Anyone else think this Moveon.org ad is over the top?

Is there anyone else besides me (and Sen. John Kerry, yes I'm from MA too) who thinks this ad is over the top? Anyone out there who thinks that this kind of advertisement is worthy of a lying GOP pundit?

As I mentioned in comments, I watched him and found him sincere and credible. He delivered his testimony without dodging questions, like Gonzales. He acknowledged all the problems, and if he seemed at odds with his earlier statements, he stood by what he wrote and explained calmly what he meant then and how it has played out since then.

My point is, he's a big problem for us and I'm not sure ad hominem attacks are the way to go.

Text of the ad:

Cooking the Books for the White House

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do
everything we can to build on that progress."

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported
that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

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

•  tip jar...or troll jar, you're choice n/t

  by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:50:13 PM PDT

  •  I wouldn't troll rate you

    Because there's always a grain of truth on both ends of the spectrum.

    First, to your point, the ad (in the eyes of the vast majority of people who saw it) don't follow politics in the way that most Kossaks do. Therefore, they wouldn't have the context of the WH rewriting the reports, etc. The majority of people will look at the ad and go, 'hunh?' and then conclude that it's pretty overblown and out of line. Unfortunate.

    On the other hand, people who follow closely what's happening see it as a preemptive slap against what they have seen, e.g., the WH writing their own scripts and reports for Congressional consumption.

    My own conclusion is that I agree with the ad but I'm also certain that MoveOn did a disservice to the urgency of the message by not considering what its audience is aware of and what it's not aware of.

    by PBnJ on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:01:52 PM PDT

    •  thanks for your comment

      It was my first reaction to the ad.

      Now Moveon and the rest of us need to follow it up with the reasoning behind it.

      by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:12:42 PM PDT

      •  Lying about Iraq is betrayal

        Why should we sugarcoat it?  Lying to help the republican party while American kids are dying is... what?  "Not nice"?

        Come on.  That ad doesn't hold a candle to the "treason" accusations that wingnuts throw at anyone who dares question their failed war.

        by WinSmith on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:01:49 PM PDT

  •  Sincere and credible?

    He dodged questions on how long U.S. troops would have to stay in Iraq, just as he dodged the question of whether U.S. forces could sustain an extended surge.

    He also explained that six months ago, no one would have ever predicted success in Anbar, though in January of this year, he did exactly that--lauding the success we were seeing there.  Sorry I don't have the link handy.

    He was treading water.  What are you talking about?

    by Brandon Friedman on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:03:02 PM PDT

    •  Why is it...

      ...that people outside the military tend to think that Generals are usually sincere?  They are generals; of course they aren't.

      by Jay Elias on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:05:41 PM PDT

      •  The ARE instituional creatures...agreed n/t

        by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:15:27 PM PDT

        •  And they are leaders of men...

          ...and to lead, by definition, requires a certain degree of dissembling.  And more so, of course, when you expect that some of the people following you might die.

          by Jay Elias on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:23:24 PM PDT

          •  Allegedly, so are presidents

            look at where that got us.

            - Albert Einstein

            by Walt starr on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:28:45 PM PDT

            •  Well...

              ...if you think American Presidents are usually sincere, then you're either smoking something really good, or crazy.

              by Jay Elias on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:30:48 PM PDT

              •  American presidents are every bit as sincere

                as American generals.

                - Albert Einstein

                by Walt starr on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:37:39 PM PDT

      •  Unless they're your generals. n/t

        by valion on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:41:59 PM PDT

    •  I saw that too

      But he gave a good answer why: my take away is that essentially the mission "success" depends on the Iraqis and is our of our hands.

      by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:14:47 PM PDT

    •  I really do not know what you expected him to do

      He is the commander of the operations - Do you really think he is going to go up in front of congress and TV and C-span with 180,000 troops in a war zone and say the suck?

      I swear - some times we are our own worst enemy.  Shut up already - he was going to paint a rosie picture it is his job to do so.

      Spend energy on getting the freakin thing over behind the scenes then wearing about a hearing.

      by totallynext on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:20:31 PM PDT

    •  Brandon, in your opinion, is there a difference

      between civilians and those in the military in how much freight we put on the word "betray"?  As a civilian, I sometimes use the word pretty loosely.  My guess, though, is that for those in the military the charge of "betrayal" carries much more weight.

