The Vote is Cheap...Get rid of the Cash.

Congressmen Giffords and Mitchell have voted to condemn the now imfamous Move.On ad attacking General Petraeus.  That's a classic Washington move; keep the money but condemn the contributor.   Giffords accepted at least $5,000 in cash from Move.On and Mitchell received over $146,000 in independent expenditures from the organization.

Come on guys, you were for Move.On before you were against them.  Now you can tell the Net Roots that you accepted their support and you can tell your District that you voted to condemn them.  You can only have it both ways for so long.  It's time to give the Move.On money to your favorite local charity and say that you will no longer accept Move.On's money.

(In the much more obscure Committee vote, Giffords voted not to allow the condemnation motion to go to the floor of the House.  Then she voted for it when it reached the floor.  So, I guess, she was for Move.on twice before she was against them.)

BTW, the New York Times now admits that the Petreaus ad violated its own advertising standards.  The paper does not accept advertisements that contain personal attacks on individual people.  Meanwhile the paper is finally conceding that Move.On was charged half the price that it should have paid. 

The image on the left is the original ad over overlaid with a response from Congressman John Shadegg.

Comments

[muckraker]

C'mon. You point out that MoveOn was given a discounted rate, but you conveniently fail to mention that they since have paid the full rate. Why's that?

[Greg Here]

Because they paid the rest after they were busted and because my point was that the Times gave them special treatment. Of course they paid the full rate after they got caught.

[Travis]

This is typical Harry Mitchell. Vote for bail reform for sex offenders before you vote against it. Vote for military spending, before you vote against it.

He should have to shave twice every morning. He still has so many people fooled into believing he is a moderate, when, in reality, he's funded by left-wing kooks and votes however the liberal wind blows. He may be able to keep fooling the Tempe crowd, but hopefully the rest of Congressional District 5 will wake up and see that they are being represented by a Two-Faced Bafoon.

[Dewey]

Well, Harry probably doesn't have time to address this MoveOn issue. Why, according to his web site, just this week alone he's busy making our government ethical, saving our children, and seeing that our flights take off on time. He's also reining in Iran and making our tax code fairer. One only wonders what this man will accomplish for us next week.

[Emily Bittner]

Greg –

For as much ink as you’re giving this MoveOn.org ad, I would think that we’re not in the middle of a mismanaged war that has gone on longer than World War II.

But it seems you’ve been caught up in a manufactured controversy meant to deflect attention from the real issue and to ignore the substance of the Petraeus hearings.

The sad thing about that is that you’re a much better media critic than partisan hack. Even when it doesn’t suit your pre-conceived notions about the world. So I almost hoped that on this one, you would’ve offered some independent insight on what actually happened in the media: The Republicans are latching on to a stupid, bad ad to avoid a much more vital national conversation on the conduct of the war and the wisdom of our current course.

On to the substance of your argument, though: Let’s pretend for a minute that every candidate in every race in the country should share the every view and tactic of every person and group that ever contributes to them. Then, the candidates take responsibility for everything their supporters say when they exercise their free speech rights. I imagine you did.

If that’s the standard, will you also call on your colleagues to return money from convicted felons and accused child molesters? The NRCC has made it abundantly clear that it will continue to use money from Ney, Cunningham and Foley to try to elect Republicans to the Congress. Maybe I missed your post on that.

Greg – stop this shameless distraction from the war debate. It’s making it easier for our side to win voters.

Emily

P.S. Loved your party the other day!

[vet66]

Muck;

How obtuse can you be? As said previously, the only reason the difference was paid was due to the publicity of their ombudsman who condemned the advert as violating the paper's business ethics.

We are watching the collapse of Moveon.orgs importance to the democratic party. The lefties of Moveon.org and George Soros are gifts that keep on giving no matter how you look at it.

[vet66]

Emily;

No student of World Wars are you! The numbers of people killed in WW2 are astronomical compared to the relatively few American troops killed in Iraq and Aghanistan. Stay with what you know which is Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Horror of horrors, your own party is distancing itself from people with perverted views of history like yourself. Suggest you stay out of the geopolitical sphere and stick with global warming, European dreamers and pachouli as issues.

You are out of your league. By the way, expend some CO2 on condemning muslims who engage in honor killings, hang gays/lesbians in Iran, where Ahmadinejad claims there are none, as gays hang like windchimes on the nearest bridge behind him.

[The Klute]

Well, vet66, I'm just glad you're on the side of gay rights. Thank you for being a Friend of Dorothy! Can we count on you speaking at the next Pride parade?

[George Hunt's Ghost]

Vet666

No student of English are you! The previous poster said "longer than World War II." She never suggested that it had more casualties.

Does the criticism of any one thing mean approval by omission of all the other horrors in the world?

Does sitting in a chair in the Air National Guard for four years give you the right to dismiss the deaths of my friends as "relatively few" and therefore acceptable?

Don't you think calling someone "perverted" is a bit over the line, especially in a sentence before a paragraph that talks about gay people hanging from lamposts in Tehran?

At least you were candid about what dominates your thoughts.

[Todd E.]

George's Ghost:
'...give you the right to dismiss the deaths of my friends as "relatively few" and therefore acceptable?'

What??? How many personal friends do you have that could possibly have been killed in Iraq? Given the level of deployment in this 4 plus year war the military fatality rate is about 0.6 of 1%. In a historical perspective this engagement would be hardly a skirmish. There were more soldiers killed in the first 30 minutes of many battles in the Civil War.

Look, no one likes to see anyone killed in a war, but other than the Spanish-American War, this is probably the safest war that any U.S. service man or woman has served in. I know the media distorts the picture, but why don't we focus instead on the advances we've made in protecting our troops in battle?

Bottom line -- we're there, and under the circumstances, not doing that bad a job. The alternatives will lead to chaos and far worse down the road.

[vet66]

Well said Todd!

