, the thousands of people affiliated are liking their voices finally heard, and anyone who chooses to put down moveon.org, for fear of them or whatever, needs to get over it. The fact republicans can't come up with their own version of moveon.org is not moveon.org's problem.

Posted by: ErnieNH | September 11, 2007 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Before Petraeus had uttered even one word, MoveOn and Code Pink told America that he was a liar and was betraying the US. Those screaming wacko women of Code Pink are the mascots of the Democratic party, MoveOn is the mouthpiece.

Posted by: Mike D. | September 11, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

'Did anyone here actually watch it? Was it that bad? And did Crocker and Petraeus not appear anywhere else last night?'

And yes, it was that bad--and Fox was the exclusive outlet. I didn't watch all of it -- it was too painful, but what I saw was distrubing to me --it was a Republican commerical, masquerading as news. And all this and it's 9/11 in New York... it's like 24/7 propaganda...

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Mak, as much of a news junky I am, I did miss all that reportage that you mentioned... but then I am in New York. What do people around Austin think about it?

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse

'I understand the cronyism aspect - but how does the commitment of troops to Bagdad and central Iraq, with very few in the Kurdish north, square with your notion that the military policy is made to go hand in hand with helping the crony get a cozy deal with the Kurds, that undermines the commitment of troops to Bagdad and the Arabs?'

You're talking like there WAS a coherent policy--there isn't. It's just like,' let's get the oil--whatever.' As you said, the Kurds can take care of themselves.

I'm talking about the larger point here -- how does it look to the Sunnis and Shia who are actually trying to build a federal government, to see a Texas Bush crony sign an oil deal that undermines their federal government. Look at it from their point of view...

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

"And It has not been reported upon."

Every major paper and business paper has reported this story. Every oilman in TX is a GWB donor. I am missing the connections.

I sent the cites to Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, Hoston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News, but the WaPo filter blocked the post, so you will have to take my word for it.
The Da.M.N. is following this closely, of course.


Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 8:04 PM | Report abuse

This ad is a big bit of blunderbuss about NOTHING. Whoop to do, some citizens took out an ad criticizing a political General who is trying to sell, not the truth, but a product, to the public. Fair game I say. Phony numbers= phony report.

Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | September 11, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Whether they want to talk about it or not, money is one of the Big Issues of Iraq. Not just the 'defense' budget hyperinflation, but the lack of accountability for monies spent on Iraq,
as well as the issue of oil, which in turn raises questions about all the nice people
'decidering' all this stuff these days. You could go on and on into issues about mercenaries on the battlefield, so forth and so on, but bottom line this country is 3 trillion further in debt because of this administrations' policies and choices, the Iraq war being among them, and likely it'll be ANOTHER 1/2 trillion in the hole by the time they finally leave office. Friends, buddies, cousins, and in-laws...a full wallet has no conscience...

Posted by: Bert | September 11, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

As a liberal-centrist, sometimes moveon.org is too far out there in left field for my taste. But hey, that's what Democracy and freedom is all about. Rightwing-extremist Republicans' goal is to eliminate the U.S. Constitution and institute a Neo-Nazi fascist state in America. Let's call a spade a spade. General Petraeus is grabbing his ankles for the White House. While I don't concur with moveon.org's ideology or tactics 100% of the time, as the saying goes--sometimes living with democracy is harder than fighting for it. There's no clear and present danger in moveon.org's assessments of the General's major malfunctioning as a non-political military spokesperson. But he's doing a heckuhva job as spokesperson for Duhbya. I have problems with the overgeneralizing, unfounded, reactionary comments that Romney has made about particular Dems, but then again, there's been no clear and present danger in his asinine remarks and little bit of flipflopping he does. Romney is just funny that way. Freedom of speech - without it, the Constitution should be discarded. Perhaps that's what radical Republcians have in mind.

Posted by: BlueDog | September 11, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn.org will be the Michael Moore of 2008, helping to usher in a Republican president and a Republican congress. To quote miz Hillary who ain't no ways tired, "You know what I'm talking about." Let's face it, all you radicals out there, AirAmerica radio fired (that's right, fired) the vile Mike Malloy because the DNC pressured them to. Why? Oh please. They smelled victory in 2006 and didn't want the foul MM to be seen as the "voice" of Democrats. He is, of course, but "they" didn't want him seen as such. They knew what the OTHER MM did to the 2004 election. He helped them lose it because the average American is repulsed at the mere sight of Michael Moore. And they are even more repulsed at MoveOn.org and its foul politics. Here's what I say: keep it up, MoveOn.org. I'm lovin' it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I understand the cronyism aspect - but how does the commitment of troops to Bagdad and central Iraq, with very few in the Kurdish north, square with your notion that the military policy is made to go hand in hand with helping the crony get a cozy deal with the Kurds, that undermines the commitment of troops to Bagdad and the Arabs?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone know or care who is behind MOVEON.org???? George Soros, a Hungarian and billionaire, who was kicked out of England for creating financial and political havoc over there!! Now he's here
in the U.S. throwing his money at the liberals, who love him. Did you know that
you don't have to be a citizen to donate to
political campaigns and that anyone who has enough money can use it here in the
U.S. to promote their political goals?
Foreigners can come in to our country
and do what they want if they have enough
money! This is very dangerous!
We've become a nation of sidewalk superintendents who know more or know best than the people we've hired or voted for !
Stop all the ranting and listen to yourselves!
Our country is facing serious issues.We need to educate and inform ourselves and work together. Stop all the name calling
and criticizing, it's a waste of time!!

Posted by: SCSOCAL | September 11, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

God bless Fox News and Goddamn Moveon.org.

Posted by: geoff | September 11, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Mark, I'm talking about the oil deal. I'm talking about how Hunt, Texas Bush Ranger, has been allowed to cut the first deal, the plum, one which undermines the Iraqi federal government. And this, I'm sure, is no secret the administration, the pentagon, or the state department.

And It has not been reported upon. All I'm asking is, why? Can you imagine if this had been Clinton?

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Anybody from that MoveOn Org ever been to Iraq? No? That's about how much their opinion is worth. They're disgusting, lying people. How do I figure? Either they're lying or Petraeus is lying. Now that's a hard decision! NOT!

Posted by: Rockyspoon | September 11, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

So far, I've yet to hear Sir Hillary or Obama denounce this vile piece of garbage from the reptilian hordes at Move On. It's one more example of how they're deathly afraid of the radical Left, and you don't see the same capitulation from the Republican candidates toward the radicals on THEIR side.

Posted by: pcon-T | September 11, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

"Obama Doesn't Like Iraq Hearing on 9/11
Email
Share September 11, 2007 1:20 PM

ABC News' Jennifer Parker reports: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said during a Senate hearing on the future of Iraq with Army Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, that holding the hearing on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks "perpertuates the notion" that Iraq and 9/11 are linked.

"I think we should not have had this discussion on 9/11 or 9/10 or 9/12," Obama said during his opening statement. "It perpetuates this notion that the original attacks had something to do with going into Iraq."

Obama went on to criticize what he called a failed Iraq strategy.

"This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake," he said. "There are bad options and worse options."

"This is not a criticism of you gentlemen but a criticism of the President," Obama said.
However, the Illinois Senator accused Petraeus of dodging questions about the overarching Iraq war strategy. "You've punted a little bit," Obama said. " We don't have limitless resources ... the question is one of strategy not tactics."

He argued the administration has artificially lowered expectations of what constitutes progress in Iraq. "We have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation... is considered success. And it's not," Obama said.

Obama argued President Bush has made it impossible to have a bi-partisan discussion about the way forward in Iraq because he refuses to admit the war strategy was flawed. "There has been no acknowledgement of that on the part of this administration," he said.

"We have the president in Australia suggesting somehow that we are, as was stated before, kicking A-S-S.," Obama said. "How can we have a president making that assessment?"

Obama told Petraeus the President's assertions, "It makes it very difficult then for those of us who would like to join with you in a bipartisan way to figure out how to best move forward to extricate this from the day-to-day politics that infects Washington."
"

To the people asking "what did he lie about". Ready? They lowered the bar. Ther eare still many many killings. But the tracker is not recording those in the stats. That is why the books are cooked.

Remember the 500 deaths last month? not counted. only secratarian deaths are counted. All others are not. i want total real numbers.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

As if there was one whit of difference between moveon.org and Reid and Pelosi. Your column is classic triangulation.

Posted by: Peter | September 11, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

...just to echo Frank, Rufus (the demented shut-in) has now been posting (ranting?) for almost SEVEN HOURS.

Talk about unhinged.

Posted by: Sword of Justice | September 11, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

i did see O'Reilly incit violence agaisnt me and hundreds of thousaands of other americans last night. I watche dmy game, bu tI saw that too

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"Having read the Greenwald take [thank you, Rufi] it seems to have been ACTUAL gamesmanship.

Did anyone here actually watch it? Was it that bad? And did Crocker and Petraeus not appear anywhere else last night?
"

Didn't see it I did see o'reilly. I was to busy watching my 49ers glorious victory WWHHOOO :)

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Hi drindl - I do not think the issues are connected in quite the way you do.

If GWB were pushing JD's plan - one that makes sense in its own right - that we withdraw from all of Iraq except the Kurdish north, where the Kurds like us, and keep permanent bases in the north, and help protect the oil fields and pipelines, and let the Arabs kill each other south of Kirkuk, then I would connect the dots.

The non-strategy of GWB [unless you think "delay" is a strategy] does not help Hunt or the Kurds. At least not much. We could completely leave and the Kurdish peshmurga is strong enough to handle the Arab incursions. They would only need our help if they had a problem with Turkey or Iran.
Nobody in office, as far as I know, has ever posed the Kurdish strategy. But for oil and low American casualties and building a friendly state in the middle east it might work.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 7:26 PM | Report abuse

What people in DC and other insulated areas fail to understand is how seething with anger mainstream America - more than two-thirds of us by some polls - is about the continual LIES we are fed by the Red Bushies and their enablers in the MSM.

Yes, anger.

To you folks who think that just because millions of people aren't rioting in America and descending in hordes on DC, that we aren't mad as hell ... we are.

Most people - independents especially, moderates, people you see every day - shout back at the lies we see on the news coming from DC.

So, don't be surprised by this.

Instead, ask yourselves this: Why do you hate America so much that you ignore so many of us and what we want?

We want our troops home. We don't want excuses. And we definitely don't want more lies and more "six months" ...

Posted by: Will in Seattle | September 11, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Having read the Greenwald take [thank you, Rufi] it seems to have been ACTUAL gamesmanship.

Did anyone here actually watch it? Was it that bad? And did Crocker and Petraeus not appear anywhere else last night?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

your right mark. They shouldn't.

I see fox get's all the good interviews. then they go to meet the press to propogate unchecked, then they write their little book of lies, then they lay in the sun with their millions. AW. The life of a propogating sell-out fascist gop'er.

And why do you think they do this. Why does dick cheaney go on fox and no where else? I could go on. What would the right do without their consolidaters of talking points.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

And, the ad accurately reflected the sentiment of its consitutency; liberals do not trust Petraeus and view him as yet another tool of the Bush Administration's attempt to deceive the American public when it comes to the conditions on the ground in Iraq.

That 100% wrong Chris - you're not even spinning - you are just plain lying:

a CBS/NY Times poll revealed that 62% of
Americans trust MILITARY commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace"

By fiat, Chris, that means that 62% of Americans trust General Petreaus! MoveOn.org has once again proven themselves to be "MORONON.org!

Posted by: Harley | September 11, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Mark, yes perhaps MoveOn should apologize... but forget about them and the General and all the rest of the hoopla... this is all smoke and mirrors.

Look at what I posted about the oil deal Ray L. Hunt, a Bush friend from Texas and Super Ranger [new category for those who give half a million or more in bundled contributions] and appointed member of a 'committee on intelligence oversight' just cut with the apparently independent nation of Kurdistan--a deal called 'illegal' by the Iraqi government. How much does this undermine everything that the Pentagon and administration are saying?

That's what this is really about. Paritition is already a done deal. It's all about the oil--and the rewards to campaign contributors.

Posted by: dridl | September 11, 2007 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick and tired of the DKos/MoveOn wing of the Democratic party!

All they do is seek attention - they aren't truly interested in the welfare of the country - and they act like a group of spoiled rotten 12 year olds.

Moderate Dems are out there, working the precincts and raising the money. All the Kossacks and MoveOn'ers want to do is rant and preen.

Anyway - they all voted for Nader and screwed the Dems in 2000. What a bunch of narcissists.

Posted by: DailyKos = Irrelevant | September 11, 2007 7:10 PM | Report abuse

HERE'S WHAT I WROTE TO MOVEON.ORG:

I'm more inclined to believe you than him. however I warned you guys last year that you were becoming to shrill and swatting at every fly that passes by, and groveling for money like a junkie.

I do support your efforts, but let's come down off our high horse and address the issues methodically instead of hysterically. This story is already a day old and we still haven't seen any stats to back up your side of the story.

Where's the cherry picking? What numbers show the books were cooked?

I am on your side but I think you need some more level headed management."

Posted by: Robert | September 11, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"drindl, we listen, we use our knowledge gained from much other sworn testimony to intelligently cross-examine, we get what we can from it.
Anything he said to FOX doesn't matter compared to his testimony under oath, examined and cross examined."

how does that work mark? this is why the gop is done in this country. the internet killed them. Tehy try and go to one group, say something, then go to another group, say the opposite. Of course it matters what he says on fox.

Is it ok to mislead the eldery on fox, then tell the truth in the hearing? No. Anyother exapmle of, that's right , you guessed it, hypocricy. Gop double talk. It matters what he tells everybody, espeically if he is lying.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

And Petraeus should not have let himself be interviewed by only one tv station, if that is indeed what happened. Not FOX, not CBS, not PBS. Pool, or everyone. This was too high profile for the appearance of gamesmanship.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 7:06 PM | Report abuse

60 VOTES TO GO OUT TO LUNCH!! perhaps the elected officials of our govt. should be notified that they seem to be permanately out to lunch. the voters gave the demos a mandate, a mandate that they have promptly ignored. this makes them no better that their opponents across the aisleway. political targets can and may vary, and it is strongly suggested that the demos who have exhibited a lot of hot air with nothing to back it up, will targeted in the next election at the polls. realize that the voters are becoming increasingly agitated by the politilization of our democratic rights and no one's political future is certain at this point. step up, or get the boot!!!

Posted by: lonewolf | September 11, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey. this is on topic right. Let's let mr greenwald weigh in on this subject.


"Tuesday September 11, 2007 07:10 EST
Brit Hume and the Bush administration take propaganda to a new level
Just as George Bush and Dick Cheney have done on politically important occasions, Gen. David Petraeus (along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker) last night selected Fox News' Brit Hume as the "journalist" rewarded with an exclusive "interview." Whereas Hume, in the past, at least has pretended to play the role of journalist when interviewing high Bush officials -- doing things like asking (extremely respectful) questions about sensitive areas (with no follow up) -- he dispensed entirely with the pretense here. This "interview" took government propaganda to a whole new level, and really has to be seen to be believed (the full video is here).

The whole production was such transparent propaganda that one doubts that Pravda would have been shameless enough to present it. Even the title of the program was creepy. Fox did not even bother to call it an "interview," but rather hailed it as a "Briefing for America."

The model for the entire hour was not a journalist asking questions of government leaders, but instead, a direct examination at a trial, where a friendly lawyer gently leads his own witness to present claims in the most persuasive manner possible, with the lawyer interrupting only to clarify the witness' statements and to provide helpful suggestions as to how the witness can make his case even more effectively.

Amazingly, the first ten minutes or so of the program consisted of Petraeus unilaterally presenting his case, uninterrupted, as to all the ways in which we have made Great Progress in Iraq since the Surge began. Fox News set up a huge flat screen television next to Petraeus, and already plugged into that screen were all of the U.S. military's own charts and graphs designed to visually depict Iraq as becoming better and safer since the Surge began.

Like a professor lecturing his class, Petraeus held a pointer, and had notes in front of him indicating the sequence of the screens. When he was done explaining one happy Good News screen, the next one popped up, and he proceeded that way -- with no challenge whatsoever -- to present his "Briefing for America." Hume sat by quietly and reverently, opening his mouth only to add information to make Petraeus' point clearer. The "interview" was engineered and scripted by the U.S. military, with Hume playing the role of Master of Ceremonies.

The second segment was with Ambassador Crocker, and it proceeded exactly the same way. With virtually no interruption, Crocker delivered prepared remarks, hailing one exciting improvement after the next on the political and diplomatic front. Not only did Hume not challenge a single point, but he again spoke only in order to bolster the points Crocker was making.

The remainder of the interview was designed to elicit the points which both Fox and Petraeus are most eager to make, focusing particularly on the alleged acts of war Iran is directing against U.S. forces. At Hume's prodding, Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorization to take action against Iran within its borders, rather than only in Iraq. After Petreaus made sweeping accusations against Iran, this exchange ensued:

HUME: Do the rules of engagement that you're operating under allow you do to what you think you need to do to suppress this activity on the part of Iran, or perhaps do you need assistance from military not under your command to do this?

PETRAEUS: They allow us to do what we need to do inside Iraq.

HUME:Is that enough in your view?

PETRAEUS: Well, that's what I'm responsible for, and again, when I have concerns about something beyond that, I take them to my boss . . . and in fact, we have shared our concerns with him and with the chain of command, and there is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation.

HUME: That sounds pretty disturbing, Ambassador Crocker -- that we are confronting with Iran now a situation where it doesn't appear that we have any diplomatic possibilities to suppress this activity by Iran, or do we?

The rest of the "interview" was filled with unbelievable exchanges like this one:
HUME: Would you say that we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today in terms of sectarian violence in Iraq generally had not Al Qaeda been present and active there?

PETRAEUS: That's correct.

HUME: Has this, in an ultimate sense, turned out to be, more than anything else, a war with Al Qaeda?