      "Petraeus/Betray Us" is an obvious pun, and one that I had actually considered using in a post a while back.  I shied away from it because I thought that it may have been considered such an insult to those in the military that it would render them deaf to anything else I said.  Is this possible, or am I being oversensitive to military culture?

      by Major Danby on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 07:51:14 PM PDT

      •  well, here's the thing

        You could have counted on hearing from some people who would have been deeply offended. On the other hand, lots would have cheered it.

        Nature of the beast, I'm afraid.  When in doubt, I try and raise the level of debate.

        On the other hand, the ad certainly got tons of notice. Maybe that's the point, nonetheless, it's one of those cheap debating points I see the right wing pundits use all to often.

        I'm not going down that road, tyvm.

        by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:17:31 PM PDT

  •  No tip from me

    I thpought it was a bit too meek for my tastes.

    It certainly didn't go far enough.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:11:53 PM PDT

  •  good job - Petraeus is not Benedict Arnold

    I rated you up - crappy ads like this contribute to why the entire of conservative America labels us the enemy.

    Betraying America would be working to intentionally destroy the country, and for military personnel, that means using the soldiers under your command to attack the United States.

    I think he probably views failure in Iraq as shameful, especially since part of the code of the U.S. military is: "I will place the mission first". Keep that in mind.

    by bhagamu on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:19:12 PM PDT

    •  Good point, thanks

      He seemed a humane, sincere guy to me.

      Maybe that ad is the only way to go. Gets attention, sparks debate (not like the debate is sleeping in anyway).  I honestly don't know, but it was my first reaction and had to ask.

      by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:37:29 PM PDT

    •  Really?

      "Betraying America would be working to intentionally destroy the country..."

      How about working to intentionally destroy the troops, so that the corporate cronies of the Bush Crime Family can have funds directly transferred to their bank accounts from the U.S. Treasury via no-bid contracts and get their hands on Iraqi oil?  What's that called in your book?  Patriotism, Honor and Valor?

      by SVDem on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:38:03 PM PDT

      •  No. n/t

        by bhagamu on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:18:25 PM PDT

  •  as a veteran I feel it was over the top he

    hasn't done anything to deserve the term "betrayus" He gave them a briefing  did I agree with every thing he touted no,  but that is not what is required from a General testifying to Congress  the unvarnished truth  was some of the stats cherry picked I think so, and was the truth told about the reason for draw down  again NO  DOD stated when the surge started they could not sustain it past next year  but the add was a little to much

    but then again the General did not help himself writing that OP-ED  in 2004  did he?  

    by testvet6778 on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:19:45 PM PDT

    •  If he's lying about whether or not

      the "surge is working" you wouldn't see  that as a betrayal? I sure as  fuck would - and I think his is lying about it. Young people - and some not so young people - will die because of that lie. That's fucking betayal of the highest order.

      by Little on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:21:34 PM PDT

      •  that's just it. I don't think he was lying n/t

        by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:39:16 PM PDT

        •  So

          You think the surge is working?  You think that, despite all of the metrics proving otherwise -- despite the ineluctable truth that Petraeus is just another hack shilling for the worst President in U.S. history and the most immoral, criminal and counterproductive course that this country has ever embarked upon -- everything, in reality, is looking up?  That we have "turned the corner," that the "enemy is in its last throes," and so on?  Where have you been the last six years, that you are still able to believe anything that comes out of the mouths of these shameless liars and criminals?

          by SVDem on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:43:18 PM PDT

          •  =(

            We're on the same team, don't be so accusatory.

            by bhagamu on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:29:43 PM PDT

          •  I think he believes he's making progress

            Like I say, the guy comes off as sincere. I think he's telling us just enough to keep the ball rolling, because he either believes in his mission, or he's putting all his eggs in one basket and this is his chance to go down in the history books as one of America's great generals, but he doesn't come off as being that cynical at all. A master dissembler?

            My thought is this: it's up to the Iraqis whatever we do. If I thought staying would avoid a bloodbath, I'd say stay, but it doesn't look like it's going to work out that way.

            Maliki wants us there until the Iraqi SecForces (i.e.: a milita he can control) can stand up for themselves. If you think I want the US having any part of that, guess again. He's a pro-Iranian Shia, supported by pro-Iranian Shiites, but no friend of Sadr. So the man's not into "reconciliation politics." The place is so screwed up, Hunt Oil in Texas just signed a oil deal with...get this...Kurdistan.