Ghost;

As for George Bush's NG service I will say that they don't pass out the ignition key to a fighter jet to anybody. That privilege is earned not bought and is not a right. Sounds like you are still whining about losing the last election. I hasten to remind you that if Gore had carried his own state he probably would have won.

As for loss of lives, Saddam was running his countrymen through a veritable buffet of killing machines before we ran him and his psychotic sons off. The patriots who VOLUNTEERED for the war on radical Islam deserve support as they fight a war under the orders of a democratically elected POTUS/CINC.

[vet66]

Ghost;

One more thing, George Bush would probably be happy to take your sorry butt up in a fighter, subject you to a couple G's, and watch you throw up in your mask and fill your depends in the first Immelmann Turn. Do you think flying a fighter jet is like driving a Prius?

Note to those 'googling' Bush Guard duty statistics; the moonbats have buried the real story by bringing their phony propaganda to the forefront of a google search by seeding the first half dozen pages with their falsehoods. As for war records, I am still waiting for Kerry to provide his.

One other thing, complaining about Bush's war record during a time when it was de rigeur to burn draft cards and hide in Canada is intellectually lazy and beneath your obvious schooling.

[BobH]

George Hunt's Ghost: WW2 was also longer than Iraq. Only people who think the war began with Pearl Harbor fall for that particular line. WW2 lasted six years, 1939-45.

By the way, what does the length of a war matter? I think Korea is still officially going on, isn't it?

[Timothy]

Isn't Emily the newish AZ Dem party spokeswoman? And after all her gay-bashing on her AZ Republic blog I was surprised they hired her. So much for the D's taking responsibility for the people they hire.

[Ann]

Good try Emily, but we aren’t falling for the diversion from the purpose. Your accusation toward Greg is more aptly applied to you and your co-conspirators.

"For as much ink as you’re giving this MoveOn.org ad, I would think that we’re not in the middle of a mismanaged war that has gone on longer than World War II.

But it seems you’ve been caught up in a manufactured controversy meant to deflect attention from the real issue and to ignore the substance of the Petraeus hearings."

Time alone is not the measure of good or bad. A short skirmish could be a total disaster with no good end and incredible number of casualties while a lengthy engagement could have considerably fewer deaths but with a positive outcome, the significance of any losses not withstanding. History has no shortage of such examples. No loss is a good one and should not be diminished by the thought that it is strictly time on task that makes an effort worth pursuing or not. To do so infers that the soldiers are nothing more than a commodity to be used for a length of time and if the results are not met in a time certain, then close up and go home. Much like a new sitcom that just doesn't get the ratings. This is a very different era, a very different enemy, and a very different kind of warfare.

The efforts of the left to use such a thing as length of time as the litmus test for value shows a desperate attempt to use whatever latest tactic you can in hopes of seeing what works. Like checking spaghetti for doneness; throw it against the wall to see if it sticks.

Petraeus gave a serious and honest report, one that the left did not want to hear. There had been plenty of other reports to indicate the surge had proven to be successful and that the government was actually making progress. The NY Times itself had published such information as did other reliable news sources. His report was not a surprise.

But, the defeat of America is what the left wanted to hear not a successful military effort and they knew what was coming. In the absence of the ability to make defeat the news they tried to distort and pervert whatever they could to turn the truth into their version of the story. The Petraeus ad by moveon.org was a pre-emptive strike intended to put doubt in the minds of Americans, self-serving at best and subversive at worse. A statement such as comparative length of time of Iraq and WWII is just another attempt at swaying perception in order to avoid the true reality.

Throw it out there, see if it sticks…. Sorry, Emily, not this time.

PS: Welcome to Arizona.

[garry]

This debate is getting a little out of hand and I do not usually interject my opinions when the comments reach a certain point. However, I feel it is important to note that every soldier who serves (or served) in Iraq raised their right hand to "support and defend the Constitution . . . [and] obey the Orders of the President of the United States." No one forced them to raise their right hand nor did they receive a draft notice in the mail ordering them to report.

Some join for the GI Bill, others to get a better life. Regardless, they all enlisted on their own free will. Is it sad when a soldier dies? Yes. Does it break my heart that a child somewhere will not have their mother or father return from Iraq? Yes. Do the company commanders, 1st sergeants, platoon leaders and platoon sergeants cry like babies when a soldier in their unit dies? Yes
That does not detract from the core principle that the soldier knew and understood he or she could die in combat. The phrase heard most often in the military is "I didnt sign up for this." I probably uttered it a few hundred times in my nine years in the army. The truth is I did sign up for “this”. To put it bluntly, "when you take the King's silver, you do the King's bidding".
GHG mourns his friends who died and bemoans the fact that they are considered "relatively few." Those relatively few agreed to a job and gave the ultimate sacrifice while performing it. For that, we must always honor them.

[vet66]

Garry;

Well said! Thanks for your service Brother. I was Navy both blue water and littoral.

Ann;

Thanks for your erudite contribution. Excellent.

Duty! Honor! Country!

[SonoranSam]

I actually tried to sit this one out, but...

1. To Greg's point: Where were you guys when J.D. Hayworth gave back only the money DIRECTLY contributed to his campaign by Abramoff, but refused to return all the money that Abramoff raised?

2. I echo those above who honor the soldiers who are serving in Iraq, though I think calling any war "safe" would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

3. When I was at the gym this morning I glanced up at a TV tuned to Fox, and I saw those gas bags fulminating about George Soros trying to "buy public opinion." Geez, from the media outlet owned by an unabashed ideologue who brings a conservative agenda to each tentacle of his extensive media outlet. And let's not even discuss the right-wing "Rent-a-think-tank" industry, which is funded by who knows how many millions of conservative dollars.

What does No. 3 have to do with Nos. 1 and 2? Once again, when it favors Republicans it's great, but if it's neutral, leaning left or merely questioning the moral authority of people who sat out military service (Bush failing to report, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Kyl getting deferments), then it's left-wing bias.