PETRAEUS: Well, it is Al Qaeda and associated movements, I think, or affiliates, if you would.

Both Petraeus and Hume repeatedly referred to the Enemy in Iraq as "Al Qaeda." The NYT/CBS poll yesterday revealed that 40% of Republicans in this country -- 40% -- still believe that Saddam personally planned the 9/11 attacks. With wretched, unchallenged propaganda like this being fed to them, is it any wonder why?

Obviously, Fox News is free to say whatever it wants, and to give the government as much of a platform as it wants. But the fact that other journalists would sit meekly by and quietly accept the announcement that Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would grant an "exclusive interview" to a propaganda network -- and that they all continue to pretend that Brit Hume is a "journalist" -- is inexcusable.

I defy anyone to watch this hour-long program and identify anything at all that would be different if the interview had been conducted with a Soviet General by Pravda, or if the interview had been conducted by a U.S. military spokesman. There are no differences, except that -- with a Pravda interview or one conducted by one of Petraeus' subordinates -- the deceit would be less.

Yet our media class continues to treat Fox News, and especially Brit Hume, as some type of legitimate journalists. That says more about the state of our political press and the true role it plays than it does about Fox and Hume. Here, for instance, is just part of a worshipful profile written last year by Howard Kurtz, the "media critic" for The Washington Post, in which he and several other "journalists" praised Hume for his superb journalistic integrity:

There is a formal bearing about Hume that transcends his suspenders and American flag lapel pin. He speaks deliberately, unhurriedly, making his points with logic rather than passion. On a network filled with flamboyant personalities, he gave his nightly program the bland title "Special Report." . . .

Hume is no partisan brawler in the mold of some of Fox's high-decibel hosts. By virtue of his investigative background, his understated style and his management role, he represents a hybrid strain: conservatives who believe in news, not bloviation, but news that passes through a different lens, filtered through a different set of assumptions. . . .

"He has a wonderful style which makes you want to hear what Brit has to say, in an age when so many people are in your face," [Charlie] Gibson says.

Even before this obscene propaganda show last night, the very idea that Hume could be considered a "journalist," and that there is nothing deemed improper about Gen. Petraeus choosing him for an exclusive interview, speaks volumes about the broken and corrupt state of our media. Hume is an outspoken proponent of the war, having called Jack Murtha senile for advocating withdrawal and proclaiming the Democrats untrustworthy on national security for opposing the war.

A country with a functioning political press would never pretend that the pro-war, Bush-worshipping Hume could conduct an actual interview with Petraeus, let alone be the only journalist allowed to do so. And a government subject even to minimal levels of accountability would be too embarrassed, or at least deterred, from decreeing that its top general, burdened by a dubious record and making highly precarious claims about an ongoing war, would sit for a television interview with only one "journalist," and that journalist would be Brit Hume.

Yet not only does all of that happen with not a word of protest from our media, but they proceed to produce the most astonishingly transparent propaganda spectacle one can imagine, knowing that there is no cost to doing so. What a sad commentary on the state of our country's political culture.

When David Halberstam died earlier this year, all of our media stars solemnly paid homage to this "true journalist." But as I have noted many times, Halberstam -- in a speech to the Columbia School of Journalism shortly before he died -- recounted the proudest moment of his career: When he was a young reporter in Saigon, already disliked by the U.S. military for his adversarial reporting, he stood up in a military press briefing and demanded that he be allowed access to the battlefield so that he could see for himself what was happening and not have to rely blindly on the Generals' claims:

And in the back, and outside, some 40 military officers, all of them big time brass. It was clearly an attempt to intimidate us.

General Stilwell tried to take the intimidation a step further. He began by saying that Neil and I had bothered General Harkins and Ambassador Lodge and other VIPs, and we were not to do it again. Period.

And I stood up, my heart beating wildly -- and told him that we were not his corporals or privates, that we worked for The New York Times and UP and AP and Newsweek, not for the Department of Defense.

I said that we knew that 30 American helicopters and perhaps 150 American soldiers had gone into battle, and the American people had a right to know what happened. I went on to say that we would continue to press to go on missions and call Ambassador Lodge and General Harkins, but he could, if he chose, write to our editors telling them that we were being too aggressive, and were pushing much too hard to go into battle. That was certainly his right.

Now, our "journalists" conduct "interviews" with Generals from their knees, allow them to script the entire program in advance, and -- with some isolated and noble exceptions -- see their role as giving a platform to and uncritically amplifying every assertion made by the U.S. military. Last night's perfectly scripted Fox pageant demonstrates that they don't even bother to pretend otherwise anymore. That hour-long "interview" last night with Petraeus and Crocker would fit quite comfortably on North Korean state television. It also now fits quite comfortably within the American media landscape.

-- Glenn Greenwald
"

Posted by: greenwald's take on this topic | September 11, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Like Biden, Hagel, Lugar, Obama, and Warner and Levin,
I thought the testimony was truthful, but so incomplete as to not be very useful for policy making. Both Petraeus and Crocker, when examined, gave up ALL the critical points for policy making. Examples:

There was no solid reason to hope that gains made would be permanent,

or to think that we have enough troops to pacify Iraq,

or to suggest that the south is not in complete chaos,

or to demonstrate that the surge has anything to do with national security.

As Warner suggested, everything Crocker said was said before and there was no reason to think his crystal ball was better now than when previous witnesses predicted success over four years of testimony.
Under friendly examination, Crocker and Petraeus thought that Iraq would become more unstable if the USA left, but they did not suggest that would happen if the mission were redefined. Petraeus did say that a redefinition like the one JimD suggested the other day might take just as many troops.

drindl, we listen, we use our knowledge gained from much other sworn testimony to intelligently cross-examine, we get what we can from it.
Anything he said to FOX doesn't matter compared to his testimony under oath, examined and cross examined.

I came away thinking that Biden and Lugar and Hagel and Obama and Warner and Levin really do understand the strengths and weaknesses of the testimony, and they got the concessions from the witnesses that they sought. I do not think McCain distinguished himself at all today and I was disappointed. I heard the candidate pinning his hopes on this, not the Senator seeking the facts he needed to make law or do oversight.

MoveOn should apologize.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Repubs, the Senate is slip-sliding away...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20727165/

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 11, 2007 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Last post today.

as to the above comment that clinton is backed by china and should add her china endorsments. I say, SEE I TOLD YOU. Now you know why rupert murdoch is raising money for her. Now we know why fox is alwyas mentioning her in an adversary role to try and galvanize the dem's.

Finally, my proof clinton is a closet republican sell-out.

This is why we need four parties. The ultra right and left and the two center. This way we minimize the saboturs in each party and we can get real representation. Let the people decide what country we are.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"While we Republicans have gotten off track, we know it, and are working hard to get back to our principles and values."

Nativism and bigotry? Paranoia and prejudice?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | September 11, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

What's up drindl. I've been on attack so long, never said what's up to you.

What's up.

The gop loves to talk about the "liberal" media. I think it is just to keep fox on the air. BEcause if their is no left news, tere can be no right news, if we keep the playing feild fair.

The gop can't have that. I'm sure many many journalist are liberal, but what about the editors. What about the heads. I watch fox I watch CNN, not much differance (other than fox's constant liberal bashing). MSNBC with matthews and tucker, pretty conservative. I don't see a "liberal bias". The only "liberal" I see is olberman. I think he's just filling a niche. But without olberman what tv news would the left have?

not that I want an anti-o'reilly. I think fox should be pulled. The time has come, now

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

' While we Republicans have gotten off track, we know it, and are working hard to get back to our principles and values.'

which would be 'blood for oil?'

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"Special Report: Black and White and Re(a)d All Over
Black and White and Re(a)d All Over is a comprehensive and unprecedented analysis of syndicated columnists from 96 percent of English-language daily U.S. newspapers. Because of the time, labor, and difficulty involved in gathering such a wide scope of information about these newspapers, no one has ever before determined exactly where these columnists run. The report shows that conservatives are carried in far more newspapers, with much greater reach than their progressive counterparts, giving conservatives a distinct advantage
"


http://mediamatters.org/

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

"Special Report: Black and White and Re(a)d All Over
Black and White and Re(a)d All Over is a comprehensive and unprecedented analysis of syndicated columnists from 96 percent of English-language daily U.S. newspapers. Because of the time, labor, and difficulty involved in gathering such a wide scope of information about these newspapers, no one has ever before determined exactly where these columnists run. The report shows that conservatives are carried in far more newspapers, with much greater reach than their progressive counterparts, giving conservatives a distinct advantage
"


http://mediamatters.org/

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Look what I found In Newsweek, 2005:

'President Bush last week appointed nine campaign contributors, including three longtime fund-raisers, to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a 16-member panel of individuals from the private sector who advise the president on the quality and effectiveness of U.S. intelligence efforts. After watching the fate of Michael Brown as head of FEMA and Harriet Miers as Supreme Court nominee, you might think the president would be wary about the appearance of cronyism--especially with a critical national-security issue such as intelligence. Instead, Bush reappointed William DeWitt, an Ohio businessman who has raised more than $300,000 for the president's campaigns, for a third two-year term on the panel.

Other appointees included former Commerce secretary Don Evans, a longtime Bush friend; Texas oilman and Bush friend Ray Hunt;'

Okay, a friend and financial supporter of Bush, who also happens to be on a 'committee overseeing intelligence issues' has just signed the very first Iraqi oil contract, with the Kurds--circumventing the Iraqi federal government. How does this make those Sunnis and Shia actually trying to form a unified Iraq feel?

God I thought I was cynical about this before. And this happened last weekend--and not a single major paper, reported on it. So much for the 'liberal media.'

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

what exactly are the repub's doing to fix what thye have done the last 15 years? Cause I don't see a change.

crickets crickets.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Point taken bill thanks. And thanks for all the great work you and you party have done for this copuntry the last 15 years. Thaks for the memories. Thanks for the sabotage.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the liberal attack dogs are out in full force on this blog. I won't waste much time here.

As a Long time Republican, I would echo someone else's previous comment: Yes, Democrats, please keep moving on to the moveon.org mentality... While we Republicans have gotten off track, we know it, and are working hard to get back to our principles and values.

If you Democrats choose to become "moveon.org types", our rebuilding task will be all that much easier.

Posted by: Bill Sanford | September 11, 2007 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Oops. Forgot to change to a tag name. You know my name AAAAAAAHHHHHH:)

A christian man is invincable. A christian man has nothing to fear but God.

One world one people. Ignore the name. My real name is Bob. Bob smith :)

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama's 9/11 message. thought I'd share the wealth.

"Dear MAtthew Ben,

Six years ago, on a bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, a new kind of enemy came to America's shores.

We will never forget the images of that terrible day -- the planes vanishing into buildings, the thick black clouds of smoke, and the haunting pictures of the missing.

On this anniversary, we pause to remember each and every victim of those attacks.

We celebrate the lives that were tragically cut short. We grieve with the families and friends who lost loved ones. We honor the service and sacrifice of the emergency responders who set an example to the whole world that in America we are our brother's keeper and our sister's keeper.

And we pause to honor the brave men and women of the United States military -- and their families -- who have borne such a heavy burden for the last six years.

We also remember how Americans were stirred to a common purpose. On the lines to donate blood or the candlelight vigils that stretched across our country, there was no red America and there was no blue America. We were united in our grief for our fellow citizens. We were united in our resolve to stand with one another and to stand up to terror. We were united as Americans.

Six years later, the threat to America has only grown. Al Qaeda has reconstituted a new safe-haven where it trains recruits and plots attacks. Al Qaeda's top two leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, continue to disseminate their hate-filled propaganda and inspire legions of followers. Like-minded extremists have struck in scores of countries. The war in Iraq continues to fuel terror and extremism. A Taliban insurgency rages on in Afghanistan. In too many disconnected corners of the world, hate is casting a shadow over hope.

Our calling today remains the same as it was on 9/11. We must write a new chapter in American history. We must bring justice to the terrorists who killed on our shores. We must devise new strategies, develop new capabilities, and build new alliances to defeat the threats of the 21st century. We must extend hope to the hopeless corners of the world and reaffirm our core values to counter the hateful message of the extremists. And we must secure a more resilient homeland.

To write that new American story, we must recapture that sense of common purpose that we had on September 11, 2001.

America is bigger than the challenge that came to our shores. Let us honor the legacy of those we lost by coming together anew. Let us always mark this day by affirming that hope will triumph over fear, and that a new generation of Americans will seek a safer, freer, and more perfect union.

Barack Obama
"

Posted by: rufus (obama) | September 11, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"Let me ask you in particular, Rufus, do you acknowledge the idea that the people we're fighting in Iraq, the same people who are beheading civilian women and children, the same people who are claiming the Iraq is the forefront of this epic battle, the same people who are sending their children into crowded cities with bombs strapped to their chests...are evil?

Can you comprehend the idea of evil? Or are you going to say that it's just a different culture? Maybe you might say that the United States is to blame for the radical sects of Islam?

Tell me...do you believe evil exists? If so...how would YOU define evil?"


I am a christian man. If you want the defination of evil, read the bible. What did Jesus say? As to the terrorists, I've pondered this long and hard. BUT, you are setting a trap that I will not fall in. Murder is sin. Think on that. I have not many muslims who are freindly to me (white man blond hair). But that is what makes the christian faith so much stronger than the others. The love for your enemies.

I will also add. If russia was driving tanks through main street, I might throw rocks at them. I might feel oppressed by an outside influence. I agree with mr paul on this one. If we weren't in the middle east, the middle east would hav eno reason to attack AMERCIA. They may get the jews or SA. But they would be attacking america. I'll leave it to you where our loyalties lie and want we should do for our "allies".

But lying to the american people and sending our brothers to war, on a lie, is not one of them. Espiecally given bush's oil history and nazi ties.

back to point. Both sides are evil. I tend to think bush and the gop are more evil. To me bush and the terrorsit are fighting for the same thing. Does that make both sides terrorsits?

The muslims are not lying to their people to get them to fight though, are they?

I could go on. But you don't want that. You just want a straw man to attack. You just want something to attack other than the facts to practice your gop talking points. Continue. Or ask a question. I can and will enlighten you. But you must meet me half way zouk.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Stop tapping your foot, zouk... get back in the basement. you can't go to union station again.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I just found this interesting little bit of news:

Kuridstan just signed an illegal [according to the Iraqi government] oil treaty with a Texas Company --owned by Ray L. Hunt, a Bush Pioneer.

'Iraq's Oil Minister has said that a deal signed between the US-based Hunt Oil Co. and the autonomous Kurdish administration is illegal.

The agreement authorizing Hunt Oil to proceed with oil exploration in Iraq was signed on the weekend.

Speaking to reporters in Vienna, Hussain al-Shahristani underlined that the inked contract is worthless from the point of view of Iraq's central government, given that such deals are illegal before being approved by the federal authorities.'

This is so transparent it would be funny if it wasn't for the nearly 4000 dead Americans and countless wounded.

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

union station is too far from my mothers basement

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Who says the media is liberal biased? This move-on ad featuring General Petraous was over the top for sure, but what about the Republican Congressman who said that the struggle our nation faced in WWII was nothing in comparison to global war on terror. Give me a break! In WWII this nation was in a fight for its life.

Posted by: bradcpa | September 11, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"for the record, everytime an ultra liberal candidate is backed by the ultra liberal moonbat brigade they lose. Ask Lieberman. and many others.

what could be easier for Repubs than to have moveon and Kos and huff come out in favor of hillary. A cake walk to victory. and so it shall be.
"


You gop'ers are living by old outdated rules. The rules have changed. The internet and 9/11 changed the rules. i know fred thompson and the whole gop is acting like business as usual. Your in for a rude awakening.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

'Both Petraeus and Hume repeatedly referred to the Enemy in Iraq as "Al Qaeda." The NYT/CBS poll yesterday revealed that 40% of Republicans in this country -- 40% -- still believe that Saddam personally planned the 9/11 attacks.'

Mark in Austin and JimD-- As I said earlier, I didn't like the headline of the ad, I think General Petreus deserves more respect than that, but do you think it was wrong to question his numbers [in a more respectful fashion] when they are so different from the GAO's and international sources, like the Red Cross? Especially in light of the fact that he won't disclose how they were arrived at?

Do you think it was non-partisan [as is a soldier's duty] to appear on a station [an exclusive even] that is enormously partisan and contantly attacking and smearing half of all
Americans?

And what of his agreeing with Brit Hume that this war is about fighting al-queda, who attacked us, when the General knows firsthand only about 2 or 3 % of the fighters are al-queda, and then not even associated with bin Ladin?

As I said, I didn't like the tenor of the ad... but what do you think about the above? I respect you both, and would like to know.

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"At least the american people are fed up with your antics and your sabotage. Imagine a world with no gop. Imagien what we could get down as a nation, world. Imagine what we could do if we didn't have evil fascsits sabotaging us for little pieces of green paper on it."

The dems dream of some Utopian society where we can all get along and eat smores together...meanwhile, back on earth...

Sorry guys, your Utopia doesn't exist nor will it ever exist. The fact is that there is EVIL in this world that is more than happy to acknowledge it's own presence...why are the "enlightened" people of our society unable to do so?

Let me ask you in particular, Rufus, do you acknowledge the idea that the people we're fighting in Iraq, the same people who are beheading civilian women and children, the same people who are claiming the Iraq is the forefront of this epic battle, the same people who are sending their children into crowded cities with bombs strapped to their chests...are evil?

Can you comprehend the idea of evil? Or are you going to say that it's just a different culture? Maybe you might say that the United States is to blame for the radical sects of Islam?

Tell me...do you believe evil exists? If so...how would YOU define evil?

Posted by: DocterJay | September 11, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Alright. Enough. The next election will tell. I'm sick of trying to convince you gop'ers the sky is blue.


Good luck gop. Things have gotten so much better for you since the 06 elections. This moveon ad is really the turning point for you. Way to go. Good luck.