            But back to my original point. Petraeus, I'm sure, sees a lot of small local victories adding up to stability. Those are called small-footprint missions, which in fact work well all over the world. Usually carried out by Special Forces teams with specialized training in advising and/or commanding indigenous forces. Petraeus may have trouble distinguishing the forest from the trees here. 2 million refugees. 2 million displaced Iraqis. Baghdad used to be 65% Sunni, now it's 75% Shiite. No wonder he can claim civilian casualties are down.

            Here's MY question for petraeus: "why aren't you calling those 4 million Iraqi people "casualties"? haven't their lives been totally messed up by our so-called progress?

            And then this: "are we really changing anything there at all? Would it make any difference if we pulled out tomorrow? Supposing the mission is allowed to continue, do we really believe there's going to be any difference at all in the coming mess Iraq is going to turn into? And if not, what  are we doing there?"

            Of course, I know what his answer would be. I'd make him sit there and spell it out, step by step so we could all witness how much sunshine he's blowing up our asses.

            by papicek on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 01:14:14 AM PDT

    •  you actually believe telling those shaded

      variations of the truth, fudging the numbers and misrepresenting what is happening there is just giving a briefing. oh, and it's ok he trotted right over to faux for some more pr. naw, no problem, but those damn move on people had the never to put the right name to what he did. yeah, hell let's attack them instead the slimy assholes who put us in this mess and i put the good general in that group.

      by stodghie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:29:14 PM PDT

    •  I didn't like the ad

      Playing on a guy's name is low. As for being in Iraq, we're there because of Bush and the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections.  We can't get out of Iraq for the same reason.  

      by ljm on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:32:17 PM PDT

      •  I agree, ljm.

        I grew up with a last name that invited lame jokes. He did not choose his last name, even as I did not.

        by NogodsnomastersMary on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:54:45 PM PDT

  •  Your concern is noted

    by TocqueDeville on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:52:10 PM PDT

  •  hey papicek? news flash?

    how about a link to the ad you are criticizing?   I know it will come as a shock to you to learn that not everybody reads the same newspaper you do.

    Or to discover that some of us lead actual meatspace lives and just got here and would like to know what the fuck you are talking about.

    by claude on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:42:49 PM PDT

•  It's not ad hominen

  You may not agree with the degree of betrayal, but MoveOn makes their case for it.

  And a calm, even approach is all you need? He is clearly and demonstrably LYING about conditions in Iraq since the biginning of the surge. WTF?

  by Little on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:54:21 PM PDT

  •  I don't dispute the facts as I see them...

    just the tactic in this ad.

    I think we've the facts on our side, complete with anecdotal evidence to counter his.  I watched him, like I said, his testimony was fairly decent, though I'd like to see us out soonest.

    I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist. Iraq is real hard.
      -Gen. Petraeus

    Btw, democrats have been denouncing this ad all afternoon. It has "put democrats back on their heels" (CNN)

    Rep Lantos (sp?) (D-CA) said on the record he looked forward to fully funding the troops. < sigh >

    by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:03:47 PM PDT

    •  Fine. But it's an AD. We wouldn't be

      having this conversation without it being what it was. Y'know?

      by Little on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:06:53 PM PDT

      •  point well taken n/t

        by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:15:59 PM PDT

    •  tell you what, i'd like to be "nice " also.

      i'd like to see the dems drink tea and share stories with their fellow repubs. and slap each other on the back, blah, blah, blah. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING. DON'T YOU GET IT? WE ARE GOING DOWN THE DAMN TUBES BEING NICE! SCREW THAT!

      by stodghie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:32:06 PM PDT

      •  then THAT'S the argument

        he's a 21st century Ollie North, though...sliming on him may backfire.

        by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:41:39 PM PDT

        •  sorry, i can't agree with that.

          i can see where you might think that. but tell you what, our biggest problem is being scared of those repubs not liking us. that is what is back firing. we played nice long enough. these repubs today are 100% worse and more corrupt than they were during the reagan years.

          by stodghie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:44:04 PM PDT

          •  I'm afraid of losing the center...

            and I'm afraid of having the ad be the story instead of the issue. And REALLY afraid of Moveon being seen as my spokesman.  They definitely aren't.

            by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:06:12 PM PDT

        •  sliming never backfires

          It's the entrenched right wing noise machine that floats that bubble whenever it's a smear of a wingnut.  