Personally, if you guys want to watch Fox, go for it. Conservatives have the right to listen only to news that validates their opinion. Progressives are catching up by using U-Tube, the internet and other outlets. And Greg raises good points about the print media being in serious trouble, but I think something will emerge, because someone has to cover city hall and sit through all the local school board meetings.

It's a return to the marketplace of ideas that existed in Jefferson's day. I think it's a good thing.

(I may be getting in too deep for so early in the day...).

[Mark]

Once again SonoranSam is off in his land of fancy. "Geez, from the media outlet owned by an unabashed ideologue who brings a conservative agenda to each tentacle of his extensive media outlet."

So balanced news is a conservative agenda? And it is balanced. It's so balanced that I cannot stomach all the left-wing propaganda that is on display daily. You really can’t find a more fascist leftist than Alan Colmes. O'Reily is hardly a conservative. Brit tends to have two liberals in his panel of three. Greta is a dem. In the last 50 years you have enjoyed controlling all media outlets with your neofascist ideology and now you have one competitor that still balances itself with its numerous neofascist commentators and hosts. So please knock off the crocodile tears.

"merely questioning the moral authority of people who sat out military service (Bush failing to report, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Kyl getting deferments), then it's left-wing bias."

You have no moral right to question Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Kyl. They broke no law and you have no objective justification for those attacks. You especially have no right to question the President who served honorably. If you want to question someone then question Bill Clinton who actually criminally dodged the draft. It is the illegality in his actions which would then give you that moral authority to question his lack of service. Only a fool would claim to not know the difference.

Again, neofascists need to understand that the reason that people were so outraged by the seditious attack against Patraeus is because it had no moral or objective justification. As even Klute admittied, there is no deed or action of the General's that is used as the basis of your friends’ attack. It is not like criticism of Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan during the civil war for his failures during the Second Battle of Bull Run. Your friends' attack is merely to aid and comfort the enemy so that al Qaeda will continue to murder our soldiers and allies which your side believes will result in more votes for democrats. And you then pretend to be surprised when people are outraged by this?

Re duration of WWII - In the first place - we are still in Germany and we are still in North Korea. Also your comparisons are so full of bs. The war mission in Iraq lasted months - we are now there on a peace keeping mission. The war mission during WWII lasted for years and our peace keeping forces are still in those nations 6 decades later.

[SonoranSam]

Mark: I have every right to question them. It's called the First Amendment.

I'm sorely tempted to respond to your invective in kind, but I think I'll pass. Have a nice day.

[Mark]

I love it - please explain how the first amendment gives you that right? You sound like the 'don't taser me bro' dude or the editors for the Colorado collage paper who's headline said 'F_ _ _ BUSH'! They also played the first amendment card. Are you really making the argument that the 1st amendment gives you the right to say anything? Do I have the 1st amendement right to slanderously say you are a child molester? Or do I lose that right if such accusation is a lie?

Furthermore I clearly said moral right and since you changed the subject with your weak 1st amendment defense I guess you must agree that you don't have that moral right.

[J.D.]

Since Sonoran Sam mentions my name, and again inaccurately states the case, allow me to correct the record.

1) I donated the total contributions of Jack Abramoff...all $2,250...to charity.

2) Jack Abramoff never "raised" funds for my campaigns or for my leadership PAC.

3) The tribal entities who may have utilized Abramoff or his firm were contacted by my campaign and asked if they wanted refunds. They made it clear they supported ME, and did so of their own volition.
As one tribal leader put it, "We supported you before we knew Jack Abramoff, and we supported you after we ended our relationship with Abramoff. Our support for you has NOTHING to do with him."

My successor will never have to say anything about George Soros, Moveon.org,or any other group or individual who supports him explicitly or "independently," because neither local newspaper will ever ask him about it.

Thank Goodness for "Espresso Pundit," KFYI, and the upcoming campaign!

[CommanderInChief]

The tragic part about the uproar over the Betray-Us Petreaus ad is how badly the news media has failed this country. Bush, Cheney, and Rove just keep pulling the strings, and the news media just keeps on dancing to whatever tune Bush calls. One would have hoped that after being spoon fed lies and phony intelligence in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, the news media would have caught on. They haven't.
The strategy on the part of the Bush regime is simple, and to me, simply obvious. They don't have enough credibility left to sell the American people sixteen more months of the war in Iraq. Mission Accomplished. The insurgency is in its last throes. Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. There is now no doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.
When your credibility has bled to death from self-inflicted wounds, your faced with some hard choices. You can continue telling the same lies and hope someone will believe them. Or you can find a new face to lie for you. Maybe someone in a uniform, with lots of medals dangling from it. Then if someone dares to dispute your new messenger, why of course, they're attacking one of our soldiers, they're not patriotic, it's TREASON for God's sake. Brilliant, brilliant strategy. If Bush/Cheney/Rove were as good at governing the country and managing the war as they are at manipulating the news media, hell I'd vote for them for a third term.
The Bush regime is just using Petraeus to sell the same old package of false hope and misinformation they've been selling all along. Of course Bush feigned neutrality and told everyone he was waiting to hear the report from General Petraeus in the fall. I knew all along what would be in the report. So did Bush. Yes we've had some setbacks, yes it's going to be a long hard fight, but we're making substantial progress, the surge is working, and I've got the numbers right here to prove it. Bush and Cheney knew all along that's what the report would be. Petraeus is just Ronald McDonald selling a lost war instead of cheeseburgers and French Fries.
If you think it's despicable, unpatriotic, or treasonous to call a general in our armed forces a liar, a sockpuppet, or Ronald McDonald, I make no apologies. It think it's despicable for Bush and Cheney to hide behind a general's uniform. It's unpatriotic to lie to the Congress and to the American people about your reasons for going to war. It's unpatriotic to continue to pretend you have some hope of winning when you don't. It's treasonous to ask American soldiers to fight and to die for the sole purpose of deflecting blame for a lost war away from the President and Vice President .
The strategy worked beautifully. MoveOn called Petraeus for selling Bush's lies. (How is this, by the way, a personal attack?) The Republicans and the right wing huffed and puffed about how despicable it was that one of our brave soldiers was attacked by the left wing. No one even bothered to address the central points of the MoveOn ad: the numbers presented to the Congress by Petraeus were cooked. Car bombing casualties weren't counted. Shot in the back of the head deaths were counted, shot in the front of the head were not. No one, not the White House or the right wing talk show hosts, bothered to dispute the accuracy of MoveOn's charges. No one even tried to argue that fudging the numbers this way did not amount to cooking the books. All they did was huff and puff about treason and personal attacks and patriotism.
So the Republicans and the right wing get what they want. Bush and Cheney can run out the clock until January 20, 2008. They'll sneak out the back door of the White House. Someone else will have to take the blame for losing an immoral, fruitless war conceived in deceit and managed with a staggering combination of incompetence and arrogance. Bravo. God Bless America. At least we don't gave Gay Marriage here.