Now when you lose don't cry. Don't whine/ don't blame. Get back in the closet for a generation AND EKKP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT. You had your time. You sold the coutnry out. No more soup for you:)

Peace

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

The more I read these blogs and other article, the more I bless freedom of speech. It is a wonderful thing. The more you hear or read, the more you can distinguish the fantatics from the true thinkers. Carry on.

Posted by: judsea | September 11, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

for the record, everytime an ultra liberal candidate is backed by the ultra liberal moonbat brigade they lose. Ask Lieberman. and many others.

what could be easier for Repubs than to have moveon and Kos and huff come out in favor of hillary. A cake walk to victory. and so it shall be.

Posted by: dd | September 11, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn IS NOT the Democratic party- all it serves to do is further enfranchise rich, white liberals. The only reason it has any power is because those folks give money, but in the end it is votes that matter. MoveOn is a Republican dream come true. It is the last gasp of a dying portion of the left that relies on moral absolutism and has destroyed truly progressive momentum by alienating low-income groups and minorities. They are elitist and misguided and have no real impact on policy outcomes or elections. They sure get a hell of alot of press though, and tarnish the image of true progressives in the process. They will dwindle to nothing when Bush is gone because they have failed to present a positive policy vision.

Bush is the best thing that ever happened to them. And the Dems for that matter- both groups are pathetic and are guilty of the same political crimes as the Republicans- polarization of the political process when consensus is needed in the face of great crises. We know what they are against- but what the hell are they for? Pulling out tomorrow and leaving Iraq in chaos on the rationale that we never should have gone in so we have no responsibility now? It's much tougher to stand for something rather than against everything.

Posted by: Evan | September 11, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

And just to clear up the gop lies. I love my country very much. the old me died when I joined the military, a new man was created.

With that said I love my COUNTRY very much. What do you republicans love. Money? PArty? Does your love of money make you love the republicans's or fear the democrats? If the republcians are selling this country out for money, what does that make you?

I love my country very much. I dislike the people who are destorying it for their own greed/political party. All independant thinkers should know that. look at their tactics. who is speaking truth and who is speaking lies. Who is trying to get tot eh bottom of things which side is trying to destroy the debate with that which does not matter. The future is now. The next generation are not as stupid as their fathers and grandfathers. So stupid as to follow the clams to the feast. For what? Capitalism? What is more important?

Love of country?

OR

Love of money?

If you choose the latter are you a sell-out tresonous traitor? If not why?

Crckets crickets crickets.

ANd you wonder wh y iunload on you gop propogating fascists daily.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Thank God for MoveOn. The media may parrot the Bush lies and the Dem leaders may play coward but somebody had to lead us and speak the truth. I only wish the Democrats or traditional media would go back to opposing this corrupt adminstration instead of enabling it.

Posted by: Greg in LA | September 11, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I am krishna. stop using my name rufas

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

SS

"Democrats want troops to come home but that is not possible because the frightened American sheep did not give the Democrats the 67 Senate votes needed to do so. "

Nonsense. Reid only needs 41 to block funding. It is ridiculous to suggest that his hands are tied without 67 votes.

Posted by: Robert | September 11, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Are we in America safer than we were before 9/11? Who thought this question would be answered immediately? Demand for instant gratification in the personal choices of Westerners has turned into demand for instant gratification in worldwide matters of life and death. Of course, the war in Iraq rallied jihadists against us; of course, the enemy's plots expanded in number and geographical range. After Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, the Nazis succeeded in occupying most of the continent of Europe; after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese invaded and held much of the Asian mainland. War is not a quick fix; politics produces quick fixes, and war is an admission that politics has failed, and that "other means" (in the famous phrase of the military strategist Clausewitz) are necessary.

The human, financial, and technological resources of Al-Qaida have diminished immensely since 9/11: it lost its Afghan base and then plunged into the Iraqi bloodbath, in which it is being defeated. Rather than a second Vietnam for the U.S. - comparing two wars that really have almost nothing in common - Iraq could be a fatal quagmire for al-Qaida. With the increasing failure of Iraqi Sunnis to rally to AQI, the enemy seeks to export the Iraqi jihad to the weakest area on the Western front: Europe.

Posted by: ss | September 11, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

This time, I promise I'm only going to hit the submit button once....

There seems to be a lot of despair among my fellow "progressives" (I'm really beginnning the hate that term because it's so Frank Luntz) about the MoveOn.org ad. I'm of the opinion that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and -- most importantly - quacks like a duck, there's nothing wrong with calling it a duck. For those of you who need comfort in these trying times, what say you check out the following:

MoveOn.org, a substantiation of the remarks in the ads
McClatchydc.com, What Crocker and Pratraeus Are Not Telling Us

Btw, I'm a liberal and damned proud of it!

Posted by: Lemeritus | September 11, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is using my post name today. Do I hear any of you fascists out there calling for him to be ban, ignored, scorned?

do I do that. Any independant thinker should be able to read this blog and see what you middle school kids are about.

Lie spin and discredit. Attack the messanger. Lie lie. Propogate.

At least the american people are fed up with your antics and your sabotage. Imagine a world with no gop. Imagien what we could get down as a nation, world. Imagine what we could do if we didn't have evil fascsits sabotaging us for little pieces of green paper on it.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

rufas, meet me at union station. I'll wear my pink oxfords. I'll show you what they taught me in basic, before I was found out.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

don't ask

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Liberal, liberal, liberal. A word used by right wing nuts to attack Americans of decency.

Moveon.org is irrelevant. They are a completely ineffective organization and an embarrassment to Democrats. That's why Karl Rove and White House spokesmen - like Tony Fratto - and Bushie media - like Chris - always like to point to them as representative of Democrats.

Liberals want big government, more spending, more troops and more nation building. That's what Bush wants. Democrats want troops to come home but that is not possible because the frightened American sheep did not give the Democrats the 67 Senate votes needed to do so.

The problem with moveon.org is not that they are too left wing or too right wing or too centrist or too conservative. The problem is that they are incompetent. They are not skilled. Their intuition is about as sharp as Michael Chertoff's gut
or Chris's column.

The liberals at the Washington Post want to keep throwing money and lives away nation-building in Iraq. Like Pat Buchanan, Democrats want to bring the troops home.

Posted by: Singing Senator | September 11, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

rufas, I won't tell if you won't, I got kicked out already for that.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"is not going to knock on your door then dust off it's feet before entering your house...it's already in your house raping your daughters, but you're too busy looking through the peephole of your front door to hear the cries for help coming from your daughter's room."

Posted by: Speaking of 'sick' | September 11, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Of course MoveOn funds the real backbone of the democratic party, that's obvious. However, Fox news does the same for the republican party.

The problem, though, is that General Petraeus' was unanimously approved by the Senate, this man's crudencials are beyond question...but still you have Senators, and presidential hopefulls (Obama) that are ignoring the FACT that the "surge" is having a real impact, and a positive one at that. You have Senators going to Syria, a dictatorship much akin to that of Pre-War Iraq, claiming that Syria is doing it's best to help ensure the stability of Iraq, yet Syria's borders are the most porous of any of the surrounding nations, where the majority of these so called "freedom fighters" are coming from.

Mr.Obama asked a question and during the long-winded, regurgitated, and intellectually absent statement he said something along the lines of "well since Al Qaeda's presence was nonexistent before the war...etc", I can't help but roll my eyes and think "this guy is seriously running for presidency of the greatest nation on the planet?" What the democrats are focusing on is simply immature and childish. President Bush never declared the war to be on IRAQ, he declared a war against fundamentalist and extremist terrorists throughout the world. Why is it that the democrats didn't give a big fuss about Afghanistan? Why is it that when there is an even MORE obvious villan being confronted, then and only then will the so-called "leaders" of our country start to question the motives of invasion? Iraqi blood money being funneled to France, Russia, etc...escentially to all the biggest anti-war in Iraq countries, is being ignored...nobody questions the motives of those countries who would rather leave a madman in power than help establish a peaceful nation in a war-torn section of the world.

Also, nobody seems to remember that shortly after the invasion of Iraq, LYBIA dismanteled it's wmd programs because according to the lybian president "we were afraid of the USA invading". The short term memory of both the republicans and the democrats is asounding.

The media in the U.S.A has the memory span of a goldfish and the spine of a slug. They are too busy reporting on a couple random atrocities commited by some of the USA boots on the ground to notice that we are in a WAR. WE are in a war, this war, as seen by the curent state of terrorism all throughout Europe, is not going to knock on your door then dust off it's feet before entering your house...it's already in your house raping your daughters, but you're too busy looking through the peephole of your front door to hear the cries for help coming from your daughter's room.

You people make me sick.

Posted by: DocterJay | September 11, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Clinton Campaign Refunding $850,000 Raised by Hsu

(CNSNews.com) - It took a while, but finally on Monday night, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that she will return $850,000 in campaign donations raised by Norman Hsu, who was jailed last week after attempting to flee from criminal charges in California. The refunds, among the largest in political history, the Washington Post reported, follow weeks of reports about Hus's shady dealings. Sen. Clinton, acting out of "an abundance of caution," her campaign said - ordered the campaign to return donations from about 260 contributors tied to Hsu. The campaign would not identify the donors involved, however. The Clinton campaign also plans to begin conducting criminal background checks on big fundraisers to prevent a similar incident in the future, the report said.

Posted by: another clinton record | September 11, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

rufus, I'm in the military I'm your bunkmate

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

NY Times: 'Empty Calories' From Petraeus, Crocker

(CNSNews.com) - The New York Times on Tuesday dismissed Gen. David Petraeus' testimony before Congress as "empty calories." In an editorial bearing that headline, the newspaper said the nation did not get an "honest accounting" from either Petraeus or U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Instead, "It got more excuses for delaying serious decisions for many more months, keeping the war going into 2008 and probably well beyond." The editorial described some of Petraeus' claims as "disingenuous," and it basically said any recommendation short of an "early, prudent" troop withdrawal would be less than the American people deserve

Posted by: more Dems | September 11, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Mark -- I said I don't condone the ad. My only point was that I think it's a mistake to compare that particular statement to those made by Ann Coulter, who for me is in a different league. You are, of course, free to disagree and I respect your opinion.

Not that you asked, but my personal view is that General Petraeus likely believes in his mission and genuinely thinks that the presentation he made, which clearly did accentuate positives and downplay challenges, was fair. At the same time, I can't ignore the fact that BBC coverage of his testimony questioned the rosy picture he pained.

Personally, I would rather point out such discrepencies instead of arguing that Petraeus's testimony was intentionally misleading. Ultimately, the idea is to get the truth accross. At the same time, I DO understand the frustration that people feel regarding the war.

In short, I think it's pretty natural for folks to feel betrayed regarding this administation's actions leading up to and since we went into Iaqu; from the get go, the public hasn't been leveled with and I think there's a palpable sense that this testimony is a continuation of the administration's spin. I think this ad is problematic in that it aims that frustration and anger at Patraeus without any proof of his personal motivations, but I'm not going to equate that mistake - and it is one - with the hate mongering perpetrated by Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Colin | September 11, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Park Police Investigate Vietnam Memorial Damage

(CNSNews.com) - As cleanup efforts continue in the removal of an oily substance from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., authorities are investigating how the substance got on the wall, but warned it is "premature" to label it vandalism. The wall was defaced sometime over the weekend when an oily substance was sprayed along the base of the granite monument. The black material appeared to stain the dark grey wall and tainted some of the more than 58,000 names engraved on it. National Park Service preservation and maintenance personnel have been working since Saturday to remove the substance, and NPS spokesman Bill Line on Tuesday told Cybercast News Service the organization "believes it will be possible to remove the substance entirely

Posted by: more Dems | September 11, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

9/11 Conspiracy Theories Gain Ground, Study Finds

(CNSNews.com) - The idea that the Bush administration participated in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is not limited to fringe Web sites and conspiracy theorists, according to a poll commissioned by a Web site that promotes alternative explanations for the events of Sept. 11. The poll, conducted by Zogby International for 911Truth.org and released last week, found that 31 percent of Americans do not accept the official explanation for Sept. 11 -- that "19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught U.S. intelligence and military forces off guard." Among that 31 percent, around 26 percent agreed that the American government "knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military, and economic motives." Almost 5 percent believed that U.S. officials "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack

Posted by: more Dems | September 11, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Clinton fundraising flashbacks erupted last week as critics of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) demanded answers about some of her questionable campaign fundraising, aspects of which mirrored the "China-gate" fundraising scandal that plagued the 1996 Bill Clinton-Al Gore campaign.

The face of the Democrats - its chinese

Posted by: yuan wanted | September 11, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"Liberals are some truly sick and disturbed individuals."

As if to remind us what distasteful and divisive comments actually look like. Hating Americans (see John's comments above) = hate America. Unfortunately, those individuals aren't able to see (without medication, at least) the harm they do to their own country.

Bsimon, you are right in that "turning to those tactics only exacerbates the problem" but it isn't obvious to me that large swaths of the right wing noise machine use anything BUT those tactics. While I hate to bring up the tired example of Ann Coulter again she's a prime example of someone who makes a good living off of exactly that, 24/7. The MoveOn ad was a glowing example of restraint in comparison to Coulter's latest book.

Better questions: does Coulter represent the GOP? Does MoveOn represent the D's? We have plenty of answers - all contradicting each other - on this blog already.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 11, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"And they're EXACTLY the same kind of people as those who ran the Swift Boat ads. A self-righteous, dishonest cretin is a self-righteous, dishonest cretin no matter what party they claim to belong to."

YES!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"as you can tell, I just got netflix

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 05:33 PM
"

Stop posting as me coward. If you can't compete leave. If you have balls join the military. Stop humiliating yourself.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

As a conservative, I almost feel I should make a donation to MoveOn.org. If they are the face of the Democratic party, it'll be a GOP landslide in 2008.

Posted by: MM | September 11, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Thank you ted. That's my point most days here when I am "Hurting people's feelings".

You know what hurts my feelings. Not bloggers. Not liars not propogandists. I get angry at them.

What hurts my feelings is my brothers and sisters being murdered everyday. And I'm the bad for saying "offensive" things. What's more offensive?

Thanks ted

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn are morons. They're making all Democrats look bad just to push their stupid, ignorant, shrill agenda. And they're EXACTLY the same kind of people as those who ran the Swift Boat ads. A self-righteous, dishonest cretin is a self-righteous, dishonest cretin no matter what party they claim to belong to.

Posted by: Mark F | September 11, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Why Blame MoveOn?

What is the difference between a Republican Congress and a Democratic Congress in funding this war? One gives everything Bush asks for and the other gives Bush everything he asks for and heaping helping (25 Billion) of pork!

Posted by: Robert | September 11, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

as you can tell, I just got netflix

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Ignored Warnings About Hsu's Dirty Cash Despite being warned months ago that a shady Chinese fundraiser ran an illegal enterprise, Hillary Clinton gladly accepted his hefty donations
Judicial Watch

Posted by: crooked clintons | September 11, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for illustrating my point roper. The gop thinking. If you were military, you must be gop. If you are not gop you were never in the military. Thank you roper.

Does that make you a slave?

Tell me more about myself. If I detailed Fort Benning Ga here, in this blog, would you believe me. Or would I just have visted.

Frickin republcians. Do you realize how crazy you people sound?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Did any reporter ask the hyperventilating Republicans what is more objectionable: and ad by moveon or the number of soldier who have died and by the testimony will continue to die for not much for years to come?

Posted by: Ted | September 11, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

"And the innocents killed on 9/11 will be fully redeemed.
"

Impossible. They are gone. no amount of murders by americans will bring them back. Only take our souls. Only taking our young men and replacing them with something else. Borg. Clones. Dittoheads.


I said yesterday in basic we were not allowed to read. We got our army book, a religous book, AND THEY PROVIDED US WITH STARSHIP TROOPERS. This is the gop mentality. Gop are the citizens, in their mind. the rest of us are ALL IN THEIR COUNTRY. Does that make me an illegal alein, because I was born here but am not a gop member. Not part of you Rosemary's Baby Cult?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

rufus:

You're are confused and ig-nant. Your, apparent, friends at MoveOn have obviously clouded what little sound judgment your parents may have given you. I guess you have never served in the military or know anyone who has. Maybe if you had you would know what it feels like to "truly" have patriotism. I did and so have three generations before me in my family. I'm not saying that to brag but rather to illustrate a point. The democratic party was once a great party. My father and his before were once dems. Now it seems more appropriate to make everyone that has less or little a victim. I say, "free enterprise" was not an episode on Star Trek. I work my tail off, pay my taxes and obey the law. Maybe if the Dems would try to elevate their pees rather than telling them the only way to salvation is us, this country could meet more towards the center.

After what they did the General yesterday, I think they ought to be "soundly" ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: TheRoper | September 11, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I believe, six years after 9/11, that Al-Qaida is losing badly in Iraq, and while George W. Bush perseveres with the promise he made to fulfill America's democratic legacy, Bin Laden is looking for an exit strategy. The Western mainstream media has it backwards; we are winning, the enemy is losing, the war was inevitable and honorable. And the innocents killed on 9/11 will be fully redeemed.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=091107A

Posted by: a good reed | September 11, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

This really is blatant GOP propaganda. It's also baffling to see a man who has a 52% approval rating (which is not all that good considering he has not been involved in any scandal) passed off as a saint who can't be criticized by MoveOn without outrage. Why is it that the Republicans can repeatedly smear and slander Democrats who were war heroes, yet saying "betray us" for Petraues causes outcry? The Republicans have tried this hysterical whining so many times now, doesn't it ever get old?

Really, Chris, your post just shows how hard times are for Republicans.

Posted by: Jon | September 11, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Mithras - Then you are doomed to repeat the past.

Enjoy the McGovernite Wilderness that MoveOn will take you back to.

Posted by: Santana | September 11, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus is a demented shut-in with a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Rufus hates Bush. We get it.