          Notice the total silence when Faux News accuses Obama of having been raised a "Muslim" in a "Madrassa."

          That type of hit-piece?  A-okay.

          Saying his name sounds like "Osama" on Fox?  A-okay.

          But god forbid the dems make a play on Petreaus's name as part of a political criticism of his betrayal of truth in service of republicanism.

          When the wingnut shouters say we're being "rude" you know we're doing something right.  They are the greatest hypocrites when it comes to "decorum" in discussing things, and their criticism of this ad can justly be dismissed as total and complete bullshit.

          by WinSmith on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:05:27 PM PDT

          •  well, it's the 'depth' of the rhetoric I hate n/t

            by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:07:08 PM PDT

  •  No argument from me, but he looks credible n/t

    by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:09:39 PM PDT

  •  ad hominen

    is too fancy of a word for a 3rd grade political headline.

    by jeepndesert on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:47:54 PM PDT

    •  "attack on the man" rather than...

      a debate on the issue.  A debating term.

      by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:07:54 PM PDT

•  sorry, don't have super powers

  Could you post a legible version or a transcription?

  by Conservative Liberal on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:54:49 PM PDT

•  Well, it was a poor planned ad regardless...

  I mean, I do not really trust the man (have a hard time trusting anyone who's career is the military), but if nothing else it was a poor idea to create such an ad.  With the way politics are these days, what sort of response did the people at MoveOn.org expect to get?  Flowers and praise?  Ugh.

  by Young Coyote on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:54:53 PM PDT

  •  You just don't understand. What kind of response?

    Are you joking? If MoveOn raised Jesus from the dead, or the undead, or whatever they say he is, Rush Limbaugh and the like would convert to Islam. It's exactly the sort of response they expected - and it's going to get  a lot of play. good for them.

    by Little on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:02:43 PM PDT

    •  our side should be better than

      Rush Limbaugh type word plays on persons name.

      by nevadadem on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:04:39 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, that's where I'm coming from

        I hate seeing us wade through this sludge.

        by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:20:15 PM PDT

        •  Our side should be breaking rhetorical kneecaps

          by Little on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:22:18 PM PDT

          •  Ok, well put...n/t

            by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:42:26 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, because that worked so well

        for the past six years

        /sarcasm

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:30:41 PM PDT

    •  The message will be lost in the firestorm

      My only problem with the ad is that the mainstream will totally ignore the message and instead just focus on the controversy.  

      You're right that Limbaugh and his ilk hate MoveOn.org regardless.  There's no real hope in that regard.

      But because the way the message is presented in such an "Us vs Them" mentality it will alienate moderates and even liberals who do not want to be associated with that kind of lazy slander.  Remember the reason why Bush Co. are losing such public support is because people are tired of these tactics.

      by Young Coyote on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:30:16 PM PDT

      •  what people are tired of is being lied to, having

        their tax money taken from them for fraudulent purposes, lies, hypocrites.

        by stodghie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:41:54 PM PDT

      •  Process story diverts from the real argument n/t

        by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:43:37 PM PDT

        •  Some liberals will always be there

          to push the process story.

          by Smallbottle on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:55:45 PM PDT

•  I also think it is uncalled for

  I think that making fun of a person's name doesn't belong in the elemtary school classroom - much less on the political forum.

  Call him a lier - but don't make fun of his name.

  by Yoshi En Son on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:55:15 PM PDT

  •  Ditto

    oh wait...sorry...bad choice of words.

    by jeepndesert on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:46:27 PM PDT

•  The SOB wrote an op ed a few weeks before

  the 2004 election.

  He's a partisan shill.

  by Elwood Dowd on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:55:28 PM PDT

  •  Then call him a partisan shill

    call him a lying jackass
    call him a stupid SOB that deserves to be grilled.

    But don't make fun of his name - unless he chose it.

    by Yoshi En Son on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:57:04 PM PDT

    •  huh?

      So you don't like it when people make puns about Bush's name?  The problem here, if there even is one, isn't that they made fun of his name.

      by Conservative Liberal on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:04:01 PM PDT

      •  To me that is the problem

        Others focus upon the meaning of the word "betray" - but they only chose that word because it rhymes.