[Mark]

Commander - are you related to Goebbels? You wrote: "One would have hoped that after being spoon fed lies and phony intelligence in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, the news media would have caught on."

I must assume your not a smart man but let me at least test your rationality. Based on what you just wrote that list of people must include Putin, Chirac, Blair, Schroeder, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and a number of other Democrats who now serve in leadership. So are you saying that all of the above mentioned were lying in the lead up to the resumption of the war?

If your conspiracy tale only blames Republicans then I do not see how it is possible that any one can conclude that you are anything but a traitor. I am sure you propagandize as you do for free, but have you ever considered that al Qaeda would pay you for it?

[Dewey]

"(How is this, by the way, a personal attack?)"

Oh please. Next post please try a whole lot fewer words and something a little less pedantic. Thanks.

[vet66]

Moveon.org appears to be in damage control mode. Ambush interviews and phone calls to public officials are setting a pattern. The gotcha calls and contacts seem to have a pattern of behavior. They demand that their target be conversant with the latest dead soldier from their district.

Apparently, these drive-by interviewers are unaware that DOD gives the grieving families the choice to opt out of releasing the names of the patriots who have died in the cause of freedom. It is not surprising that this tactic by the moveon.org moonbats assumes that dead soldiers identities are open to the public forum. They are not.

Note to those who work in the public sector and any pro-military folks out there, here is the correct response to some bottomfeeder who sticks a microphone in your face: "I am not at liberty to disclose personal information regarding any family to discuss personal matters of the grieving family.

This hit-and-run tactic using deceased members of a GoldStar family to make up for the Petraeus debacle is indicative of the anti-military and anti-American bias of the nutroots.

Get the word out folks. It is going to get worse.

[The Klute]

Mark,

Not only did you break Godwin's Law, I think you may have created some sort of rhetorical singularity that is quickly absorbing all civil discourse within 2 light-years of our solar system.

Some Democrats lied. Some were stupid and should have known better. Some were too busy thinking of their political future to question. Some I'm sure believed it.

This all boils down, especially with vet66(keep chasing that rainbow, vet66!), you don't like what was said - it's just like Mr. "Don't Taze Me Bro!", if that had been a pro-life protestor at a pro-abortion rally, they're been a hue and cry about Christian persecution (and maybe some awesome commentary about the Beast ascending). You are about the politics of the act, not the act itself.

Slander isn't covered under the 1st Amendment. If Petraeus thinks he's been slandered, he's a private citizen, let him file a lawsuit again MoveOn (he'll be laughed out of court of course, because as a public figure in a political situation, the 1st Amendment has amazingly wide lattitude in what can be said).

I'm glad to see you're using my McClellan example though - because it at least lets us know when we *can* critize a general publicly: when he screws up a mission.

And if the Maliki government collapses (notice I said "if", not "when" - because while I know though the spittle-flecked prism of the computer screen I'm some sort of Islamist fifth column, I'm actually not), it's Petraeus' ass.

Of course, I do think that anyone in power (military, political, theocratic) is open for criticism regardless of the situation. Unless, of course, we're of the school of thought that Pinochet was awesome.

[The Klute]

And you know what:

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html

I eagerly await your criticism of that.

[The Klute]

Oh, and Mark, let's not be coy. US Forces weren't in Germany or Japan on a peacekeeping mission beyond the first few years after WWII. We were (are) there as a protection from/a warning to Russia. There weren't many Nazis taking shots at Konrad Adenauer or Willy Brandt.

When I was in Frankfurt last October, the only American soldiers I saw were getting hammered at the bar, not driving down the streets in armored Humvees trying to ferret out the local Nazi cell leader. If American soldiers were able to walk down the streets of Baghdad without getting shot in the back of the head while shopping for CDs, do you really think we'd be complaining?

[The Klute]

And because I'm on a roll:

The "F___ Bush" column would probably be directly protected under Cohen v California.

Citation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0015_ZS.html

[BobH]

"...the news media just keeps on dancing to whatever tune Bush calls."

Gotta be the funniest thing ever published on this site.

[Ann]

If they are dancing to Bush's tune, then they must be way off beat becasue it sure looks like someone is getting their toes stepped on....

[Ann]

because... geez, sorry!

[Chris]

Harry talks from both sides of his mouth. He will lose his seat. Look at the approval rating of W and 10+pts below that you can see where the Democratic controlled congress' approval rating is. Great job Pelosi, Reed and your loyal subjects(Harry Mitchell)!
Harry voted for warrantless wiretaps before he plans to vote against them. Yes, that is what he said. Go to youtube and type in Harry Mitchell. The video's title has "warrantless Wiretaps" in it.
He voted for services to illegals. During his campaign of lies he promised us that he would not vote on services for the illegals. Harry's mommy, Pelosi said NO SE ME HACE(thats spanish for I dont think so, for those racists(sarcastic) that donta speaka spanish) and sent Harry back to change his vote. Now, seeing a teacher getting school'd like that is pretty amazing.

[Mark]

Klute - you may be a raving flaming liberal but you do make me laugh and I generally enjoy your commentaries.