He has been posting non-stop for almost FIVE HOURS. Get out of your mother's basement and get some fresh air for cryin' out loud!
"

Spin spin spin. First it's about moveon. then it's about rufus. Tomorrow it will be about sean penn and the media and judges. There is no shortage of hate and blame for you to point to gop. Why not look in the mirror. what sid ehave you been on the last 15 years? the side of sabotage. The side of treason?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Since when is telling the truth in a mean way worse than a lie?

Moveon.org's ad was harsh, but it was correct. The general is a partisan and the newest in a long line of military men to play the Colin Powell role of Bush cypher that lends credibility.

Just because a far left organization stated this dosn't mean that it is not true.

Why not look at the substance of their argument rather than whine and complain about the fact that they weren't particularly gentle while making that argument?

Many people are arguing in this thread that it is somehow disgraceful to cast doubt on Petreus' credibility by calling him a partisan simply because he wears a military uniform. Wearing a military uniform shouldn't make a person immune to criticism. Granted, Moveon.org should have at least waited until after Petreas gave his report, but they still ended up being correct in what they said.

Just like it was fine to criticize that idiotic General Boykins for his "my god is bigger than your god" remark a couple of years back, it is fine to criticize this general when he gives obviously biased and fictional testimony to Congress. Wait...that isn't exactly a new thing with this administration either is it?

Posted by: J. Crozier | September 11, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm afraid to go outside they might be watching

Posted by: Rufus | September 11, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Liberals are some truly sick and disturbed individuals. Most of the bile they spew stems not from conviction but from serious psychological and emotional issues that truly need to be addressed. Moveon.org is nothing but a congregation of these wackos. Sad truth is, however, these are the same imbeciles that run the party for the past 20 years or so and have done so much damage to this county. It's no wonder (but thank God) they've only managed to get two Dems in the WH in an almost 40 years period.

Posted by: John | September 11, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"In the 1940s and 50s Democrats had on their left wing people who had actually served as spies for the Soviets. In 1944 Roosevelt, disturbed by the leftist antics of his Vice-president, Henry Wallace, replaced Wallace with Truman. Had FDR not made that move it is likely that two Soviet agents, Harry Dexter White and Laurence Duggan, both Soviet agents, would have served in Wallace's cabinet. In the 1970's anti-Us sentiment was prevalent in the Democratic party. That same attitude is present today. In 1972 McGovern won one state. If MoveOn's sentiments continue to prevail in the Democratic party it faces a similar fate next years. I was a liberal Democrat for years. I am no longer."

And just like then. Mccarty and the republcians threw the constitution out the window. Fear ruled the day. Just like today the gop used fear tactics to strip our liberties, accuse all NON-capitalist gop'ers. i wouldn't be so proud of your parties recent history. The red scare started our countries fall. The freedoms they stole then we have never recovered. And the fear of those times created generations of clones dittohead fascists who think "socialism" is a four letter word. Do the research. Read the bible. Socialism is not to be feared but to be embraced. Do the research. don't fear a word. I'll call socialism "balloyhoo" if people will listen to it. RAther than having the ceo's making 50% of the profits the workers should get paid for the product they make.


Now talk your garbage gop. Fear the black hat.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Petraeus failed in Mosul; Petraeus failed at training the Iraq army and security forces.

Now he's pimping for BushCo. As he did in September 2004 when, in the Washington Post, he praised the "progress" being made by the Iraqi security forces.

As Eugene Robinson notes in the Washington Post today, the Iraqi people have markedly different views about Petraeus's so-called "progress."

And the Iraqi people are far more reliable about the real situation on the ground in Iraq than some out-of-touch, Green Zone General toadying up to the Chickenhawk-in-Chief.

I consider the $50 I donated to MoveOn so that the ad could run to be money well spent.

Posted by: mithras | September 11, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Judge writes
"But bsimon my point remains: I would not have read the rest of the ad otherwise. Would you? Reminds me of the saying: there is no such thing as bad PR. MoveOn is certainly testing the validity of that aphorism."

As does mine, which was made way upstream. That being: the ends does not justify the means. I don't think that accusing a 4 star general of betrayal is an effective or appropriate method for debating his numbers.

If you're up in arms about 'swift-boating' or Atwatering or Roving, turning to those tactics only exacerbates the problem. You're right, moveon got the publicity they wanted, but I don't think they've particularly helped achieve the goal they seek.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

A commercial like this really brings up the discussion where politicians and the public on either side throw comments back and forth about who they think is right. In all honesty, I have not seen a unified country since I was born. I wish I could see a strong and controversial discussion on Global Poverty. People are dying needlessly and yet we are upset over a stupid commercial when it is clear we should not be there in iraq.

Posted by: Erica | September 11, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Get real: The reason we lost the McGovern Campaign was because of the same attitude MoveOn.org has now.
We had the students..the left...the activists..but people didn't trust us with the White House, even though they hated Nixon.
If the Democratic nominee embraces MO in the general..get ready for another GOP President.

Posted by: Bob Kholos | September 11, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

rufus:

What us moderates did is give the party the majority in both houses of congress last election. Did you think the left wing accomplished that?

We always have the bomb throwers who think they are being tough by talking tough. But it's us in the trenches who do the actual work who win elections. Try electing a Democrat without us.

MoveOn.org is preaching to the choir. They don't change a single mind.

Posted by: alan in Missoula | September 11, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus and others here, like MoveOn, are transparently invested in defeat and can't bear to see progress in Iraq. It strikes me as very poor form to emotionally hope for your country to lose a war, especially given the ghastly nature of the enemy over there. "

Read the entire blog before you make acusations. I am a former Army infantry soldier. 11B. I, as a young man, offered my life for this country. How can I be for defeat as you say? Does that make sense to anybody else in here. How would that be possible. My point is without political progress, which WILL not happen in this enviornmnet, the military progress is mott. I can say that as a soldier, can't I. So what are we doing? Waiting for political progress. Ok. how long? Are the iraqi's invested in that, or do they want us out.

Read up before you start throwing around presonal acusations and insults, please.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It only takes 41 to defund the war.

Why doesn't MoveOn just keep repeating that over and over and over.

Reid is just another stooge that keep writing blank checks for Bush to sign.

Posted by: another thing | September 11, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Judge - "cook the books"? It may not be the language of a civil indictment, but it'll do as an Art. 107 violation:

"Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, ... makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Were he not a public figure, the statement would be defamatory unless proven true. Public figures are fair game for otherwise defamatory statements because of NYT v. Sullivan and the reach of the 1st A.
That does not make it right.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

notice how no Dems are talking about the substance of Petreus' report. they had already decided before the surge ever started that it would be bad news, that the violence would escalate right before he presented it, that there was no way the military could win.

now that all those Lib predictions have proven false, they are desperate to try to change the subject. winning the war spells electoral defeat for them - the most agregious result possible.

Only the Repubs actually losing a war can fool the voters into electing hillary, otherwise we all know they are weak on defense and want to raise taxes, spend like crazy and socialize everything.

Try Petreus is a liar, see if that works. Ok, then try that the data is skewed. no? how about what we really need is a political solution instead? how about bullets in the back/front confusion? I know, make an attack through one of your surrogates and act as if you don't agree with the tone, just the text. Still not working for you? How about instead of total surrender, we start to talk about a compromise? boy, this is harder than you thought it would be. You sure must wish al gore hadn't invented that internet and we could go back to the old days when the media refused to look up your previous claims. give the Libs a few days. something will stick.

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I agree with you that the GOP will use MoveOn to slam the Democratic leadership; however, given the monumental struggle that the Republicans are engaged in with the war, congressional retirements, and the failed legacy of George W. Bush, they may not be able to rally the troops as they did in 02.

Given the relatively gentle treatment Petraeus has received, thanks no doubt to the masterful maneuverings of the White House and other GOP officials, I thought the add was a breath of fresh air. Americans should raise their voice and challenge leadership in times like these. Look, it is a very unpopular war and people often do and say unpopular things. I certainly hope the Democrats will use the add to their advantage as a way to raise questions; to do, sadly, what they do not have the votes to do: force the issue and bring this disastrous war to its conclusion.

Posted by: Tom | September 11, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Rufus is a demented shut-in with a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Rufus hates Bush. We get it.

He has been posting non-stop for almost FIVE HOURS. Get out of your mother's basement and get some fresh air for cryin' out loud!

Posted by: Frank | September 11, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate Code Pink shouting truth to Alberto Gonzales and General "I am the only one left to agree with Bush" Petraeus! as well as "Move on" and any group of citizens that can gbe heard above the din of corporate propaganda that is on the airwaves every day! people were marching in the streets during Vietnam and saying baby killers because babies were being killed. Now we can only muster up an ad in a newspaper... well shame on us!

Posted by: cristine | September 11, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

But bsimon my point remains: I would not have read the rest of the ad otherwise. Would you? Reminds me of the saying: there is no such thing as bad PR. MoveOn is certainly testing the validity of that aphorism.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 11, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

In the 1940s and 50s Democrats had on their left wing people who had actually served as spies for the Soviets. In 1944 Roosevelt, disturbed by the leftist antics of his Vice-president, Henry Wallace, replaced Wallace with Truman. Had FDR not made that move it is likely that two Soviet agents, Harry Dexter White and Laurence Duggan, both Soviet agents, would have served in Wallace's cabinet. In the 1970's anti-Us sentiment was prevalent in the Democratic party. That same attitude is present today. In 1972 McGovern won one state. If MoveOn's sentiments continue to prevail in the Democratic party it faces a similar fate next years. I was a liberal Democrat for years. I am no longer.

Posted by: mhr | September 11, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"Just a question for those who believe General Petraeus has betrayed his men and is a traitor? Is he the only one? How far down does the betrayal go? Are his Division Commanders traitors? Brigade Commanders? Anyone officer who supports the surge? Any enlisted man who volunteers to serve a tour? I'm just curious how far down you feel the betrayal goes? Or does it stop with General Petraeus?"


No. Your not going to twist and use the soldiers for your political points anymore. I was a soldier. Like I've said here many times. A soldier cannot refuse to follow orders, UNLESS HE DETERMINES THEM UNLAWFUL. Read that again, if you must. The soldiers are not to blame. They should not have to question their "leaders" are doing what's best for the nation. It should be a forgone conclusion OUR leaders are not traitors, but are doign the good of the country. They were lied to. Military families SHOULD be the most outraged by the last 7 years.

What get;s me. Is when the genrals like batiste eaton and pace as well as soldiers like Marine Sergeant Adam Kokesh get silenced and arrested after they RETIRE. Because you can't speak up while your serving, unless pro potus stance. So what is an anti-war vet to do. Get out to speak out. We have free speech right. WRONG. Fired, arrested, black balled, mislabeled. Frickin republcians. Your time is up.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Judge writes
"So far, based on my reading of these comments and the ad itself the only nasty thing about the ad appears to be two words:

"betray us""


And that word choice was likely a calculated decision made in order to draw attention to their ad. In that regard it was a resounding success. The trouble is, as you note, nobody's talking about the rest of the ad. In that regard, the headline is a resounding failure.

.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

rufus seems to suffer from moderate- to severe megalomania. Review his posts where he takes credit for various events such as the advertising pulls on O'Reilly's show as well more recently how Colin Powell thinks. They are getting all their ideas from rufus!

As such I do not think there is any hope getting him to stop posting here, he is deluded enough to think everything that happens is because of him which validates his belief that everyone stops in their tracks when he speaks.

Posted by: Freud | September 11, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Big Red is golden for those serving red, white and blue

Matthew O'Brien grew up in Oshkosh, Neb., population 762, and the self-proclaimed, "Goose Hunting Capital of Nebraska." The local hospital has exactly 10 beds. The newspaper publishes once a week. The nearest major airport is 220 miles away in Denver.

"The middle of nowhere," says O'Brien, 22.

Nebraska fans are well known for being among the most loyal in the sport.
Maybe that's why O'Brien enlisted in the Army in 2004 and became a paratrooper -- 82nd Airborne, 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, Delta Company. He did a tour of duty in Iraq three years ago and was deployed to Afghanistan in February. Afghanistan is where he lost the vision in his right eye and suffered partial sight loss in his left eye.

"I don't think they can fix it," he says. "I've been to doctors in Germany, San Antonio, Washington, D.C. They're trying to do the best they can. It kind of sucks because I was right-eye dominant."

Kind of sucks? But this is Spc. Matthew O'Brien for you. Never met a day he didn't like. Glass-entirely-full type of guy. E-mail address begins, "OB1hotstuff. "

"I just serve my country," says O'Brien, whose father, Michael (National Guard), and younger brother, Zach (Army), are also serving in Iraq. "Some people do different jobs and I chose this one."

Through it all -- in tiny Oshkosh ... in Iraq ... in Afghanistan ... and now at the Womack Army Medical Center in Fort Bragg, N.C. -- there has been one red-and-white constant in O'Brien's life: Nebraska football.

Even though Oshkosh is closer to the Wyoming and Colorado state lines than it is to the Nebraska campus in Lincoln, O'Brien is a child of the corn. He knows more about Cornhuskers football than its coach, Bill Callahan. Maybe even more than the great Tom Osborne himself.

Eric Crouch this. Scott Frost that. Is there a detail of any Nebraska game that O'Brien doesn't know?

It didn't matter if he was in the Middle East or the middle of nowhere, O'Brien never forgot about the team he loved. And as it turns out, Nebraskans never forgot about him, either.

This is where Art Ladenburg, NU Class of '60, comes in. Ladenburg lives in Fairfax, Va., and spent 30 years in the CIA. He knows a little something about special ops.

Ladenburg is nuts about the Cornhuskers. He knew Nebraska was playing at Wake Forest on Sept. 8, knew that Groves Stadium seats less than 30,000 fans, and knew tickets would be at a premium (for ACC games, Wake is required to provide the opposing school with 4,300 tickets; for the Nebraska game, just 3,000 tickets for 15,000 requests). So he bought a Wake Forest season ticket. And he wasn't the only NU fan to pay anywhere from $99 to $190 for the Demon Deacons' six-game home package.

"We're a little crazy here in Huskerland," Ladenburg says.

But in a good way. Nebraska fans give a standing O to the opposing team, win or lose, at the end of every game. They're not college football's most patient fans, but they're the most polite. Even most of their hate mail is nice.


Nebraskans are good-hearted people who do good-hearted things.
--Randy York, Nebraska's associate athletic director
"The greatest fans in all of college athletics," says Randy York, Nebraska's associate athletic director. "Nebraskans are good-hearted people who do good-hearted things."

Ladenburg is one of those people. He noticed that the Sept. 15 Wake Forest opponent was none other than Army. Bing. "There must be a military hospital nearby," he said to himself.

There was: the Womack Army Medical Center, home of the Warrior Transition Battalion. The WTB includes 345 soldiers, some of whom underwent single-limb amputations, or suffer from mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), or, in O'Brien's case, have experienced acute loss of vision.

Ladenburg decided to donate the Army ticket from his Wake Forest season-ticket package to the wounded soldiers at Fort Bragg. Then he posted his idea on a Nebraska football fan Web site. Before long, dozens, then hundreds of Huskers fans were pledging their Army tickets to the WTB.

"Fans have actually gone out and bought more [Wake Forest] tickets," Ladenburg says. "What group deserves it more than those guys?"


Fans have actually gone out and bought more [Wake Forest] tickets. What group deserves it more than those guys?
--Art Ladenburg
At last count, Nebraska fans have donated about 200 tickets. They'll spring for more as soon as they hear there're 345 Warriors.

"The amount of participation for this is extraordinary," says Lt. William Bishop, who coordinates operations for the battalion. "It's one of the largest contributions we've had."

On Wednesday at Fort Bragg, a first sergeant asked members of the Warrior Battalion, "Anybody here from Nebraska?"

"Yes, sir," O'Brien said. "I'm from Nebraska."

"Well, there's some people who want to talk to you. They have some tickets for a Nebraska game. You want to go?"

Are you kidding? Does a Husker wear red and love lard? Of course, O'Brien wanted to go.

O'Brien can't drive a car because of his eyesight, so a friend from the base shuttled him 2½ hours from Fort Bragg to Winston-Salem. Nebraska fans invited him to a party Friday night, and on Saturday he watched (sort of -- his eyesight made it difficult to even read the scoreboard) the Huskers beat Wake, 20-17. It was the first Nebraska game he had ever attended in person.


Cornhusker fans, you can't beat them. I hope I get a chance to thank everybody."
--Spc. Matthew O'Brien
"This is a dream," he says.

Now he has a ticket for the Army game.

"And I got lucky on that one too," he says. "The guy who had the tickets didn't know I was already going to the Nebraska game. When I told him -- and offered to give him back the Army tickets -- he said, 'No, no, you look like you love football more than I do.'"

He does, which is why he'll happily take whatever seat they give him Saturday afternoon at Wake. And if the traffic isn't too bad, he might make it back to Fort Bragg in time for the second half of the USC-Nebraska game.

Whatever happens, O'Brien says he owes Nebraska fans a handshake.

"Cornhusker fans, you can't beat them," he says. "I hope I get a chance to thank everybody."

Actually, Matt, it's the other way around.

Gene Wojciechowski is the senior national columnist for ESPN.com. You can contact him at gene.wojciechowski@espn3.com. He co-authored Jerome Bettis' autobiography "The Bus: My Life In and Out of a Helmet," which is available now.

Posted by: ThrowThemAllOut | September 11, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"You notice how no one is talking about the substance of the MoveOn ad, they are just saying it was in bad taste."

You have MoveOn to thank for that. By opening with a headline that called his character into question, they made people angry and less likely to read the substance of the ad.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

So far, based on my reading of these comments and the ad itself the only nasty thing about the ad appears to be two words:

"betray us"

Nothing else in the ad is distasteful or divisive. Nothing. If so, please quote it instead of clumsily attempting to dodge the truth.

Contrast that with the pages of cr*p that the RNC cranks out on a daily basis (and others have pointed out the absolute bilge other members of the right wing noise machine generate) and it's clear this is a political molehill being elevated into a mountain.