        As for Dubya.. it is easy to make fun of because he CHOSE that name.. but in general, our Commander-Guy (another name that he chose) doesn't really get my attention anymore.  What does he actually say beyond "everything is fine, it is difficult, things will get better before they get worse again, and we are making PROGRESS" ?  Someone could write up a computer program which was a better speaker than our esteemed Decider. (another name he chose for himself)

        by Yoshi En Son on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:11:30 PM PDT

    •  yoshi bull en shit son

      See how easy it is? the GOP concentrates huge amounts of talent to create pithy sound bites, while we continue to list facts and reality. the GOP has killed us on presentation. Making fun of his name is no different than hours of Rush, Sean, Michelle, Anne, and others making fun of Osama Barack.

      You make the mistake of thinking that they have honor and should be treated as such. Bullshit.

      Who SWORE that he found the mobile chemical factories? Who SWORE that in late 2004, we were doing incredibly well, just in time for the elections? Who SWORE that the Surge is working?

      If I were in the senate or the house, my first question would be this:
      General, in view of all the misstatements you made about this conflict in the past, I ask you. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?  No, let me withdraw that and rephrase that. EVERY single time you made a major statement, wrote a timely campaign letter to the editor, or now, report to congress using White House Stationary, you have been wrong. Answer this simple question. WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU THIS TIME?

      by agnostic on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:20:20 PM PDT

      •  essentially, he was asked that...

        One of the members read out from that Op-ed piece about "progress" as it was then and basically said "wtf?"

        Petraeus gave a good answer.  I think he's a huge problem for the left, just because he's as sincere looking as he is.  Remember Ollie North?  Remember how hugely popular he became after being called on the carpet in congress for breaking the law? I remember him sitting there before the committee and saying that he still thought Iran-Contra was a good idea.

        by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:28:43 PM PDT

        •  Petraeus is running a failed war

          that America hates.

          But Republican operatives will tell us that he is a huge problem for Democrats.

          by Elwood Dowd on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:40:17 PM PDT

          •  I'm not a republican, and I'm saying that too n/t

            by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:44:36 PM PDT

        •  I predicted,

          when Oliver North testified before Congress, that as good as he looked in that uniform on TV, nothing he said would matter-- as long as he did not dribble on himself, he would wind up a national hero.
            Sometimes I hate being right.

          by NogodsnomastersMary on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:58:45 PM PDT

          •  My gut tells me...

            that we're about to see that again.

            by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:10:33 PM PDT

      •  First off

        You obviously haven't read what I have said about this testimony.. which is fine.

        As I stated in a previous Diary - the FIRST thing I would ask of Petreus is "Do you stand 100% behind all of the information presented here as being the best, most accurate, picture to date on the situation in Iraq?"

        That would be my first question.  Yes or no, do You stand behind this report, General.

        Then I would proceed to question specifics.

        As for us pointing out lies?  OF COURSE WE SHOULD.  But there is zero reason we need to make fun of someone's name to accomplish this.  Why do we need to make a catchy little phrase just to sell the fact that he is lying?  Just use hard numbers.  Show what he claims to be true, then show what others claim to be true.

        Zero reason to attack his name. Use the facts.

        by Yoshi En Son on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:32:19 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          Why do we need to make a catchy little phrase just to sell the fact that he is lying?  Just use hard numbers.

          Please stay as far away from Democratic political strategy as a major airline will take you.

          by Smallbottle on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:02:06 PM PDT

          •  Smallbottle, YOU need to stay away.

            People like you Smallbottle are the reason the Democrats will lose and Republicans will win big.  Your extreme left stance hurts the Democrats more.  You do more damage than I ever could, especially for your idiotic decision to trollrate me.  I'm more of a Kossack than you will ever be.

            by Phoenix Democrat on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 07:22:27 PM PDT

            •  This is a joke, right?

              People like you Smallbottle are the reason the Democrats will lose and Republicans will win big....You do more damage than I ever could, especially for your idiotic decision to trollrate me.  I'm more of a Kossack than you will ever be.

              Who in their right mind thinks that the Dems will lose and the Repubs win big? Anyone?  Even the Repubs know that they are losing big time.