Klute it really doesn't boil down to me not liking what was said. It boils down to not liking that al Qaeda cheered over what was said. Amazingly, you act as if the government doesn't have an obligation to win when we are at war. You do realize that our security is the gov'ts primary function? No two-party state can survive if, while at war, one party can aid and comfort the enemy without consequences. I guarantee you if Dems were in the White House and Republicans were committing these various acts of treason the Dems and their media allies would have those seditious Reps behind bars, or worse.

I am sure you are aware, Klute, that sedition has been prosecuted in our nation's past. Were all prosecutions futile or unconstitutional? What’s the point of having anti-sedition laws? What's the point of acknowledging the constitutional remedy for treason? I agree with you that liberal courts made suing for slander nearly impossible (you know the lefties sure love their Larry Flint). And hattip for the brilliant misdirect - if it was just slander we wouldn't be so outraged. But, as we have gone down this road before, motive matters and you damn well know that motive matters. It's the motive of Harry Reid, Durbin, Hillary, Gore, Kucinich and Moveon that makes it sedition. They aren't really criticizing any particular American. They are in reality aiding the enemy in Iraq to attain political votes and more power back home. You know this, I know this, they know it - and they think most are too stupid to call them on it so they preserver in their treachery. Yes, I am a realist and I recognize they will likely get away with it but I refuse to cower from calling them what they are. What amazes me is that you aren't capable of putting party politics aside for a few moments in your life and admitting that this is not a good precedent that you side is establishing. In fact, it is incredibly dangerous and could doom our nation to decades of turmoil.

And Klute - also don't be coy. Of course, the rabid actions of Stalin changed the dynamics on the ground in Germany and even Japan. We are seeing those same dynamics at work with the actions of AQI now and it is having the same effect in places like Anbar. But I also included North Korea, whom we are still in a state of war with a cease fire and have large numbers of peacekeeping forces there 5 decades after the fact. And Clinton wasn't very accurate regarding his timeline for withdrawal from the Balkans, was he?

Klute, just admit that Bush has done exactly what the left historically believed our military should be doing and that's what drives them crazy. Bush has liberated 50 million people and intends to expand democracy across the globe using our blood and money to ensure success. Such thinking did not originate from the right but came from the democrat party. Your side’s objections are so friggin phony and really expose the irrational nature of leftist mentalities. If Bush was a dem he would already be regarded as the greatest president since FDR. Lefties would already be building statues. Your side's hypocrisy stinks to high heaven and eventually many of you will tire of the smell.

"In testifying before House and Senate committees about the current situation in Iraq, Petraeus told no outright lies. He made no blustery promises about “victory,” a word notably absent from his testimony. The tone of the presentation was sober and measured. It contained the requisite references to complexity and challenge. Petraeus acknowledged miscalculation and disappointment."

The red meat is accurate.

"Yet the essence of his message was this: after four years of futile blundering, the United States has identified the makings of a successful strategy in Iraq."

Typical conventional wisdom. Typical armchair reactionary tripe. Laughable in a sense because it plays into the propaganda of the defeatists. Remember when the dems were criticizing the fledgling Iraqi democracy before Iraqis had even cast their first vote? Remember when the Dems criticized the transition even though it occurred at a faster pace than they anticipated? The establishment of a constitution and democratically elected government are hardly futile blunders. A fool will find only the facts that suit his argument. And it takes a real fool to ignore or dismiss the role that AQI played and plays in Iraq, especially with their bombing of their sacred Mosque. But to ignore the aid and comfort given to AQI is also the height of foolishness.

[vet66]

Mark;

Excellent post. Further proof that Klute (Hanoi Jane Fonda Fame) is out of touch comes in the form of the recently released IG report on George Tenet's handling of the CIA during his term. It went so far as to recommend discipline for the 'Firm's' failure to have a strategy that involved processes intrinsic to terrorism (assymetrical warfare) versus head-on battle process with Soviet Forces through the Fulda Gap near Frankfurt, Germany and the old East German border.

Seems as how George Tenet had no strategy in place to deal with AQ but relied on the process in place which became an end in and of itself. That explains the massive intelligence failure that resulted in 9/11. It also explains why Tenet wrote his side of events because he knew he was going to take the blame for the intelligence failure that let bin laden escape and organize the WTC attacks.

[Dewey]

Klute:

"Slander isn't covered under the 1st Amendment. If Petraeus thinks he's been slandered, he's a private citizen, let him file a lawsuit again MoveOn (he'll be laughed out of court of course, because as a public figure in a political situation, the 1st Amendment has amazingly wide lattitude in what can be said)."

Um ... what?

[The Klute]

vet66,

While I have been to a Vietnamese restaurant, my name's got nothing to do with Jane Fonda.

Other than thinking she was hot (with 2 "t"s) in Barbarella, of course.

[vet66]

Klute;

How about trying again. In one sentence you referred to General Petraeus as a private citizen and a public figure. Like Dewey, I am confused.

He is a military person serving under his CinC, the POTUS. He is not free to express his personal opinions. He is required, by his job desciption, to implement policy as set forth by President Bush. He would analyze the situation and provide both sides of the story regarding the efficacy of any plan of action requested by his superiors (POTUS). That is why the President is civilian and Petraeus is military.

[The Klute]

No, it's consistent. If he feels his reputation has been slandered, he can file a slander, well, libel, lawsuit. It doesn't matter if he's military or otherwise. He's not expressing opinion, he's defending his reputation.

And if he were to do such a thing, the court would side with MoveOn, as they have ruled time and time again that there is a much larger burden to prove libel (using Falwell v Flynt, or more recently, Rall v Hellman as an example, where 4 out of 5 charges, including libel per quod and injurious falsehood, were thrown out - the libel per se charge hasn't made it to court).

[The Klute]

Sorry, that should read: Hustler Magazine v Falwell, and the libel per se charge hasn't made it to trial, not court.

[The Klute]

"I agree with you that liberal courts made suing for slander nearly impossible (you know the lefties sure love their Larry Flint)."