MoveOn shrewdly calculated that the tiny bit of inflammatory content (2 whole words, oh my!) would attract vast attention. And it has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Kudos to MoveOn for successfully attracting attention to their cause.

If they had said something more benign, would any of you have read it today? I certainly wouldn't have even known that it existed if CC hadn't unconciously acted as a sock puppet for the RNC.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 11, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Rufus and others here, like MoveOn, are transparently invested in defeat and can't bear to see progress in Iraq. It strikes me as very poor form to emotionally hope for your country to lose a war, especially given the ghastly nature of the enemy over there.

Posted by: fei | September 11, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"as Jahr--MoveOn is part of the Democratic Party"

If Bush and his cronies are the neo-cons, MoveOn are the neo-libs.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

One can only assume from the comments on this post that MoveOn has hit a nerve. All of the attention to their ad is a obvious maneuver by the White House and their enablers to change the subject... or in this case, the blame.

Regardless of all the ads and all of the hot air being discharged in D.C., one thing remains certain... our cycling kid, "kicking ass" Decider isn't lisening.... don't confuse him with reality, his mind is made up. He'll just keep stalling until he shuffles off to Texas.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | September 11, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

People, people, the status of the War is the same now as when the Surge began and when the Mid-Term elections were held. Iraquis are dying at about a 100 a day rate and Americans at about a 5-9 a day rate. The polticial conditions causing this state of affairs have not changed a fact that even Petraeus. acknowledges this. Fearless Leader wants the War handed over to the next President. It appears he will get his wish. However, if the War is being prosecuted with the same "success" as Petraeus proclaims now (the odds are better than even on this) the Democrats win increase Congessional majorities and the Presidency. The attack on Petraeus by MoveOn will not increase support for this misbegotten prolongation of a failed War.

Mas Jahr--MoveOn is part of the Democratic Party and the only pipsqueaks I know who demonize or criminalize every political disagreement are in the Republican Party as personified by Karl Rove.

Posted by: A Hardwick | September 11, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

"Chris: I know you find it easy to purvey conventional wisdom. When Republicans call Democrats traitors, or Ann Coulter or Bill o'Rielly say awful things where are you? Hiding in the closet too afraid to take on Republicans. This Democrat recalls the swiftboating and is ready to fight. So I say to MoveOn: don't back down; don't give a moment's thought to the beltway purveyors of Republican talking points. Do what you do and stand up to the Republicans. If the MSM does not like it too bad. Let them go and have a coffee with Tony Snow or Ed Gillespie."

I was wrong. Post of the day. Two great points. nothing else has to be said on the subject. You tried your misdirection gop. not even the republicans in congress fought the fight you wanted. You can't even control your own party, much less the other side.

You are losing YOUR war agaisnt teh american people gop. GOD BLESS AMERICA

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I wrote this morning at 8:33A:

Suggesting that Petraeus is trying to "cook the books" and that he will "betray us" falls short of calling him a traitor, but it does impugn his character and accuse him of dereliction of duty.

I think that MoveOn deserves universal scorn for this tactic. It was the kind of gratuitous insult, with sophomoric wordplay, that characterizes the effluent of Ms. Coulter, among others.
------------------------------------
By now, MoveOn has heard the general testify that he does not know if there is any connection between the tactical successes and our national security.
___________________________________
Nevertheless, I suspect that they will not apologize.
I suppose they and you who believe that calling a general guilty of a court martial offense [violations of at least Articles 107 and 131-134] for testimony you ANTICIPATE you will not agree with all think you are morally and culturally superior to Ms. Coulter. Get over it. Colin, you of all people know better.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | September 11, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"You notice how no one is talking about the substance of the MoveOn ad, they are just saying it was in bad taste. When did America become a place where someone can lie or fudge statistics and when you call them on it, and you cite your evidence that what they are saying is not true and they continue to say it, you still can not call them a liar. The issue is that the military says its independent, they want to be treated like they only serve the nation, but they serve a President, and this particular President has no problem lying and expecting those who work for him to lie. We just had a truly independent auditor David Walker, from the GAO comes in and testifies last week, and he said the exact same thing that the MoveOn ad says, that there is no reduction in violence, and when asked why there is a difference in their numbers versus the Pentagon, he says, because "we are independent." So if you have a general who cooks the books as proven by an independent auditor, why is he then off limits from being called a liar!?!

Posted by: RCD | September 11, 2007 03:54 PM

"

pOST OF THE DAY

Posted by: RUFUS | September 11, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Just a question for those who believe General Petraeus has betrayed his men and is a traitor? Is he the only one? How far down does the betrayal go? Are his Division Commanders traitors? Brigade Commanders? Anyone officer who supports the surge? Any enlisted man who volunteers to serve a tour? I'm just curious how far down you feel the betrayal goes? Or does it stop with General Petraeus?

Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Yup Zip

Typical Bush White House Response. When attacked, use surrogates to Swift Boat the messenger in the press regardless of the truth in their comments.

Posted by: poor richard | September 11, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Ladies and Gentleman

Some one above said that the attacks on Move On are like 'Shooting the messenger'.

If no one has put things together with the staging of Petraeus and Crocker by a "war room" at the White House", the seeds of this conversation we sown by Ed Gillespie.

This is part of the White House's plan to keep this disaster going through 2008.

I don't know if the president thinks he can win the War in Iraq. I suspect he does. Or he just wants to set up a hand off to a hoped for Republican successor to keep the troops on the ground in Iraq indefinitely.

And like Poor Richard (and almost every comemntator on McLaughlin last weekend) Bush, Cheney and Gillespie are setting up to attack Iran in 2008.

Pax Americana?

Posted by: zippy | September 11, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

99% of Liberals give the rest a bad name.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

But it's questionable whether even the smoothest-talking salesman could appease public opinion--or Petraeus's Pentagon detractors--at this point. NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will "differ substantially" from Petraeus's recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will "recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there." The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. "There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views" to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20712196/site/newsweek/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn got it right. And it is amazing how in four+ years, Colin Powell has morphed into David Petraeus.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

On Fox News this morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) used a moment of silence commemorating 9/11 to decry the "terrible, partisan political sniping" that he says ruined the "unity that we felt after September 11″:

'Let me just say in response to the moment of silence we just were part of, that that unity that we felt after September 11, we have to find a way to get it back because we've descended into terrible, partisan political sniping.'

Lieberman's exhaltation that "we have to find a way to get" America's post-9/11 unity "back" is undermined by his plans for later this evening, when he mingles with some of the most divisive personalities in America today at Sean Hannity's "Freedom Concert."

Attending the concert along with the Connecticut Senator are some of the guiltiest culprits of the "terrible, partisan political sniping" that Lieberman professes to decry: Ann Coulter, Oliver North, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Hannity himself.

Here are just a few examples of their "terrible...sniping":

Coulter: The media is "treasoness" and "the Democrats, they want us to lose." [9/10/07]

North: "If we elect" a Democratic "Congress...it will be nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatics." [8/31/06]

Giuliani: Democrats are "the party of losers" [7/26/07]

Gingrich: "Yes," Bush administration critics are similar "to those who enabled Hitler" [9/1/06]

Hannity: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is "a propaganda minister for our enemies." [4/24/07]

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman Decries 'Terrible, Partisan, Political Sniping,' Then Rocks Out With Hannity, Coulter

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Both Petraeus and Hume repeatedly referred to the Enemy in Iraq as "Al Qaeda." The NYT/CBS poll yesterday revealed that 40% of Republicans in this country -- 40% -- still believe that Saddam personally planned the 9/11 attacks. With wretched, unchallenged propaganda like this being fed to them, is it any wonder why?
Obviously, Fox News is free to say whatever it wants, and to give the government as much of a platform as it wants. But the fact that other journalists would sit meekly by and quietly accept the announcement that Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would grant an "exclusive interview" to a propaganda network -- and that they all continue to pretend that Brit Hume is a "journalist" -- is inexcusable.
I defy anyone to watch this hour-long program and identify anything at all that would be different if the interview had been conducted with a Soviet General by Pravda, or if the interview had been conducted by a U.S. military spokesman. There are no differences, except that -- with a Pravda interview or one conducted by one of Petraeus' subordinates -- the deceit would be less.

Yet our media class continues to treat Fox News, and especially Brit Hume, as some type of legitimate journalists. That says more about the state of our political press and the true role it plays than it does about Fox and Hume. Here, for instance, is just part of a worshipful profile written last year by Howard Kurtz, the "media critic" for The Washington Post, in which he and several other "journalists" praised Hume for his superb journalistic integrity:

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The second segment was with Ambassador Crocker, and it proceeded exactly the same way. With virtually no interruption, Crocker delivered prepared remarks, hailing one exciting improvement after the next on the political and diplomatic front. Not only did Hume not challenge a single point, but he again spoke only in order to bolster the points Crocker was making.

The remainder of the interview was designed to elicit the points which both Fox and Petraeus are most eager to make, focusing particularly on the alleged acts of war Iran is directing against U.S. forces. At Hume's prodding, Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorization to take action against Iran within its borders, rather than only in Iraq.

Posted by: you see where this is going? | September 11, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Amazingly, the first ten minutes or so of the program consisted of Petraeus unilaterally presenting his case, uninterrupted, as to all the ways in which we have made Great Progress in Iraq since the Surge began. Fox News set up a huge flat screen television next to Petraeus, and already plugged into that screen were all of the U.S. military's own charts and graphs designed to visually depict Iraq as becoming better and safer since the Surge began.

Like a professor lecturing his class, Petraeus held a pointer, and had notes in front of him indicating the sequence of the screens. When he was done explaining one happy Good News screen, the next one popped up, and he proceeded that way -- with no challenge whatsoever -- to present his "Briefing for America." Hume sat by quietly and reverently, opening his mouth only to add information to make Petraeus' point clearer. The "interview" was engineered and scripted by the U.S. military, with Hume playing the role of Master of Ceremonies.

Posted by: greenwald | September 11, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Just as George Bush and Dick Cheney have done on politically important occasions, Gen. David Petraeus (along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker) last night selected Fox News' Brit Hume as the "journalist" rewarded with an exclusive "interview." Whereas Hume, in the past, at least has pretended to play the role of journalist when interviewing high Bush officials -- doing things like asking (extremely respectful) questions about sensitive areas (with no follow up) -- he dispensed entirely with the pretense here. This "interview" took government propaganda to a whole new level, and really has to be seen to be believed.

The whole production was such transparent propaganda that one doubts that Pravda would have been shameless enough to present it. Even the title of the program was creepy. Fox did not even bother to call it an "interview," but rather hailed it as a "Briefing for America."

Posted by: greenwald | September 11, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

As the blogosphere has been saying for years now:

Bush policy to bequeath Iraq to successor

The president plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military in the country and leave the issue of exiting to his successor.

By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 11, 2007

WASHINGTON -- -- The talk in Washington on Monday was all about troop reductions, yet it also brought into sharp focus President Bush's plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq, and to leave tough decisions about ending the unpopular war to his successor.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Gary Kamiya in Salon has written an indispensible article today about 9/11,retribution, terrorism and how we got here. This is the conclusion:

Like a vibration that causes a bridge to collapse, the 9/11 attacks exposed grave weaknesses in our nation's defenses, our national institutions and ultimately our national character. Many more Americans have now died in a needless war in Iraq than were killed in the terror attacks, and tens of thousands more grievously wounded. Billions of dollars have been wasted. America's moral authority, more precious than gold, has been tarnished by torture and lies and the erosion of our liberties. The world despises us to an unprecedented degree. An entire country has been wrecked. The Middle East is ready to explode. And the threat of terrorism, which the war was intended to remove, is much greater than it was.

All of this flowed from our response to 9/11. And so, six years later, we need to do more than mourn the dead. We need to acknowledge the blindness and bigotry that drove our response. Until we do, not only will the stalemate over Iraq persist, but our entire Middle Eastern policy will continue down the road to ruin.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The Moveon crowd is dangerous to the country not just the Democratic party. This is rule or ruin politics of the worst kind. A republic cannot endure if the every disagreement is demonized or criminalized.
Shame on these pipsqueaks.

Posted by: Mason Jahr | September 11, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I have consistently criticized Republican smear campaigns against Cleland,Kerry, etc.
I totally agree with corbett. A personal attack on a respected general is divisive and unnecessary. General Petraeus wrote his own testimony and while he obviously tried to put the most positive spin on it, he seemed to me, a war opponent, basically honest.

Posted by: JimD in FL | September 11, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Fred Thompson is enjoying a nice bump in the polls coming off of his official announcement -- a new CNN survey has him statistically tied with Rudy Giuliani among Republicans nationwide. Rudy has 28%, Thompson 27%, McCain 15%, and Romney 11%.

Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton has a two-to-one lead over Barack Obama. Hillary has 46%, Obama 23%, and Edwards 16%.

Also, this survey would indicate that Hillary, not Obama, is the more electable Democrat -- although the differences are still within the margin of error. Hillary beats Giuliani 50%-46%, but Giuliani tops Obama 49%-45%. Hillary beats Fred Thompson 55%-42%, while Obama leads Thompson 53%-41%.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

There seem to be a number here who believe that shooting the messenger was the thing to do.

This is the President's war. It is the President's report to Congress. What were the headline people at MoveOn thinking when they went after Petraeus?

To me that shows a serious lack of judgment on the part of MoveOn's leadership.

With respect to answering "The attack machine." In this case, this wasn't answering, the headline was the attack machine. It was the shot, not the answer.

Somebody at MoveOn probably put in a lot of work developing statistics and putting them into a coherent text (in a way not unlike those that researched and wrote the report - we all know what can be done with statistics). Whoever decided on and approved that headline made all of that research and writing useless.

Posted by: NonP | September 11, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Amazing CC-- I never once saw you mention the vicious attack ad on Vietnam war vet and triple amputee, Max Cleland, yet you see fit to talk about this. You've never quoted a Democrat about the crap Ann Coulter says.

But yet, you write about this...

Posted by: Jay | September 11, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"65% of americans want out of Iraq now. THAT is the center."

... and Democrats are doing nothing to get us out of Iraq. Many in the center have noticed this, and are not happy.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Here are some of the things Coulter wrote about the 9/11 widows in her book Godless:

These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.
And:

[T]hey believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process.

And:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.

Coulter has also claimed the 9/11 widows "use" the fact that they lost their husbands to make their points heard.

Coulter's comments were so harsh that they even drew condemnation from New York's former Republican governor, George Pataki, who coped with the disaster along with Mayor Rudy. "I was really stunned and I don't think it's at all fair or accurate," Pataki said of Coulter's comments in June 2006, according to the Associated Press.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm watching the senate hearings with the general now. The senate republicnas aren't talking about the moveon.org ad today. Today they are laying into the general. As they should be. As we all should be.

Why don't more moderate muslims stand up against the muslim terrorists?

Why don't more gop fascists stand up to the terrorists they follow and make them aknowledge reality? Both their media and politicans.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Rudy Giuliani may be running for President on his 9/11 performance, but that hasn't stopped him from planning to spend part of the sixth anniversary of the attacks with a high-profile pundit who's repeatedly bashed the 9/11 widows, calling them "self-obsessed" and accusing them of "enjoying their husband's deaths."

According to Sean Hannity's Web site and to the New York Daily News, Rudy is one of the speakers at Hannity's event this afternoon commemorating the attacks, the summer's final "Freedom Concert." Another one of the concert's planned speakers is pundit Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

'MoveOn.org demonstrates why the Democrats will -- once again -- lose the presidential race -- they do not reflect the center of American voters.'

65% of americans want out of Iraq now. THAT is the center.

Posted by: Tad | September 11, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Move-On just set itself back irretreiveably. Youthful insensitivity spits in its own soup again.

Posted by: Paul R. coope | September 11, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"If a US General lies or intentionally misrepresents somethings as important as a war to Congress on orders of a President, the General is a TRAITOR period,"

He certainly presented the situation through a rose colered filter. But what specifically did he lie about, or misrepresent? Serious question, as you make a serious charge.


"though MoveOn.org never called him a Traitor."

General Betray Us? Sounds like a STRONG implication to me.


"all decisions to make war are COngress' alone!!"

Yeah. Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. What's your point?

Posted by: JimR | September 11, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Move-on.org is an interesting organization but they are not the Democratic Party. I would hope that the leaders of Move-On.org understand that the electorate is neither right wing nor left wing and that usually the centrist candidate wins. Even the awful President we have now understood that when he first ran as a Compassionate Conservative. We found out that he quickly dropped compassionate but he was elected that way.

I have no problem with move-on.org saying anything they want but I want the Democratic Party to remember George McGovern and how he fared in an election where the left controlled the words.

I want our candidates in the Democratic party to get us out of Iraq but I want them to be realistic and use the words that need to be used to appeal to the centrist voters so they can get elected. Ralph Nader may have cost us one election I don't want to lose another. The alternative is to dire to think of.

So Chris when you report remember Move-On.org and George Soros are not the Democratic Party and they have a role to move our candidates to strong positions. But the candidates who will remember that what they say now will be used in the general election, and weigh their words carefully - will be the ones that can win the Presidency for the Democratic Party and we need to win and bring along a strong House and Senate.

Posted by: peter | September 11, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Moveon lost a bit of my respect this week. I'm not giving them any money this year, but I doubt my lack of support will cause them any harm.

It really is sad that they chose to attack character instead of facts. If this had been a full page ad of facts, who knows what positive outcome would have been created.

Moveon.org does not represent me. I don't think anyone does any more.

Posted by: Independent | September 11, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Who else thinks Rufus is a clever GOP plant? The only hope the Dems have on this one is to draw a bright line between themselves and MoveOn, and he will not have any of it. Thank God for true believers like him.

Can't wait to see how this advert matter looks in 14 days' time. It took a couple weeks for Hillary to realize she really did have to give up the defense (and the money) on Hsu. I think the Dems will have to come around against MoveOn as well.