              Jeez, Smallbottle, I didn't know that you were so damned powerful! You can turn the tide of electoral politics, all with a single TR! My hat's off to you, friend.

              by means are the ends on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:44:43 PM PDT

        •  no, I read it, I just disagree. Strongly.

          40% of america has been tamed by advertising, by brain-numbing catch phrases, and they EXPECT EVERYONE TO USE THEM.
          In fact, in their sphere of reality, even their rational thinking is done in terms of Ronco advertising, a sale at Macys and a new 2 for 1 deal at MacDonalds for a deadly breakfast burrito.

          In order to get their attention, we have to speak their language. I am not saying ignore facts, but I do submit that simply listing a logical, rational list of facts is not going to get their attention, much less convince them tha we are right. To the contrary, laugh as you may at Jon Stewart, we are too fact based, and not creative enough on our presentation.

          Gut advertising works. Even when we know that Bush & Co have lied in the past and lie at the present, that wrenching feeling that a democrat voting against a funding bill Bush wants will cause he to be blamed for the next attack is powerful stuff. What is worse, our leadership is too untalented, to scared, to timid, and too happy having the minimal power they hold, (unless they have to use it) to do the right thing.

          by agnostic on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 05:54:42 AM PDT

    •  Westmorelan...er,...Betrayus

      is getting a small taste of what he deserves.

      - Albert Einstein

      by Walt starr on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:31:54 PM PDT

  •  a link to that Op-ed piece

    Petraeus' WaPo OpEd piece, 26 Sept 2004

    by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:22:47 PM PDT

•  yeah, i thought it was stupid.

  people may not have much respect for military people who fill this role, but he's no benedict arnold, which is what betrayal in uniform means. it means you're fighting for the enemy and against the united states. petraeus is a tool, in the sense that you're seeing a sales pitch for a product that he doesn't necessarily believe in, but civilian control of the military has its consequences. when i saw people using that language here a few days ago, my instinctive reaction was that it would be something the billo types could pick up to use against the antiwar movement.

  by campskunk on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:56:18 PM PDT

  •  Well said.n/t

    by Pager on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:57:50 PM PDT

    •  people have to think about what they're saying.

      the recourse for treason in wartime by active duty personnel is about the shortest and most direct form of justice in our legal code. basically, they shoot your ass.

      that's what moveon is saying about petraeus.

      by campskunk on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:01:49 PM PDT

      •  The ad even has a Bushism or two

        Moveon's ad missed the mark because it was apparently written in a hurry with rushed phrases that sound almost like Bushisms:

        The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front.

        Huh? Perhaps Moveon is trying to say:

        The Washington Post reported that Gen. Petraeus' report will count shootings as "assassinations" if the victim is shot in the back of the head. Victims shot in the front of the head weren't counted in the general's tally of war violence.

        Or something like that.

        If you're going to take a really hard swing at a purported hero, you really can't bring a Little League bat. But that's what Moveon.org did.

        by overlander on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:47:38 PM PDT

        •  overlander

          The Washington Post reported that Gen. Petraeus' report will count shootings as "assassinations" if the victim is shot in the back of the head. Victims shot in the front of the head weren't counted in the general's tally of war violence

          The general was asked about that in his testimony and he emphatically denied that.
          I continue to see some call him a partison shill, but he was confirmed without ONE nay vote. Not one Dem or Repub voted to not confirm him.
          http://www.senate.gov/...

          by AJsMom on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 04:23:52 AM PDT

  •  can't say that I agree

    There is civilian leadership of the military, but he is not a civilian.  He's being put forward as an objective  voice when allegiances are clearly compromised.  It's crassly manipulative, and the only reason why it works is because we allow ourselves to be shamed into not criticizing him.  Why can't we just call spades spades?  

    by Conservative Liberal on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:00:14 PM PDT

    •  i criticize him.

      i agree, he's a proapagandist. i called him a tool in my post, and i think he may not object to that role.

      i just don't think calling him a traitor is going to appeal to anyone on the fence on this issue.

      by campskunk on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:07:59 PM PDT

    •  He is not a civilian.

      If the president says "jump" he MUST say "how high?"

      Attacking Patraeus is a waste of time and it gives Bush an advantage.

      MoveOn made a mistake in not framing it to be clear that it is the White House that is calling the shots - they've left another "George Tenet" opening for BushCult - meaning that Bush could show up tomorrow and declare Petraeus the culprit for their awful policies - for the umpteenth time acting like they would have made better decisions if their "experts" were better.