Are you saying that William Rhenquist and Antonin Scalia are liberal? They both sided with Larry Flynt (and Rhenquist wrote the opinion).

And back to the Petraeus thing, reading Rhenquist's opinion, it looks like the MoveOn ad would be protected under Huster v Falwell as well.

[Ann]

That we live in a country where someone like Larry Flynt can be the recipient of the courts' favor only intensifies the need for groups such as MoveOn.org to be held accountable for the full result of their action outside the realm of free speech. In turn, The New York Times with their huge reduction in charges (I don't care that they retracted it and all that other BS)is complicit in the action.

The enemy was emboldened by the action, their ability to use wedge politics is working and all those who side with such antics are not friends of freedom but allies with those that would choose to defeat America at all cost. The end justifies the means mentality serves no good cause.

No matter how much you dislike Bush, how wrong you believe the war is, how badly the war has been managed,should playing the hand of our enemy be consider fair ground?

[vet66]

Ann:

Spot on!

As for Klute, the strategy is to allow the Dailykos crowd of adolescents, Moveon.org, and George Soros every opportunity to prove they believe their own P.R. Money couldn't buy the kind of negative press they generate for themselves.

They were roundly condemned and are fighting a rearguard action as damage control. The center-left of the democratic party are beginning the gradual stepping away from these loons and their noxious rantings. The Kossacks and Moveon are already beginning to eat their own as they threaten those democrats who don't toe the lefty line with bad publicity.

Klute. General Petraeus has too much class to give Moveon the dignity of a lawsuit, which is what Moveon needs. It is much more effective to watch them swing in the wind and flail about like the delinquents they are.

[The Klute]

Mark,

I'm not going to get into the whole "Harry Reid is rooting for Al Quida" thing because we're simply not going to come to a consensus there.

I will take on this sedition thing though, and since I'm apparently a law scholar today: I'll quote precedent: Brandenberg v Ohio, which says the government can NOT prosecute speech unless it is directed to and likely to incite violence or criminal acts.

The text of the MoveOn ad didn't say "Unite, O Islamic Brothers! Pick up your Kalishnakovs drive the Americans from your land!". It was an opinion piece with a title that someone thought was clever. The ad actually expresses an opinion (ham-fistedly as it was written) that a majority of Americans agree with: they want a timetable for withdrawal.

But let's say that it actually express an opinion that it would be awesome if Al Quida beat the US, then we can use Yates v United States, which ruled that you have to be involved in actions, rather than possess ideas to be involved in sedition.

So, based upon these precedents, I'm going to rule in favor of MoveOn, and let's go to Doug Lewellyn with reactions from the defendant.

As for the "I'd think the Iraq War was awesome if a Democrat had launched it"... Nope. I'd be against it regardless, and I'll be just as bitchy when Hillary keeps it going in 2009. A country isn't liberated when it's freed from a dictator and replaced with blood-drenched anarchy. As for Afghanistan, I'm not sure about it. My feminist, bisexual slam poet friend is going there in 6 months to be with her boyfriend (for real). If she survives the trip, I'll be able to gauge that more effectvely.

"I guarantee you if Dems were in the White House and Republicans were committing these various acts of treason the Dems and their media allies would have those seditious Reps behind bars, or worse."

Well, I guess we'll see in 2009! But if does come to this, I promise to testify on your behalf during the show trials. I promise you, you'll get 5, 10 years of hard labor tops. :)

[Mark]

Well saying that the American general in charge of Iraq is a liar who IS betraying the American people, during wartime no less, based upon no objective examples clearly is an incitement to our enemies that promotes rebellion against our government and the Iraqi government.

The dems of course have nothing to worry about because there aren't enough courageous republicans to prosecute and judge against them. They would rightfully hate being made into a Linda Tripp by the media and would follow the example set by Renquist and Republican Senators during Clinton's impeachment. How sad.

Klute I actually believe you when you say you would still be against the resumption of the war in Iraq. However, I doubt most leftist academics would have followed your example had Clinton (etc) been President and lead us into war. And that really is the point, isn't it?

And thank you for promise to help with leniency. However, it will never come to that because Republicans, as a whole, love this nation too much to engage in such power-mad treachery.

[Ann]

If you listen to the play backs of the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, you would believe that Clinton had much to say about the the need to disarm Saddam and stabilize the territory. He, however, never had the intestinal fortitude to actually do what he said needed to be done. He avoided responsibility for the hard decisions and left his wife to make the statement on the floor of the Senate and live with the results and public scrutiny. But then again, isn't that how he did everything?

Klute, I may not agree with much you say but I admire your steadfastness. Even in disagreement the belief in our commonness as Americans is worth fighting for...or over.

[The Klute]

Mark,

While I know this makes me sound Ari Fleischer in 2004 and his defense over the "14 words" in the State of the Union, we're arguing over 2 words. If you read the context of the MoveOn ad, they do attempt to back up their criticism (the most damning [of Petraeus] being the "bullet in the back/front" comment), so... All I can say here is that our enemies are already in full on rebellion, I doubt an ad in the NYT is going to make them turn the Jihad knob up to 11.

I don't think it's the media attention that's stopping them - I think it's the examples that could be thrown back in their face during the Yugoslav conflict or whatever the hell Somalia was. For the record, I'm extremely conflicted about Clinton's actions during Yugoslav - my best friend is Serbian and I had to comfort him every time the line went dead when he was talking to his relatives in Belgrade.

"However, I doubt most leftist academics would have followed your example had Clinton (etc) been President and lead us into war. And that really is the point, isn't it?"

To a point I'll agree. I was never a Clintonista, and I'll call a scoundrel a scoundrel when I see one... I won't blindly follow someone just cause they feed the appropriate bulls**t. But you'd have to agree that there's just as much blind hero worship on the right. Bush Derangement Symptom is just a mutation of Clinton Derangement Syndrom.

"...it will never come to that because Republicans, as a whole, love this nation too much to engage in such power-mad treachery."