Sure, they'll go kicking and screaming - but in the end, go they will have to. Remember, even Joe McCarthy himself was brought down in the end because he too brazenly and dishonorably attacked an honorable soldier.

Posted by: Taniwha | September 11, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

If a US General lies or intentionally misrepresents somethings as important as a war to Congress on orders of a President, the General is a TRAITOR period, though MoveOn.org never called him a Traitor.
Everyone in the US Military takes an oath to protect and Defend the US Consitution and the Consitution makes it clear beyond any doubt all decisions to make war are COngress' alone!!

Posted by: Muddy | September 11, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn.org demonstrates why the Democrats will -- once again -- lose the presidential race -- they do not reflect the center of American voters.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

'You all want us out of iraq, well, what have they done to compensate for us to pull out? what they stopped allowing muslims to migrate to the United States? have they deported muslims from radical sects? have they sealed the borders? have they instituted real id? well, have they done any of this before we even think of pulling out of iraq?'

Gawd there are loonies out there... shiver. 'stop allowing muslims to migrate to the US' -- wow that's a great way to alienate one fourth of the world's population. great idea, chief.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris: I know you find it easy to purvey conventional wisdom. When Republicans call Democrats traitors, or Ann Coulter or Bill o'Rielly say awful things where are you? Hiding in the closet too afraid to take on Republicans. This Democrat recalls the swiftboating and is ready to fight. So I say to MoveOn: don't back down; don't give a moment's thought to the beltway purveyors of Republican talking points. Do what you do and stand up to the Republicans. If the MSM does not like it too bad. Let them go and have a coffee with Tony Snow or Ed Gillespie.

Posted by: Alan | September 11, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

You notice how no one is talking about the substance of the MoveOn ad, they are just saying it was in bad taste. When did America become a place where someone can lie or fudge statistics and when you call them on it, and you cite your evidence that what they are saying is not true and they continue to say it, you still can not call them a liar. The issue is that the military says its independent, they want to be treated like they only serve the nation, but they serve a President, and this particular President has no problem lying and expecting those who work for him to lie. We just had a truly independent auditor David Walker, from the GAO comes in and testifies last week, and he said the exact same thing that the MoveOn ad says, that there is no reduction in violence, and when asked why there is a difference in their numbers versus the Pentagon, he says, because "we are independent." So if you have a general who cooks the books as proven by an independent auditor, why is he then off limits from being called a liar!?!

Posted by: RCD | September 11, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

As some of you may already be aware, the loss of arctic sea ice this summer has been extraordinary. According to the NSIDC, the amount of ice that melted this year that had never melted since recording began is about the size of the State of Florida.

The NSIDC website is updated a couple of times a week with the latest sea ice extent measurements and I watch the numbers with horror because I am one of those who think we have gone past the tipping point already and news like this just further validates my opinion.

Well in todays update there was a very scary section I want to share with you related to the BIG tipping point for climate change: changes to ocean circulation patterns.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html

Posted by: Sam | September 11, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

SO far off topic that it is completely on topic

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE DICK CHENEY IS AND WHAT HE IS DOING?

ARE THEY PLANNING THE 'OCTOBER SURPRISE'(2008) TO END ALL OCTOBER SURPRISES? AN ATTACK ON IRAN?

AND WILL THEY SUSPEND THE ELECTION?

On topic. Let's stop beating on groups like MoveON.org that are one of the few things (even if they are reactionary and counter political wisdom) because they are the only ones forcing the discussion on this Administration's misadventures.

The main line press continues to be in bed with the Administration. Notice how silent news was out of Iraq in the run up to the 'Petraeus Crocker' Show?

We'd be better off beating on the Republicans and the spineless Democrats in Congress and focus on them instead of the devil's advocates pointing out the potential dangers of this Administration.

BTW. WHERE'S CHENEY? AND WHAT IS HE DOING?????????????

Posted by: poor richard | September 11, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

You all want us out of iraq, well, what have they done to compensate for us to pull out? Have they stopped allowing muslims to migrate to the United States? have they deported muslims from radical sects? have they sealed the borders? have they instituted real id? well, have they done any of this before we even think of pulling out of iraq?

Posted by: dwight(correction) | September 11, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

You all want us out of iraq, well, what have they done to compensate for us to pull out? what they stopped allowing muslims to migrate to the United States? have they deported muslims from radical sects? have they sealed the borders? have they instituted real id? well, have they done any of this before we even think of pulling out of iraq?

Posted by: Dwight | September 11, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

yes, people are mad about the war but the fact that the majority of independent voters
and moderates are disgusted with "move on" tells you how disconnected the left is with reality. And "no" they are not disgusted with Bill O. You guys need to figure out why more Americans mistrust "move on" then Bush."move on " is a gift to repubs, Repubs can only hope that "move on" and its supporters speak up and expose themselves even more. More power to "move on" and its seriously disconnected supporters.

Posted by: alex | September 11, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

If nobody at MoveOn.org realized that their headline would hand their opponents a gift, what does that say about them?

If the responsible people at MoveOn.org did realize that their headline would hand their opponents a gift, and they did it anyway, what does that say about them?

As you move to the extremes of the political spectrum, the extremists do not care about truth and normally accepted political strategy and tactics go out the window. Anything goes. Has MoveOn reached that point?

Is this Fix thread just pushing RNC talking points? Or, is there a legitimate question here as to where MoveOn is on the political spectrum, and just who do they represent?

The body of the ad's text may have been 100% accurate, but the headline was character assassination. I believe that Congress required the President to report to it. Petraeus was the messenger for the boss. If it wasn't Petraeus, it would have been somebody else. Ask yourself why MoveOn felt it necessary to infer that Petraeus was a traitor, when that report would have said what it did, no matter who delivered it?

The RNC will play this for all it's worth, emphasizing that MoveOn represents Democrats.

Do they?

Posted by: NonP | September 11, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

'COOPER: And are these -- these tribal groups willing to work with the central government in Baghdad, the Sunni -- the Shia- dominated government, and vice versa? Is -- is the government of al- Maliki willing to work with -- with these Sunni tribes?

WARE: The answer is no on both counts, Anderson.

These guys made it very clear to us on this day and on other days when I have contact with other groups, they are opposed to the Maliki government and any government that they believe is beholden to Iranian influence, a belief shared by many within the U.S. mission. So, these are anti-government forces that America is supporting against the government it created. And, certainly, within the Iraqi government, they believe that this is America building Sunni militias to act as a counterbalance to their influence.'

Posted by: why this is ridiculous | September 11, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Warner just, oh so gently, chided Crocker. It was very effective in its understatement.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Obviously it was incredibly naive to think that this crew would, after 9/11, come anywhere close to doing the right thing. But what I certainly wasn't capable of predicting at the time was how a horrific event perpetuated by extremist religious fundamentalists could somehow be converted into a sustained attack on... liberals. What I didn't understand then was the basic conservative worldview that if it's good it's conservative and if it's bad it's liberal.

The political blogosphere grew in the aftermath of 9/11, and quickly bored of the not exciting enough war in Afghanistan, self-styled "war bloggers" quickly turned on the enemy at home. It's useful to remember, in this imagined time of national unity, just how quickly the Right claimed the tragedy as their own and used it as a cudgel to beat their fellow citizens with. It only took Andy Sullivan 5 days to publish this in the Times of London:

'The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount a fifth column.'

And that's what this is about. The Cons are attacking who they think is their real enemy -- their fellow Americans.

Posted by: Duncan | September 11, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Anti-war Democrats are not angry and frustrated because they are ignorant of the rules of the Senate.

Rather, they suspect that if it was a Republican congress versus a Democratic president trying to prosecute an unpopular war, the troops would already be home.
.

Posted by: gitarre | September 11, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

'My view is consistent with those above: CC reproduced an RNC talking point that twists the truth far more directly than the MoveOn ad itself.'

You'r right about that too, Judge. Actually, I don't think there is anything in the ad which isn't true-- I would not have used the word 'betray' --it's too inflammatory, but I think that it's fair to question where his numbers come from, when they are so different from the GAO and other orgs. And he won't say, and that's telling.

Nobody questioned Colin Powell about the aluminum tubes and the damning evidence of WMDs that he knew at the time was false. And look where that got us. So I think it's fair to question anybody who's an official spokesperson for this occupation.

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Watch out Dems... any Democrat is better than any of the Republicans. Let's focus on winning first. We're not very good at that."

Wow, do I disgree with that. There are good and bad members of both party.

Also, Democrats won control of Congress. But they seem paralyzed with fear over actually using that control. (And please don't give me the lame "they don't have enough of a majority" argument.)

Posted by: JimR | September 11, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"41 brave senators? Where? It's brave to cur off funding for the troops? There logic for you.

And thanks for running from the numbers Rufus.
"


Your right. the democrat are spinless cowards. does that make you feel better about yourself. How does that help the country. It's neither here nor there.

how can anyone with a spine vote d, but how could anyone with a brian or heart vote r. Think about that.

I'm for two new parties. This way we can stop the sabotage and sell-outs. We ALL get real representation and we let the people decide what kind of country they want. The people in a democracy runnig the government, I know that is something the gop doesn't want because the more people that vote the less chance the gop has. But hey. Power to the peopel is what this country was founded on. We left the empire. Remember that gop. You red coats you

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

It's a disservice to write: "Liberals do not trust Patraeus...." This marginalizes the opiniona of a majority of Americans and reinforces a partisan mind-set.

Here are some numbers that are neither liberal nor conservative:

54% of Americans, according to the Rasmussen Report, said the Patraeus Report was not likely to change their views on the war.

Concerning the the war, 58% of Americans want a decrease in troops; 55% want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal; and only a third believe progress is being made -- these statistics courtesy the new WaPo-ABC poll released 9/9.

MoveOn's tactics may seem gonzo (the adjective, not the AG), but the standpoint is not.

Posted by: Lemeritus | September 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

It's a disservice to write: "Liberals do not trust Patraeus...." This marginalizes the opiniona of a majority of Americans and reinforces a partisan mind-set.

Here are some numbers that are neither liberal nor conservative:

54% of Americans, according to the Rasmussen Report, said the Patraeus Report was not likely to change their views on the war.

Concerning the the war, 58% of Americans want a decrease in troops; 55% want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal; and only a third believe progress is being made -- these statistics courtesy the new WaPo-ABC poll released 9/9.

MoveOn's tactics may seem gonzo (the adjective, not the AG), but the standpoint is not.

Posted by: Lemeritus | September 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

This is just the tip of the iceberg for MoveOn and their like. It really bothers me that politicos who are seemingly so adept at mobilizing millions fall so short in their understanding of both the American political system and the American people.

I read with disappointment that some of the bloggers are targeting "Bush Dog Democrats." With the exception of only a slim few Blue Dogs, any other type of Democrat couldn't win in those districts. Would the bloggers really rather have a bible-thumpin', ultra right wing Republican over a moderate, centrist, coalition building Democrat? It just doesn't make any sense.

It's nice to have the base beating the drum for change, but I also thinks it shows a clear lack of understanding in American history. We are, in essence, a center-right country and change comes sometimes painstakingly slow. As a Democrat, I would rather see us cautiously and slowly build our majorities so that we can have a base to implement change. We just aren't there yet, and we'll never get there if we lose the moderates. To their credit, the Democratic House and Senate realize this.

And as far 08 is concerned, this is very disconcerting by MoveOn. I'm starting to believe the editorial I read by either Broder of Dionne that likened 08 to 72 for the Democrats. Unpopular war. Unpopular Republican President. Yet Nixon wins in a landslide because the base pushed the Democratic nominee so far to the left that it scared people.

Watch out Dems... any Democrat is better than any of the Republicans. Let's focus on winning first. We're not very good at that.

Posted by: Chilidogger | September 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

It's a disservice to write: "Liberals do not trust Patraeus...." This marginalizes the opiniona of a majority of Americans and reinforces a partisan mind-set.

Here are some numbers that are neither liberal nor conservative:

54% of Americans, according to the Rasmussen Report, said the Patraeus Report was not likely to change their views on the war.

Concerning the the war, 58% of Americans want a decrease in troops; 55% want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal; and only a third believe progress is being made -- these statistics courtesy the new WaPo-ABC poll released 9/9.

MoveOn's tactics may seem gonzo (the adjective, not the AG), but the standpoint is not.

Posted by: Lemeritus | September 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

It's a disservice to write: "Liberals do not trust Patraeus...." This marginalizes the opiniona of a majority of Americans and reinforces a partisan mind-set.

Here are some numbers that are neither liberal nor conservative:

54% of Americans, according to the Rasmussen Report, said the Patraeus Report was not likely to change their views on the war.

Concerning the the war, 58% of Americans want a decrease in troops; 55% want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal; and only a third believe progress is being made -- these statistics courtesy the new WaPo-ABC poll released 9/9.

MoveOn's tactics may seem gonzo (the adjective, not the AG), but the standpoint is not.

Posted by: Lemeritus | September 11, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

You all better get used to the idea that the surge is going to continue. Bush is going to ask for more money for the war. Democrats will pontificate and posture, and criticize and condemn.

Then they'll give him the money.

Posted by: JimR | September 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

41 brave senators? Where? It's brave to cur off funding for the troops? There logic for you.

And thanks for running from the numbers Rufus.

Posted by: ThrowThemAllOut | September 11, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

How much Move On Money has been channeled by HSU?

Posted by: bobjoe | September 11, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats pushed back that Republicans were trying to drum up a controversy by focusing on MoveOn rather than the substance of Petraeus' testimony."

That doesn't seem correct to you? How do you think the public views this--a bunch of Republicans distracting debate on the future of Iraq to whine about a silly ad.

Before Petreaus came to speak I knew I wasn't going to believe a word he said. Move.on was right.

Posted by: gavin d'order | September 11, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Petraus is a liar and he cooked the books for BUSH . The truth is the light

Posted by: larry g | September 11, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

fascsits, fascsits everywhere, fascsits won't let those 41 brave senators stop the war

Posted by: sufur | September 11, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

'How about you just change the name of the blog to "RNC Talking Points" and be done with it?'

Thanks, Blarg, well said.

Posted by: drindl | September 11, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

You people are all a waste of time. I know, like the rest of the hypocrite gop fascists, you people don't believe half the garbage that comes out of your mouths.

Why do you do this. Why do you destroy your own country? think about your children? think about the futurue? think about the histroy books. What will you tell your children ten years ago when they ask you what you were doing after 9/11. Did you sell-out tot he lying propogating fascsits? If so why? how do you think the histroy books will record the last 6 years?

Losing all our rights. The lies, the spin. the swift-baoting tactics? What will you tell your children when we are in a bad palce as a country?

Doublethink. Newspeak.

You people are destroying your country. And your doing it for low taxes. Think about that. What a waste of time.

I'm gone, again. Peace. What a waste of time. Sabotaging fascist propogandists. All day every day. What a waste of time, then we all die. Living our lives just to die. What a waste. My children will not obey your doublethink hypocritical laws. Me and my peopel are changing the world. Answer to God those that would stop us for money and personal reasons. Treason, traitors, that's what I call you all.


What a waste of time.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

'The biggest news yesterday came before General David Petraues or Ambassador Ryan Crocker uttered a single word in the hearings on progress in Iraq.And it came in the form of a newspaper ad, paid for by MoveOn.org.'

The point is --why? Because republicans wanted to move the discussion away from anyone asking about the conflicting numbers of Petreaus and the GAO Report, and the fact that the General says the methodology by whihc his numbers are computed is 'classified.'

Why on earth would that be classified? But because the media are republican poodles, they played right along and demonized MoveOn-- just this headline, suggesting that a grassroots organization is a 'menace' shows you how much they control the media--and the message.

Posted by: Cassandra | September 11, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The most despicable anti-military ads I've ever seen were directed at Senator Max Cleland in 2002, by Republican Chambliss Saxby of Georgia.

I see that Ann Coulter is speaking out against MoveOn.
Kind of reminds me of Satan speaking out against John the Baptist.

Posted by: Jan | September 11, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Others said it, I'll repeat:
MoveOn has been in the forefront of war opposition. It took a long time, too long, for the majority of Americans to catch up.
And there is NOTHING wrong with questioning Petraeus' honesty.
Since 04 he has consistently and loudly supported every iteration of Bush policy, every new newer way forward was greeted by Petraeus with hosannas and touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. We have been having wonderous suckcess 24/7.
So simple question:
Was he lying then or is he lying now?
And if your answer is that he was simply mistaken well that is even worse.
We should worship at the feet of someone who, like Bush, has been wrong every time he opened his mouth?
Is he incompetent or mendacious?
Mendacious or incompetent?
Take your pick and then think about his carelessly passing half a million munitions to the insurgency because he couldn't be bothered with keeping track of US issue assault rifles.
Sheesh!

Posted by: jaimie t | September 11, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

judge crater - usually i agree with what i read from you in the comments, but on this one, i think it'd be easier for me to ask someone else to explain how the ad isn't distasteful and divisive.

"betray us" - seriously, does anyone honestly think that this general would be following a strategy that he didn't believe was in the best interest of the country or his men? especially his men.

he may be wrong in his assessment, but the guys at moveon aren't making a very credible argument in their ad, it's just simple attacks on the man himself.

and to top it all off, it's not even a witty play on his name.

Posted by: corbett | September 11, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you dolt, you are picking up on a Republican tactic and running with it, and assuming it has something to do with the truth. Democrats and their supporters will welcome attacks on the pro-war set and their shills now and through the campaign season, just as the Republicans benefited from and supported the swift boat scheme as we screamed and yelled about how contrived it was. The difference? MoveOn.org is being honest, even if it is calling names. As the old PSA goes: "We learned it by watching you."

Posted by: Mobedda | September 11, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Instead of a dopey discussion about whether a man who has been told he can play God when it comes to when a war should end is immune from criticism in what is supposed to be a free country, how about getting into the substance of the accusation. Has Patreaus "cooked the books"? It is a fair question given who his boss is and given that every other pretext for this war hasn't exactly panned out. That answer matters more than whether some unwritten protocol that the policy swift boaters can't be called into question has been violated. I can't blame the Bushbots for trying to blow smoke though.