      It iss a stupid stragegy on MoveOn's part.

      I thought it was cheap making fun of the guy's name, but mostly I thought it was foolish to leave an opening for Bush to claim again that he was a victim of poor advice rather than his own hubris and stupidity.

      by inclusiveheart on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:19:12 PM PDT

      •  "MoveOn framing mistake" is Right On. n/t

        by razajac on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 06:13:27 PM PDT

  •  very counterproductive ad

    see votevets for much better and more effective arguments for ending the war.

    by nevadadem on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:03:11 PM PDT

  •  Tell that to the parents and spouses of

    of the dead Americans (and Iraqis) who are wondering what the fuck has happened to their loved ones. Does the betrayal they feel not  count?

    by Little on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:05:37 PM PDT

    •  yes, it counts. and it's on bush's head.

      don't blame career military people for the idiots who get elected. most career military people were contemptuous of bill clinton when he was in office, but they shut up and did as they were told. and bill clinton didn't run all over the place starting wars like bush does.

      that blind obedience is built into the role of the military in american life. it has killed a lot of good soldiers, and probably will kill some more. that's why we need the best civilian leadership we can possibly have, to avoid needless loss of life.

      by campskunk on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:30:41 PM PDT

      •  it is also on the heads of the generals who

        play footsie with a corrupt administration. if the good general had honor, he would retire or resign.

        by stodghie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:35:49 PM PDT

        •  all the good generals...

          ...have already retired, or gotten out of command spots like this. petraeus is what's left. there will always be people like this in any organization.

          by campskunk on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:51:07 PM PDT

          •  that is the gospel truth!

            by stodghie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 07:59:28 PM PDT

  •  So what is needed is more Powells and Petraeuses?

    American heroes or American zeroes?

    Powell used deceptive and false information to claim WMD's.Rumsfeld said they were "to the North to the East to the South somewhat and we had credible information  the military  would use to find them.

    Jessica Lynch was Rambette and typicalof heroism in this war.

    Tillman was killed in heroic action by friendly fire,even though his action merited a Silver Star.

    Abu Ghraib was fratboy pranks,a couple of reservists hijinks with girls panties and a camera.

    The Iraqi  have 200,000 trained Army ready to go at the end of 2005. Theya "are standing up" so "we can stand down".

    Betrayus (Petraeus) wrote a glowing piece 3 weeks before the Nov 2004 elections while he was on active duty.
    He is certainly earned his "Betrayus " moniker . And it was the Army servicemen that called him that before Move on did.  So blame the grunts and others forced to  play the games which these geniuses feel will take from 9 years to 50 years,take your pick.

    by Pete Rock on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:26:08 PM PDT

    •  no.

      we need a goddam president who listens to the military advisers, doesn't cherrypick intelligence, and has a little respect for what these people do for a living. it's not flying an obsolete airplane over texas in the texas air national guard.

      that's what we need.

      by campskunk on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:33:34 PM PDT

•  MoveOn.org gave the Republicans a talking point.

  MoveOn.org needs to shut up or they're going to insure that the Republicans will win all three branches of government next year.

  by Phoenix Democrat on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:56:21 PM PDT

  •  What are you smokin' ? n/t

    by Scarce on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:06:00 PM PDT

  •  What are you smokin' ? n/t

    by Scarce on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:06:00 PM PDT

  •  The people who will determine

    how well the Republicans do next year are the Democrats. If they don't begin to show some courage and stand up to Bu$hco they could lose. But then they will have only themselves to blame.

    by slatsg on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:08:20 PM PDT

  •  Yes, you are losing your mind.

    MoveOn gave the Rs a talking point? Is that a joke? Anything they do is used - what's the fucking difference.

    People need to stop giving a fuck what the big bad scary Republicans are going to do.

    by Little on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:10:11 PM PDT

  •  +Tip: White house gave the talking point!

    Every Republican started off their spiel or hymn of praise for Petraeus by attacking the ad. Rosa Lehtienen (sp.) senior member of Armed Services went so far as to claim that legislators who were part of the ad should apologize...then she got slapped down by a Democrat pointing out no legislator is any way associated with the ad so she was discussing a non event as point of order. "You shoudn't be so touchy" was her hurt response to that.