I think you'd find that most Democrats love this nation just as much.

And on that happy note...

[The Klute]

Ann,

And I, you.

I believe that for the American system of government to work there needs to be debate with words, and we settle our disagreements peacefully. That's something that America has given and can continue to give to the world.

And big ups to Greg for creating a community where this happens (most of the time, anyway, heh).

[Ann]

Klute,

Unfortunately because the rest of the world does not enjoy the freedoms we take for granted they also do not understand our speech. That is what makes this particular ad so dangerous. While we see the freedom of our society to disagree openly and vehemently without fear of "the line going dead", the perspective from which the world sees it is not one of freedom. They have only their life experiences from which to gain a sense of understanding. They see a full page ad and see rebellion and a loss of control by the government. The entities that hate us are fueled by the belief that we are fractured and just need a good tap to break in two, or three. It doesn't turn the Jihad knob to 11, but it doesn't turn it off either. It is more like an extension cord.

[Timothy]

Looks like Greg read Peggy Noonan's column today.

[The Klute]

And I have a different perspective on that. If the enemies of this country see dissent as a weakness, they're more than welcome to put that assertation to the test - and they'll fall by the wayside like the Nazis, the Soviets, who believed we were weak. But we've got to be the example for the rest of the world, we've got to show that our differences make us strong.

If they choose to make a misinterpreation of these differences, honestly, that's the enemy's problem. To the Taliban, they believe flying kites and listening to recorded music is a sign of weakness. It reminds me of that video tape they found of Osama and Zawahiri having dinner after 9/11, how they said Americans must have believed the attacks were a "coup". I mean, who the hell thought that? No one.

We have to be an example to the people who are caught in the middle, to the kid who might not want to grow up under facism or totalitarianism. In this context, when I see that ad, I hear that kid asking: "I can criticize the general without being shot? There is a place this can happen?" (that should be said in a stereotypical 3rd world accent to fully tug at the heartstrings).

And let's be honest, do we really think they're getting the New York Times in Waziristan or a hole in Baqouba? If everyone hadn't lost their collective minds over this and if the politicans hadn't used it as a wedge to further drive apart everyone, it would have come and went.

Although I could be wrong. Maybe Osama reads the New York Times and does the Jumble after his morning salat and was feeling *really* good when he saw the ad.

And just to clarify, the line didn't go dead to any kind of secret police action - it went dead when a NATO bomb hit something. It was hard for me to reconcile the fact that we were dropping bombs on some of the wrong people for the right reasons.

[123@gmail.com]

This is all awesome. I can't wait to see all these congressional Republican who have benefited enormously from 20 years of the Rush Limbaugh Show, vote for a resolution condeming the twice-divorced former oxycontin addict for calling soldiers who criticize the war "phony soldiers."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13051.html

[vet66]

123 Gmail;

Suggest you read the entire statement and not read sources that cherry-pick words that suit their agenda. The "phony soldier" context pertained to the propensity of some in the media to manufacture stories that are false but should be true.

As for Tim, people die, including our soldiers, as the Takfiris around the world are re-energized by unfettered dissent, with no accompanying support, blares forth.

If causing the deaths of soldiers and innocents is an acceptable price to pay for said dissent, the blood is on your hands.

[vet66]

Correction, the second part of the post was aimed at Klute not Tim.

[The Klute]

vet66,

Are you really saying there's no vocal support for the war in America? So I guess Gathering of Eagles, Move America Forward, Gold Star Families, every Republican presidential candidate (with the exception of Ron Paul), Fox News, etc. is just a fever dream I've been having for the last 5 years? Or are they just that ineffectual?

And I'm sorry, the blood is on the hands of the generals and civilian leadership who failed to plan to for a protracted insurgency and the terrorists and isurgents themselves.

That's the thing I don't get about people with your mindset. You believe we liberals are so ineffectual at doing anything because we're doing nothing but talking about Trotsky while taking hits of our bong, while at the time same time, we're part of diabolical plan that controls America through op-ed ads and marching through then streets to a 4-4 beat.

Republicans have had control of the government for the last 6 years. Let's repeat that: REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD CONTROL OF ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FROM 2001-2007. You've got control of the most watched cable news channel (or so they bray all the time). You control talk radio. You had the power. And what did you do with it?

Not our fault, vet66. Go bitch to Hastert, to Bush, to Lott, to all your little munchkins. But I know, it's easier to blame an op-ed piece than shining the light of introspection on our leaders failed us.

[The Klute]

And you know, the price for dissent has always been paid in blood. From Nathan Hale to Rafic Hariri.

[123@gmail.com]

Vet66,

That's actually not true. The transcript that Rush Limbaugh put up on his website was redacted so it made it seem as if he was saying what you say he was saying.

But all you need to do is visit the link where the full conversation from beginning to end is availabe in audio and transcript form.

Also, Bill Clinton puts everything in context for you:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/clinton_on_moveon.php

[vet66]

123;

You are correct sir! It appears that Limbaugh tried to weasel his way out of his statement. Inexcusable. That is not good for his credibility.

I do believe he supports the troops and disparages the those troops who dis the war. That doesn't do his credibility much good.

Klute, I belong to several organizations that support the military and their families. Don't go there.

Speaking of credibility, the lefty media has disgraced itself time and again printing phony stories from questionable sources using photoshop to dramatize actual events. Doesn't excuse Limbaugh's actions one bit. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are many newspapers in the west that print with an ideological bias.

[The Klute]

"Klute, I belong to several organizations that support the military and their families. Don't go there."

Fine. So what was the point of this statement?:

"people die, including our soldiers, as the Takfiris around the world are re-energized by unfettered dissent, with no accompanying support, blares forth."

Either there is dissent with accompanying support, or there isn't. Either you are a member of a vocal organization that supports the war, or you're not.

You can't have it both ways, vet66.

[vet66]

123;

I did some double checking and guess what I came up with? Nothing redacted but I posit that the name Jesse Mcbeth (Phony soldier) and MediaMatters (Probably funded by Soros.)