Posted by: Sara B. | September 11, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

It is noteworthy that George Will in his column today comes to the same conclusions as stated in the MoveOn ad, namely that by General Petraeus's and President Bush's own standard the "surge" is a failure. I don't see anyone trashing Will.

Posted by: Peter | September 11, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

1) It doesn't take 60 votes to end the war in Iraq. It takes 41. President Bush showed that he was willing to play brinksmanship when he vetoed the Democrats' war funding bill with a timeline. It might be bad politics, it might be bad policy (or it might be good politics and good policy, neither time nor place), but the Democrats have the tools to play brinksmanship just as well as the White House.

2) On the surface, it should be good for the Democrats and bad for the Republicans when a surrogate for the Democrats attempts to discredit a surrogate for the Republicans. That's level 1.

You like level 2: people like the military, so when a surrogate for the Democrats criticizes a member of the military, the Democrats end up looking bad. That may be true, but who knows.

And what about level 3? There are no national election until November, 2008. In the immediate term, MoveOn pushes the public back to the war enough for Congress and the White House to continue to prolong it. The war is still happening in mid-late 2008, and it still stinks, and Democrats get elected in a landslide.

Or maybe level 4? MoveOn, by "accidentally" discrediting Democrats and therefore prolonging the war is playing politics with the blood of American Servicemen and -women. Why do Democrats hate America?

Or level 5?

Face it Chris, you've no idea whether MoveOn attacking Gen. Petraues is good for Democrats, good for Republicans, or neither. You're just repeating what you're reading on other blogs and in other newspapers, and they're just repeating what they're reading in other blogs and other newspapers.

Frankly, I think MoveOn are attempting level 1, to discredit their political opponent. I think the media will only pick up on level 2: the media will say that the Democrats have been made to look bad in the eyes of the public. I think the Democrats will respond to the media picking up the Republican narrative by caving. I think the war will continue to go badly, and the result will be a Democratic landslide in 2008.

Meanwhile, I think the public as a whole will be on level 0. Who attacked General who?

Posted by: Chris M. | September 11, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute. Some valid posts.

Posted by: ThrowThemAllOut | September 11, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Dufus says

"tHE RIGHT'S ATTACK ON MOVEON IS A STRAW MAN"

So the emo-keyboard hero Dufus knows how to use "Google" or "Wikipedia" to cut and paste a definition, but fails to lead this "dittohead " down his argument path.

Perhaps I should ask you next to post a definition of your argumet in predicate logic, maybe understanding AND OR UNIONS and other mathmetic bases for argumentation would lead you to consider more than your "my way or the highway" opinions?

Posted by: Macmarz | September 11, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"the moveon ad was distasteful and divisive"

Strong words. Got any quotes from the ad to back that up, corbett?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 11, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Hh, and chris, please for the love of god, STOP writing that groups like moveon are the base of the democratic party - THEY ARE NOT. They are no more than a well financed interest group.

That does not make them the base of the party OR the base of democratic primary voters. It makes them a bunch of guys who collected enough money to run full-page ads in the nytimes. Nothing more.

Posted by: corbett | September 11, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

So, Moveon is helping the Republicans. And the politicians will not stay bought - but say what they can to get elected and then do what they want to do.

What a country!

Posted by: Gary E. Masters | September 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Dufus says

"And I'm supposed to give that arguement credance? Wouldn't that give you gop borg credibility you don't deserve and tell you that" Your right, moveon really is the issue"."

Last time I checked the newspiece we are commenting on by Chris Cillizza was entitled, "MoveOn.org: Momentum or Menace?"

But I guess pointing that out somehow makes me a "dittohead".

Posted by: Macmarz | September 11, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

This ad was only "big news" to a bunch of desperate Republicans who need ANYTHING to create a distraction from the implosion of their Party. They can muster all this outrage over an ad but they sat there like flacid blobs for four and a half years while this war has dragged our country to the edge of the abyss. Sorry but MoveOn has been right about this FUBAR invasion from the beginning and so listening to people like David "Diaperman" Vitter whine about how terrible they are just makes me want to puke.

Posted by: maria | September 11, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Children?!? MoveOn = Pinkos

Posted by: HAHA | September 11, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

as a liberal democrat, groups like moveon.org say they represent people like me.

they don't. no more than blogs like dailykos represent people who think like me.

the moveon ad was distasteful and divisive. they should be ashamed of themselves for actually publishing such a thing. say what you will about guys like petraeus, he's doing his duty. all the guys at moveon who came up with that ad are, i'm sure, happy to take the subway to their manhattan office in their khakis, polo shirts, and loafers... and do nothing but cause strife and division.

they are no better than radical retard groups on the right like free republic.

Posted by: corbett | September 11, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

So basically on the day the long awaited word from the Petraeus oracle arrives and basically gives this country more of the same obfuscation in an effort to provide cover for an incompetant presidency, the MoveOn.org ad is the "day's biggest story".

Small piece of advice - never leave DC. I think you'd find your myopic vision and let's just say "limited" cognitive abilities would not serve you well in the real world.

Posted by: Mike | September 11, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy,[2] scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
"


tHE RIGHT'S ATTACK ON MOVEON IS A STRAW MAN

Posted by: RUFUS | September 11, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

saddam never did anything to hurt me

Posted by: sufur | September 11, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

""It seems evident to me that all these people in the world want us to leave the very scenario / situation that they always want us to help with!""

"Yeah, but in this case, we created the situation. I think what the people of the world are saying is, "You've made a big enough mess already. Go away!""


Does it really matter if our errors have created the situation? The fact remains that we are in the situation, to abandon it because of the bitter taste seems absurd.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the numbers are pretty similar in having to vote to end filibusters.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm

Senate Action on Cloture Motions
Congress/Years/Motions Filed/Votes on Cloture/Cloture Invoked
110 2007-2008 54 43 22
109 2005-2006 68 54 34
108 2003-2004 62 49 12
107 2001-2002 72 61 34
106 1999-2000 71 58 28
105 1997-1998 69 53 18
104 1995-1996 82 50 9
103 1993-1994 80 46 14
102 1991-1992 59 47 22
101 1989-1990 37 24 11
100 1987-1988 53 43 12
99 1985-1986 40 23 10
98 1983-1984 41 19 11
97 1981-1982 31 30 10
96 1979-1980 30 20 11
95 1977-1978 23 13 3
94 1975-1976 39 27 17
93 1973-1974 44 31 9

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

where's my vote count Macmarz . Or should I call you zouk?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

The gop loves to frame the debate. They love to tell you what's really important. to the right, what was important yesterday was not the report, it was a moveon ad.

And I'm supposed to give that arguement credance? Wouldn't that give you gop borg credibility you don't deserve and tell you that" Your right, moveon really is the issue".


HAHAHAHAHA.

You got the wrong guy for giving the gop credibility. You have none. the gop bush rush fox has lost ALL credibility. If you disagree you probably are a dittohead. Any REAL news organization would close down once they lose all credibility. I guess fox really isn't news. But if they're not news, what are they? What does rush/hannity coulter do for a living. Think about it. What is their job?

Now continue attacking me and moveon and the left, like you propogating inciter of violence Bill O'REilly told you to do. Fight back against the left, likeyou avatar told you to do. "Stand up agaisnt these "crazies"" like your avatar told you to do. One question though. What will you do without your avatars?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

So how is the GOP attack of the MoveOn.org ad a "Straw Man" argument as you say?

I think you need to do the research and not write out "draconian" buzz words because you heard someone use it once it some vague context.

Posted by: Macmarz | September 11, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"...and now Move-On is being thrown under the bus because they are not loyal bushies (or another Conservative with a Republican inclination), point out facts and ask tough questions?"

Can't they point out facts and ask tough questions without resorting to personal attacks? Suggesting the general is a traitor offended a lot of people who otherwise may have been receptive to their message.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus, the point is that candidates that talk the talk, should walk the walk. Obama should base his actions not on whether GOP candidates criticize 'their mouthpieces', but whether its the right thing to do. "

I agree, if obama made the message, HIMSELF. He didn't. It is a gop straw man. It is a trick to alienate the base. CC plays into it. Feeds teh right-wing attack machine. Obama is not indebted to that evil machine. Why give them and their bogus misdirection agruments credibility by backing down to them. The issues are the issues. The issues are not whatever the gop says they are. The issues are the issues

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Dufus says:

"Research and get back to me smart guy."

Like any true keyboard hero changes the subject to one he feels more comfort in standing correct on. Unfortunately you fail to realize that the tatics the Rep. are using now to derail or shoudl I say never-end vote hearings, are the same tactics Dems and Reps have used against eachother immemorial.

So what is your point then Dufus? Or shall we call you Captain... or the keep somewhat on topic General Obvious?

Posted by: Macmarz | September 11, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

In the end the politicians and dumbed down culture detroyed Rome... and now history will repeat it self with fields of non thinking drones on either side"

So how do we stop it. Wait. Stand by and LET them destroy our country? With a smile on our face? Not me. I am a ptriot. I care about this great country. I care about my brothers and sisters, of all races and nationalities, getting MURDERED everday.

It's real easy to put your head in the sand and say the world has always been this way. The future is now. Your children are not as STUPID as you. We can change the country and in turn the world. The only people telling us we can't are lying fascsits. We can. The only power these sell-out fascsits have, in both parties, is the power we give them. A whole party can be voted out on 4 years. A new party can take over in that time. The only power they have is the power WE give them

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

www.conservativemusiconline.com

I give the lefties what they deserve--in music!

Posted by: TRuscott | September 11, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"It seems evident to me that all these people in the world want us to leave the very scenario / situation that they always want us to help with!"

Yeah, but in this case, we created the situation. I think what the people of the world are saying is, "You've made a big enough mess already. Go away!"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

My response to Move-on is in a music CD I made--a CONSERVATIVE political cd called Blaming America First! I give Sean Penn, Moore,and leftie politicos what they deserve!

conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Lance | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

My response to Move-on is in a music CD I made--a CONSERVATIVE political cd called Blaming America First! I give Sean Penn, Moore,and leftie politicos what they deserve!

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Lance | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

My response to Move-on is in a music CD I made--a CONSERVATIVE political cd called Blaming America First! I give Sean Penn, Moore,and leftie politicos what they deserve!

conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Lance | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

My response to Move-on is in a music CD I made--a CONSERVATIVE political cd called Blaming America First! I give Sean Penn, Moore,and leftie politicos what they deserve!

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Lance | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

My response to Move-on is in a music CD I made--a CONSERVATIVE political cd called Blaming America First! I give Sean Penn, Moore,and leftie politicos what they deserve!

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Lance | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

My response to Move-on is in a music CD I made--a CONSERVATIVE political cd called Blaming America First! I give Sean Penn, Moore,and leftie politicos what they deserve!

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Lance | September 11, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I felt compelled to write today regarding Move-On's ad, comments about the surge and General Petraeus' comments to the congress. I take exception to how the Republicans are denouncing Move-On's ad since it suggests that the general has been less than candid of his assessments and now Move-On is being thrown under the bus because they are not loyal bushies (or another Conservative with a Republican inclination), point out facts and ask tough questions? I wonder have any loyal bushies bothered to read the report, it's chock full of facts that demonstrate that the general can be political as his Op-Ed piece before the elections suggests. Three independent reports all say the situation in Iraq is untenable, but the general has a rosy depiction of it. Further, since Bill O'Reilly called for violence upon dissenters, why is no one is asking loyal bushies to distance themselves from that rant.

While having Iraq be able to defend itself since we left them defenseless is a noble goal, I'm not certain any American life is worth that price. If they want democracy, they would have rejoiced at Saddams' fall, made alliances and started nation-building, but instead there are ancient scores to settle and they fear our on-going occupation. When I hear pundits like O'Reilly, Colter and Limbaugh and/or bureaucrats insinuate that dissent places Americans in danger, I feel that is the dangerous thinking we need to eradicate. Had we listened to the dissenting voices at the U.N., we would not have routed Saddam's forces because we were so cocksure he had weapons of mass destruction. Had Mr. Bush listened to General Shinseki's dissent with the war plan in 2003, we may have had 200,000 troops on the ground initially. Had we national dissent that matters, we would not have invaded Iraq, and Al Qaeda In Iraq wouldn't be there.

When I hear Mr. Bush and others say they are going to listen to their commanders on the ground (such as the general's report today) before they act, I think back to the Downing Street Memo and ponder what ". . . Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action" really meant. Of course this leads us to ponder how many other Downing Street memos there are out there, where dissent was squelched and now we have a quagmire as a result. While it may not be clear for some conservatives to admit that this is the wrong war, in the wrong country at the wrong time, Move-On and the majority of the country indeed feels this way. In a society where dissent by the people led to its very founding, it's frightening that this administration doesn't care what the people want, and even in the face of clear and convincing error, will not reverse its course.

As a former soldier, I felt just like Cpl. Tillman and called the recruiter the day of 9/11 and told him, I wanted to go on the hunt for Osama. I wanted to hunt him down for causing harm to 2,998 of my fellow Americans and bringing terror to us all. However, is it not clear to even the most conservative of us, that Saddam didn't attack us? Absent our sovereignty being attacked, what right did Bush have to decide Saddam and not Musharraf should be the dictator that had to die in that region? The real enemy is and has been Osama Bin Laden's and his group. In an effort to interrupt the world's economy, he attacks the U.S. in coordinated attacks and the entire world rallies behind us. And then instead of pursuing Osama to the ends of the Earth and capturing him, we decide to pursue him haphazardly and instead to put 160,000 troops in Iraq (when the ground commanders told Bush we needed at least 200,000). Thus, I do not agree that by Move-On's dissent that we weakened our forces here or there. What has weakened Americans and America is this failed foreign policy and asking the brave men and women of the Armed Forces to fix by force the foreign policy that bureaucrats and politicians could not achieve by talking.

Posted by: Move-On is Right On!! | September 11, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I got the history ThrowThemAllOut |. I got you. I think your confused. Now dig up the vote counts for the last congress session. When the republicans had the majority. What are the vote counts. Did the d's require the r's to get a 60 count vote for EVERy vote. Research and get back to me smart guy.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Dufus says,

"The right-wing machine is the devil. It is pure evil. they will do or say anyting to continue whatever it is they want to continue. They have the most venomous hate-merchants spewing vile propoganda everyday, all day. How do you combat that?"

You must then be right wing and GOP since you r context is filled with such "venomous" hatred. Since you say youare liberal.. but act as you say GOP does... than you are indeed GOP.. and a hypocrit.. I guess you were right all along! =)

Posted by: Macmarz | September 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

teh lef tis rite alwais. We shoud juz gif up.

Posted by: ThrowThemAllOut | September 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

rufus asks
"Did obama make the video himself? If not why would he condemn it? Why would any dem condemn it? does the RNc have to defend themselves on all of fox's lies and coulters and rush's attacks daily? No, they don't do they. So why the double standard, hypocrites?"


Andy made a good point. His point is that if Obama is really trying to improve the political dialogue, pointing out how the moveon ad is unhelpful in pursuing that goal might be a smart move. The problem is it could alienate the most leftward of his potential supporters. But the positives could outweigh that cost - if you believe, like I do, that the swing voters are looking for someone who will move the country away from the increasingly divisive politics of the last decade or two.

Rufus, the point is that candidates that talk the talk, should walk the walk. Obama should base his actions not on whether GOP candidates criticize 'their mouthpieces', but whether its the right thing to do.

Its not a double standard, its the right standard. On the right, McCain used to hold himself to this standard, but he has slipped, of late.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone actually read the ad? It looks to me like it makes the standard points about how the Pentagon is cooking the books to maintain the illusion of progress. Nothing particularly incendiary about that. Maybe its the play on 'Petraues' as "Betray us?"

My view is consistent with those above: CC reproduced an RNC talking point that twists the truth far more directly than the MoveOn ad itself.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 11, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Gop hypocrisy at work. LEt's silence moveon and kos, but as far as fox, "it's just what they do""

I don't think Moveon.org, Kos or FOX should be silenced."

Ok. so what's up with this topic. why did I see a poll on politico.com that asked if the daily koz should be silenced because they are not media but are a political entity. What about this topic. why is there no one debating if fox should be on the air or not.Or what to do about fox.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

America has no hope. from reading you people. Zero hope.

Hillary likes to say "I've beat teh right wing machine and I can beat them again."

The right-wing machine is the devil. It is pure evil. they will do or say anyting to continue whatever it is they want to continue. They have the most venomous hate-merchants spewing vile propoganda everyday, all day. How do you combat that?

You have to get dirty. You have to play the gop's media game, then when they cheat call them on it. The gop makes all the rules, no one would dispute that. But once we get into that game, we need to hold the gop tot hte same rules they hold everyone else to. Free speech? how is it taht rush and fox are considered free speech bu tthe koz and moveon are menaces? Who has done more damage to teh country? Who's trying to fix it?

In order to beat them, we need to play the same game, with differant rules. The right lies spins and propogates. how do you beat that. You point out their lies. You , yourself, don't lie. You tell the truth at all costs. Rather than the gop game of divide and conquer, you do the opposite. You unite and build. rather than destroy and sabotage.

The yin an yang. The gop makes the rules to the game. The lef tis winnign the game, with the rules the gop has in place. The left is taking the high ground. The yin and yang.

You cannot defeat truths with lies, as the gop is trying. Impossible. Hypocrite gop. Read between the lines.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Dufus says:

"The gop is sabotaging and destorying this country for personal or party gain. That used to be called treason.