     I am not a nmember of Move on, but boy the country is talking about that ad.

     Betrayus wrote a pro Bush  WaPo October 2004 Op Ed while on active duty giving all the shining  improvements and glories of the new Iraqi army and police  forces, the same ones now hit as corrupt (national police) and a refuge for sectarian death squads today. That was 3 years ago. He gave the same speech today with a timeline that started on January of 2007 and didn't use comparisons with prior years.

      He even threw in the "in six to nine months we can draw down, alittle earlier than planned,starting in December.  that has been used like 5 or 6 times already.it gets tiresome and stale. Also its false.
    Betrayus says it might be 9 to 10 years to succeed.

    Do the math. 13 to 14 years plus. (Korea example used by the Bush WH = 50 years) 10  to 12 billion a month. That is 1.44 plus 680 bill so far 2.14 trillion dollars and it doesn't stop.  In 10 years the Iraqis will be dead or fled. it will be over by attrition.

    Who is Betrayus and who is the real Petraeus?

     This is all theatrics and show. Upstate NY Army and guardsmen are being called to Iraq in December, 3 months prior to March when they were supposed to go. So he is misrepresenting the "surge" as being  "non replaced". Technically they can switch people around and officially count it as draw down, but they are replacing them, not drawing down.

     Petraeus has a record of cheerleading this thing. His career depends on it.  And BTW, the first place I saw the "Betrayus" moniker was on an Army blog.

    by Pete Rock on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:17:10 PM PDT

  •  geez, look they are going to attack and demonize

    us no matter what we say or do. they are beyond corrupt. being "nice" doesn't work. trying to say the right thing in just the right way won't work either.

    by stodghie on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:37:04 PM PDT

    •  I thought we were the good guys...

      With the facts on our side.  Is the ad necessary?  Helpful?

      I honestly don't know.  See how it plays out.

      by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:50:12 PM PDT

•  I haven't seen it

  but I wish people would make the Powell comparrison when talking about Patreus.  It says it all.

  Westmorland works too.

  by Mike S on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:57:39 PM PDT

•  asdf

  Already been diaried - quite a few times.

  by BDA in VA on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 04:58:11 PM PDT

•  yes n/t

  by AnnArborBlue on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:03:18 PM PDT

•  Lame on many levels

  First off, the dumb play on the general's name. High school stuff.

  Secondly, and most importantly, who was the target audience of the ad? 70% of the U.S. are already against the war, so you don't need to convince them.

  The hard core Bush supporters won't be convinced, in fact, an ad like this only gives them more ammunition to use to promote their "Democrats don't support the troops" theme -- under the theory that Gen. Petraeus is a "troop."

  So how about the independents, swing voters, and wavering Republicans? Well, this ad does a good job of convincing them that anti-war activists are infantile, juvenile polemicists.

  Did I mention I was not impressed with the ad? I wasn't.

  by DennisMorrison on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:06:19 PM PDT

•  MoveOn Didn't Make It Up...

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

  AFTER being hailed as King David, the potential saviour of Iraq, the US commander General David Petraeus is facing a backlash in advance of his report to Congress in September on the progress of America’s troop surge.

  Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him "General Betraeus" on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.

  by majcmb1 on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:06:33 PM PDT

  •  asdf

    Yes but that doesn't matter.  As usual, democrats eat their own and jump on the republican band wagon without looking into it further. No wonder we lose the propoganda war time and again.

    by BDA in VA on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:09:08 PM PDT

    •  How Can It Not Matter That Respected Military

      people are discussing Gen. Petraeus' objectivity with the derisive term MoveOn used?

      The article also notes that only 43% of Americans thought his testimony would be trustworthy.

      Maybe the ad will alienate some number of people but as Kos noted on Hardball earlier it's ridiculous that the ad and not the carnage in Iraq has captured so much attention.

      by majcmb1 on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:17:19 PM PDT

  •  GREAT catch

    I regret I have only one rec to give. . . .

    by papicek on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 05:52:02 PM PDT

•  Text of the ad:

  Link to the ad (pdf file).

  Cooking the Books For The White House

  General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there
  was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." And last week Petraeus, the architect
  of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do
  everything we can to build on that progress."
  Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General
  claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre
  formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported
  that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated
  Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any
  other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that
  those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
  Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious
  civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are
  desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops
  will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
  Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.