I believe we were both duped and the far left is in attack mode. The tried to beef O-Reilly on a rascism charge and failed. They then went after Limbaugh. There is a pattern of deception here and I don't believe it was Limbaugh.

Check your sources and try to come up with something other than Iglesias and Moveon. Limbaugh should be on O'Reilly tomorrow night. We shall see!

[123@gmail.com]

Vet66,

I'd be happy to visit links you have that show that Limbaugh did not redact the transcript. I've listened to the full segment and also read the full transcript. Limbaugh was clearly calling soldiers who spoke out against the war "phony soldiers."

[Ann]

The context of the statement was referencing Jesse Macbeth and those like him, he is a phony soldier. There have been many others who would play to the hearts of Americans for their own profit. This is an abomination and should not be supported even if by an apathetic insignificance.

[vet66]

Klute;

I enjoy our discussions. Regarding "Can't have it both ways" there is a third way. Both sides have their bias. The lefties seem to be taking their bias to new highs by going on the attack against conservatives. Arguably the lefites have restricted debate and free speech if it doesn't follow their party line. The Petraeus debacle failed spectacularly and damage control is in full force.
that is why the attacks on conservative radio, including Savage whom I believe is over-the-top, and recurring talk about the Fairness Doctrine.

All this goes with talk about supporting the troops but not supporting the cause. Translation: troops are dying and being injured for Bush's War, read "Needlessly."

Point Being; a non-united front against Takfiris/fundamentalist muslims inspires the mujahadeen, etc., to reenergize and kill more soldiers and civilians.

[123@gmail.com]

The context of the statement was referencing Jesse Macbeth and those like him, he is a phony soldier. There have been many others who would play to the hearts of Americans for their own profit. This is an abomination and should not be supported even if by an apathetic insignificance.

That's not true. Read the transcript and listen to the tape. Of course, Limbaugh has been on the radio for the last few days claiming that he was referring to Jesse MacBeth, but that's not what he said when he made the comments as the tape and transcript show.

[123@gmail.com]

I should add that Limbaugh has a history of impugning the integrity of soldiers who disagree with him politically. It wasn't just his comment last week attacking unnamed soldiers who are critical of the war as "phony soldiers." In 2005, Limbaugh attacked Paul Hackett, a marine who served in Fallujah and Ramadi, as a "staff puke," who went to Iraq "to pad [his] resume," and is "a liberal hiding behind a military uniform." Listen:

Audio and Video here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/28/audio-limbaugh-calls-ira_n_66333.html

I personally found the MoveOn ad distasteful, and didn't think Petraeus, as much as he's carrying out Bush's policy, deserved to be called, essentially, a traitor.

I did think that while the headline "Betray-Us" was disrespectful, that the text of the ad was otherwise pretty accurate.

I also don't get all bent out of shape when partisans like MoveOn or Rush Limbaugh attack people in the military, given that I regard people in the military as grown ups who can kind of take a verbal thrashing without paying it much mind.

[vet66]

123;

Therein lies the difference between your position and mine. I don't believe the motives of the lefties is benign at all. It is a noxious drip-drip of poison that infects and stifles debate. From the anti-military movies from Hollywood and celebrated in Cannes, to media hype that endangers our troops and cause by leaking secrets, to a CIA that is long on process and short on strategy, to lefty politicians who kill troops in their quest for political power.

That is the difference between us.

[The Klute]

"All this goes with talk about supporting the troops but not supporting the cause. Translation: troops are dying and being injured for Bush's War, read 'Needlessly.'"

And that's just it. I *don't* believe they are fighting and dying without a purpose, but I do believe they are dying needlessly. Bringing Osama and Zawhiri to justice and taking down Al Quida could have been accomplished without invading Iraq.

If we had stayed focused on Afhghanistan, we would have brought Osama and Zawhiri to justice, created a bulwark against militant Islam, and created a launching point for the US should things have gotten out of hand in other Middle Eastern areas.

Theocratic Iran would have had the built in buffer of a SECULAR Iraq to keep things in line.

As it is, Osama and Zawhiri have escaped, Iran's stronger than ever, Iraq went from being a secular Arab country to one teetering on the bring of either anarchy or theocracy, Karzai is begging Mullah Omar and the Taliban to come to the table to keep Afghanistan together... It's been a geo-political disaster of epic proportions.

To those who say "Well, you're a hypocritcal liberal because you don't want Iraq to be free", I say the people of the country themselves want to be free. Maybe I'm just prejudicial against countries waiting for other people to come free them. My family fought as partisans against the Nazis and as dissidents against the Soviets in Czechoslovakia - they taught me freedom comes within, not from without.

We should have taken the route the Mossad took after Black September in '72 - hunting down anyone who even thought about 9/11 and killing them.

"Point Being; a non-united front against Takfiris/fundamentalist muslims inspires the mujahadeen, etc., to reenergize and kill more soldiers and civilians."

Again, like I said to Ann, kite-flying and Cosmopolitan magazine re-energize the mujahadeen. I'm not going to live my life worrying about what I write on my blog or perform on the stage are going to do to energize the enemies of the United States, because there's so many other things (Blackwater, the Mahmoudiya massacre, etc.) that are going to energize them more than me calling George W. Bush an incompetant loser would ever do.

[The Klute]

And I enjoy them too. Keeps my rhetorical skills sharp. :)

[vet66]

I believe the Blackwater episode is a red herring also. Given that this group has a stellar record of protecting 'High value' types in the U.S. and abroad, this entire episode is suspect. One must expect that Blackwater folks will simply go to work for another protection agency doing the same work. Nothing will change.

I suggest that you suspend your will disbelief and look at all these examples in light of the 2008 election. We shall see if the dems are imploding under the weight of their own vacuous bias.

Follow the money.

Cudos to Ann. She writes well and is a sharp thinker also. Nice to have written conversation without resorting to ad hominem attacks and a revulsion for facts.

Keep it up.