Clear enough. Anyone needs more info onthe why's, let me know. I'll answer what the lef tis thinking for you people. I'll try and help you see the light. Where you people have gone wrong :)"

We live in a country where ever senator is a carear politician, and a multimillionaire. Are you really so consumed by your GOP (or should I just say Conservative? even though one does not always beget the other?) hatred that you cannot possibly consider that you are also acting as a simple blinded marionette, with no capacity to see anything that what you want, or are told to see?
Take a step back and understand that everyone in politics are as you would expect... politicians. In the end the politicians and dumbed down culture detroyed Rome... and now history will repeat it self with fields of non thinking drones on either side. But I guess you'll just call me a hypocrite so you don't have to actually think about more than your opinion.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"Gop hypocrisy at work. LEt's silence moveon and kos, but as far as fox, "it's just what they do""

I don't think Moveon.org, Kos or FOX should be silenced.

Posted by: JimR | September 11, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Deeply disappointed Chris - you usually manage to ignore your own political leanings to discuss politics - not today with your list of RNC talking points. Where's all the demands to condemn Coulter or that Florida junkie. I don't think this RNC use of the Republican media (WaPo, etc.) to stir a tempest from a teapot is going to work this time.

Posted by: Jim | September 11, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Several years ago I gave a little bit of $ to MoveOn but now I can't stand them. Their whole approach is currently based on stretching and twisting the truth. I don't think the group used to be that way but it is now. It is unhelpful in the long run. In the long run, it is best to just stick to the truth.

Posted by: Golgi | September 11, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"MoveOn.org would be wise to apologize to Petraeus for what should never have been a personal attack; and move on."

I can't believe you people are allowing this today. Personal attacks? they are calling his professional integrity in question. That is not allowed? Is it better for moveon to call peterus a traitor for lying and falsifying his report OR for Hannity to call rosie FAT. Or coulter to call edwards a fa**ot?

Not to point to bad behavior to justify. But at least the lef tis talking about work and job performance. GOP? hypocrites.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

you can end the war at any time by deciding not to pay for it that takes 41 votes not 60 and could have been done even before the new congress but nobody has the balls to do it

Posted by: sufur | September 11, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Cloture votes, protecting us for 90 years.

Cloture: Its Effect on Senate Proceedings
Walter J. Oleszek
Government and Finance Division
Long known for its emphasis on lengthy deliberation, the Senate in most
circumstances allows its Members to debate issues for as long as they want. Further, the Senate has few ways either to limit the duration of debates or to bring filibusters (extended "talkathons") to an end. For instance, a Senator may offer a non-debatable motion to table (or kill) an amendment or he or she might ask unanimous consent to restrict debate on pending matters. The Senate has one formal rule -- Rule XXII -- for imposing limits on the further consideration of an issue. Called the cloture rule (for closure of debate), Rule XXII became part of the Senate's rulebook in 1917 and has been
amended several times since.
Under its current formulation, Rule XXII requires a cloture petition (signed by 16
Senators) to be presented to the Senate. Two days later, and one hour after the Senate convenes, the presiding officer is required to order a live quorum call and, after its completion, to put this question to the membership: "Is it the sense of the Senate that debate shall be brought to a close?" If three-fifths of the entire Senate membership (60 of 100) votes in the affirmative, cloture is invoked and the Senate is subject to postcloture
procedures that will eventually end the debate and bring the clotured question (a bill, amendment, or motion, for example) to a vote. (To end debate on a measure or
motion to amend Senate rules requires approval by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.)

Posted by: ThrowThemAllOut | September 11, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

"Mouthpiece fine, traitor not so much. Give me one good defense for the ad?"

I can give you a good reason for it. I am a former Army Infantry Soldier 11B, so I think i can speak on this. Petreus is selling his troops out. He is killing his own men with these lies. Why is he betrying his men and the nation? he is misleading his men and the nation into procedding in iraq based on falsehoods and lies. Clear enough.

why is he doing it? He is the man who asked for the surge, according to the pres. He is the one who has been commenting on it's progress. There is NO progrwess, without political progress. He has betryed his men. Regardless of the gop spin machine. He costs many american lives yesterday. Taht is why moveon did what they did. but who's listening? Moveon is the problem according to the gop. I am the problem. The media the judges. Everything but the gop is the problem, to the gop. I of, think the opposite is true.The gop is sabotaging and destorying this country for personal or party gain. That used to be called treason.

Clear enough. Anyone needs more info onthe why's, let me know. I'll answer what the lef tis thinking for you people. I'll try and help you see the light. Where you people have gone wrong :)

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I see this New York Times add from MoveOn.org that calls Patraeus "Betray Us", and it goes on to talk about Ethnic Cleansing and religious civil war... is this not the very reason the "UN / World" has involved itself in every religious / racial conflict within the last 50 years? Why is Iraq now different? All I hear is we should not be there.. and this and that is all messed up.. and that we have to leave.

It seems evident to me that all these people in the world want us to leave the very scenario / situation that they always want us to help with! Get out of Iraq's sectarian struggle... and go to Darfur to fight the sectarian struggle there!!!!!

I'm sorry... I just don't get it.... regardless if we should be there or not, WE ARE THERE. Bickering about presumed falicies of entrance will not help the situation, neither will abandoning Iraq to predicted civil war.

Posted by: Macmarz | September 11, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

You know, Barack Obama should get out in front of this and condemn this as the kind of personal attacks that he has been talking about eliminating from politics. That way he doesn't show any open support for Petraeus's assessment, looks central by not embracing the ad, and gets to hammer one of his main campaign points home. "

Did obama make the video himself? If not why would he condemn it? Why would any dem condemn it? does the RNc have to defend themselves on all of fox's lies and coulters and rush's attacks daily? No, they don't do they. So why the double standard, hypocrites?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Moveon has the right to do what they want, just as FOX does. And until someone has evidence that a candidate participated or had prior knowledge of something like this, no I don't think they should have to apologize for the actions of others. I just can't believe anyone would defend calling a career military leader a betrayer. Mouthpiece fine, traitor not so much. Give me one good defense for the ad?

Posted by: ThrowThemAllOut | September 11, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

"I'd like to hear what is your stance on Norman Hsu? "

I'm not a republcian. therefore I am not a hypocrite. Norman hsu? Where are you pulling that from? What does that have anything to do with anything?
I'll humor you. clinton should give the cash back. She should stop taking money from criminals. to take it a step further, she WIL not be the nominee. She is a closet sell-out republcian. I hope the Hsu controversy destroys her cadidatcy. Clear enough for you? that is the differance between you republcians and the rest of humanity. You don't even realize you are being hypocrites. You don't even see your own double think. Jefferson should be in jail. Kennaddy should be out of the senate.

Now what? If you can't talk about moveon the koz clinton or jefferson, what do you got?

Hypocrite gop'ers.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

You know, Barack Obama should get out in front of this and condemn this as the kind of personal attacks that he has been talking about eliminating from politics. That way he doesn't show any open support for Petraeus's assessment, looks central by not embracing the ad, and gets to hammer one of his main campaign points home.

Posted by: Andy R | September 11, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

CC, your post contains 2 quotes by Republicans, and zero quotes by Democrats or anyone affiliated with MoveOn. Then you have several paragraphs about how Democrats are disorganized and ineffective. And this "news story" is being pushed entirely by Republicans. How about you just change the name of the blog to "RNC Talking Points" and be done with it?

This story is just a distraction from the real news of the report. Why shouldn't people be allowed to criticize Petraeus? They aren't criticizing him as a general, they're criticizing him as a government official presenting a slanted report to Congress. Nobody reacts with outrage when other government officials are criticized; does Petraeus' uniform make him immune?

Posted by: Blarg | September 11, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I am, and have been, a liberal democrat for my entire adult life. I believe the MoveOn commercial was a mistake. It takes attention away from the real efforts underway to end this war. You cannot ignore the fact that most US citizens, democrat, republican and otherwise, honor the efforts of our soldiers. Today, General Petraeus is the face of those soldiers. By attacking him, you undermine the beliefs of all those people, myself included, who support our soldiers while opposing the war.

For those of you who say that nothing short of ending the war immediately is acceptable, by all means, propose a viable political strategy for achieving this purpose. But you can't get away from the fact that it will take 60 votes in the Senate to implement this. Show me how to get those votes I will follow you. But short of that, please stop making things worse for the responsible Democrats who are trying to achieve your goals with a realistic strategy.

Posted by: Tempest | September 11, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

No question that the Dem leadership hates MoveOn. But their support (or at least lack of outright vitriol) is vitally important for any candidate or left leaning pol.

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mpp | September 11, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"Rufus, do us a favor and destroy your computer. You do no one any good with your rants. Do you think REPUBLICANS just made up the 60-vote rule because they are in the minority or that Democrats didn't use it to delay many Bush appointees? "

Alright tough guy. What was needed when the r's where the majority? did they need to get a 60vote count? Research and get back to me. The obstructionist gop is FORCING 60 votes. Everytime on every vote. It's supposed to be majority rule, right. The 60 vote, is a proceduaral thing that the gop is taking advantage of. If you don't knwo what your talking about ThrowThemAllOut, research then repost.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"Where's the outrage over what fox news does everyday. "

It's expected from Fox. But now everybody knows that MoveOn.org is just as sleazy as FOXNews.

Congratulations.
'


Gop hypocrisy at work. LEt's silence moveon and kos, but as far as fox, "it's just what they do"

double think/ hypocricy?

All you that are so outraged, do you think fox shold be pulled off the air also? who has done more damage to this country? Moveon the koz or FOx? Haven't got an answer yet form you hypocrites.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!
I'M POSTING!
I'M CONSERVATIVE AND I'M POSTING!
LOOK AT ME! VALIDATE ME!
MAKE ME FEEL IMPORTANT!
I'M SURGING! I'M SUUUURRRRRRRRGG...ING...

uh, does anyone have a Kleenex?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 11, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Rufus, do us a favor and destroy your computer. You do no one any good with your rants. Do you think REPUBLICANS just made up the 60-vote rule because they are in the minority or that Democrats didn't use it to delay many Bush appointees? It's called an equalizer to keep one side from pounding through their agenda with no checks. I'd like to hear what is your stance on Norman Hsu? Let me guess, just another American (details, details) out there being unjustly prosecuted by the evil Bushie?

Posted by: ThrowThemAllOut | September 11, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn.org would be wise to apologize to Petraeus for what should never have been a personal attack; and move on.

Posted by: NonP | September 11, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"Are you serious when you say that the BIGGEST news of the day was a Move On ad?"

If you go back and read that, he was referring to Sunday - the day before Petraeus began his testimony.

Posted by: JimR | September 11, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Democrats would be smart to outright reject this organization. It is one thing to want us out of Iraq because you believe that the negatives (loss of life, money) outweight the positives (security, freedom for iraqi people, moderate middle east, etc.) I like to think that this is why most democrats oppose the war. I would like to think that if the positives increase and the negatives decrease that people would modify their views. To a large extent this has been the case.

Move-on, however, is not concerned with assessing the situation. They would support anything to leave iraq regardless of consequences. Anyone who objectivly studies the situation knows that there is only one way that the US would pull out all its troops from Iraq at hte moment. This would be if there was a tremendous loss of life (I think on the order of 25 times the current levels).

What disturbs me is that In my mind, Move-On would be happy with this situation as they would "accomplish their goal". any positive news (and the Petraeus report was anything but a completly positive assessment) brings move-on farther from it's goal. This is why they feel the need to try and discredit Petraus' testomony even before it is given to Congress.

Surely Democrats do not share this belief that improvements are negative and massive failures in Iraq are the best way to achieve their goal. Dems and Republicans alike should reject Move-on's goal and seek a long term sustainable solution in Iraq.

Republicans have lost a lot of confidence with the public lately. Democrats should not give lose what they've gained by catering to the extreme objectives of Move-on.org

Posted by: Paul S. | September 11, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Where's the outrage over what fox news does everyday. "

It's expected from Fox. But now everybody knows that MoveOn.org is just as sleazy as FOXNews.

Congratulations.

Posted by: JimR | September 11, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I assume any employee of the Bush administration is cooking their books. Many of the independents the Dems need in 2008 are probably inclined to believe the same. However, I firmly believe that those same independents, the ones that could vote either way, are more scared of the wild-eyed hippie democrats than the witch-burning nutcase republicans. I don't know why, but that's the way it is.

The Democrats are quite accomplished at losing national elections. If they want to do it again, to an election that by any conceivable measure is theirs for the taking, this ad is EXACTLY the way to do it.

Posted by: muD | September 11, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Chris was right on target; you need 60 votes to do anything in the senate, if you don't have it you can't hold the floor. I guess rufus is right, you could choose not to pass an appropriations bill, but I don't think most of the public would take kindly to democrats refusing to pass a defense appropriations bill. And even if you wanted to, the democratic caucus in the senate, all 51 of them, don't exactly vote as a block; it would likely be impossible to hold off a vote on defense appropriations. The republicans could easily get 11 democratic votes to invoke cloture if they wanted (forcing a vote on the bill) and then peel off two democrats to pass it on the floor. All the while the republicans would be on Fox News complaining about the obstructionist democrats, who sat around refusing to vote while the republican party did the work of the nation. I don't think that would play well. Listen, one thing virtually all democrats, myself included, can agree on is that this war is screwed up and isn't going well. Lots of people have died and are dying and that is tragic. But it doesn't do anyone any good to sit around and complain that the senate democrats don't do things you want, especially when it is nearly impossible for them to do so. The senate is designed in the constitution to work slowly, and that's exactly what it is doing, unfortunately. If this doesn't make sense to you, go read Robert Caro's Master of the Senate about LBJ; it has a great historical overview of the senate and its procedures. Oh, and btw, I thought the MoveOn ad was in poor taste. Petraeus isn't perfect, but he seems like a decent human being and has served his country with distinction. I think he personally deserves more respect than that ad showed him, even if you disagree with his opinions via Iraq.

Posted by: oldschooldem | September 11, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't think this was such a bad idea.

MoveOn just put itself back into the debate big time, and created a situation where everyone is talking about Patreus and the fact that the White House DID write the report. How is the news sources saying "Has MoveOn gone over the top?" as the lead story not better, then "US General tells Congress that the surge is working". Especially when the second statement isn't TRUE.

And by the way 52% favorable rating isn't neccesarily glowing.
The thing that gets me is that this EXACT strategy was outlined over a year ago by Eliot Cohen. The administration doesn't want success they just want to be able to blame the fact that it didn't work on the Iraqi's and the Democrats.
If you want to see how this is true, the first Oil contract signed with an American company to explore and harvest oil reserves was signed yesterday by the regional government of Kurdistan. The breakup has begun and the Bush cronies that run the major Oil companies Know it.

Posted by: Andy R | September 11, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

it only takes 41 votes to not pass a bill

Posted by: sufur | September 11, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Are you serious when you say that the BIGGEST news of the day was a Move On ad? Petreus goes before Congress to justify the surge, asks predictably for another block of time and offers a symbolic minute reduction, then goes on for an interview with a fake journalist on a propaganda network which offers him yet another platform to tout his charts... and you think the biggest news of the day is an ad?

Sounds to me like another media figure is taking the Bush administration's bait which is highly ironic considering Bush's own remark that "you fool me once.. shame on you.... Fool me twice shame on .... We won't get fooled again!" You just got fooled yet again!

Posted by: david | September 11, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"That, of course, is impossible given the rules of the Senate where 60 votes are required to close off debate, and Democrats remain unable to garner that sort of support for any legislative vehicle"

"the rules in the senate"? You mean the republcians FORCING 60 votes and not allowing the majority's will to be done? that rule? The republicna sabotage rule. The fix lies again.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

you don't need 60 votes to not fund a war, just don't pass the appropriation

Posted by: sufur | September 11, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

A big nothing, yes. Not the smartest of ads (and not the right thing to do, either), but pales in comparison to the Swift Boat ads.

Posted by: DCAustinite | September 11, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

people are mad about an AD but no one is upset that the rationale for the war is to make Bush not ahve to admit he was wrong? This is stupid.

Posted by: confused | September 11, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

one more point. Why do all the d's have to denounce and ad they had nothing to do with. Are the r candidates going to be asked if they condone bill o'reilly inciting violence last night. Are the r candidates going to be asked one by one if they agree with what ann coulter says? BNot sure if I'd heard that yet. I know. double standard. I know gop hypocrites.

i knwo the gop are the only people that have free speech in this country now. They are free to be clones. the rest us have to pay for what we say. Not the hypocrite gop fascists though. They have FREE SPEECH. Hypocrites.

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

the sell-outs speak. Moveon Is the democratic party. Where have all you tough guy "moderates' been the last 7 years? how have you helped hold bush responsilbe the last 7 years? What have your "moderate" democratic politicains done? They've done nothing. Now you people are turning on moveon and the koz? how is fox still on the air, rush?

this is crazy. You people are nuts. What have you people done to help save this country? All you've done is sit there and do nothing while your county is sold down the river. Cowards. Sell-out moderates.

i can't beleive what I'm hearing. Bill O'Reilly come sout inciting VIOLENCE agaisnt teh left yesterday and you people are going after moveon. WOW. I guess you moderates do as your told by the authoritarians too.

Not us. We will not take orders from the very people destroying our great country. If you choose to do that moderates and gop, that is your choice. Just know you are cowards, you are sell-outs. You no longer hold the reins to this great nation. You used your time wisely. Stop attacking liberal sites, you thought police fascsits. That street runs both ways.

If you want to silecne the koz and moveon, do the same standards apply to fox/rush/coulter/malkin/hannity/savage? If not why?

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. An ad by moveon a group of concerned americans.

Where's the outrage over what fox news does everyday. "ads" posing as news paid for by big oil big drugs and defese contractors. Which is more of a threat. People running ads or corporations running ads. What does move on have to gain by ad's what do corporations like BP boeing and exxon? Think about it

Posted by: rufus | September 11, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

moveon's tactics are terrible. the ends do not justify the means when Rove does it, likewise for Moveon.

Posted by: bsimon | September 11, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

MoveOn.org does not represent the Democratic base. It certainly represents the left wing of the party. But the party has been dominated by moderates.

Posted by: alan in Missoula | September 11, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company