You’re a smart woman. You of all people should know about the asymmetrical intimidation problem that Paul Krugman talks about — the one where the media is afraid to go after Rudy Guiliani for claiming he’s a rescue worker, but they’ll try to demolish your husband over a haircut because they know that they’ll get swarmed by the right wing noise machine for the former and pay no price for the latter. That’s how it works.
So I was really disappointed today to read at Taylor Marsh’s place that you had joined with Diaper Dave Vitter and John “McCarthy” McCain to attack MoveOn. We (and by that I mean the netroots) defend you when the MSM try to make your campaign a pinata over stupid, insignificant stuff. When they try to say your race should end because of your illness, but don’t say squat about Fred Thompson’s lymphoma. We’re your first line of defense, the only messaging machine that progressives have.
So here’s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It.
I wrote about this last year when Hillary Clinton went after John Kerry for that stupid joke:
I can see we’re going to have to set up some sort of “Democratic PR school” soon. They’ve become so accustomed to being George Bush’s whipping posts they no longer recognize it when they have the advantage, and as the John Kerry incident demonstrates they are in sore need of a few remedial lessons on how to press it when they do.
First of all — I don’t care if John Kerry was eating live babies on TV, one week out from an election you do not repeat GOP talking points. Ever. It makes you look like a big wuss who can’t stand up to the Republicans, even when they’re playing from an exceptionally weak hand on an issue you own. For all those anxious to be seen as the tough defenders of national security, huddling in a crouch position while they pummel you about the head and bleating “yes, yes, we deserve this” does not have the best optics.
Secondly — did I mention that the Democrats own the issue of Iraq? Even the WSJ acknowledges it is the #1 factor influencing people’s votes this election. If the Republicans want to bring it up, that’s a perfect opportunity to pivot and attack.
The war is a desperate mess. When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack. How about, “glad you mentioned that…I think an ad is about as relevant to George Bush’s growing collection of toe tags as a haircut is to the problems facing this country.” Or, “thanks for the opportunity to discuss this, Chris. I personally would not choose the word “betrayal” to characterize General Petraeus’s lack of judgment or skewing of the facts to perpetuate the war, but I do think we should be looking at the fact that this was the bloodiest summer ever in Iraq and asking ourselves if the assessment we’re being given about the situation is realistic…”
There are any number of ways you can answer that question well and none of them involve attacking MoveOn. They’re out there on the left so you can look “moderate.” They’re saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isn’t considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to. Understand that they have contributed a lot to the anti-war movement and that from a practical standpoint, the Edwards campaign needs the solid support of the base to get where he needs to go and everybody’s feeling a bit played this week because nobody other than MoveOn seems to want to take on the carefully orchestrated dog-and-pony show that just bought us a few more Friedman Units of war. And we’re not very happy when the people we defend turn around and start kicking them for it.
We love you. We want to love you.
Knock it off.



274 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Jane! FireDogLake!
Right on, Jane
Of all people the Edwards campaign should be aware of the RW media machine.
Jane!!!
Ok, good point, Jane– but how do we expand the “messaging machine” beyond the net? The way I see it, we can discipline people like Mrs. Edwards into following a consistent dialogue and line of attack, but how do we get the Corporate Media to change their ways?
I suppose you’re on the right track though– work on getting the Democrats/progressives to develop a more cogent concept of public relations and how to effectively use it, and then move on to reforming the media. But my puny mind is still wrapped around trying to figure out how to do both simultaneously.
Score!!!!
Great post Jane. Thank you!
Thank you Jane. We need Move On. What was it last night that I was reading from one of the Bill Moyers’ specials that Pumpkinhead lamely justified his lineups in the rush to war by saying “there was no opposition”? I think I will write Elizabeth a letter of my own. Civility does not work in DC anymore. (I am not sure that it ever did.)
Amen! There’s more than enough material to attack on the Bushie side of the ledger. Pivot and attack: it’s not just for dinner, anymore.
Strong medicine perhaps. But the view here is it is a necessary dose of reality. Do not bite the hand that treats you nice. Seriously, don’t do it.
Well said Jane. This is a hard lesson, because progressives want to sound so “reasonable” but when you’re dealing with the right wing, you can’t give them anything, ever. Reminder to self: listen to Jane.
John Edwards get my vote in Iowa because of his willingness to take on issues like the poor and blue-collar Amerika.
This disappoints me. what do you think OKK and Lahoma?
Jane, this is so true! Thanks to you and the other front-pagers for all that you do. (And thanks to the mods of course.)
The first to call the Surgin General “General Betrayus” were soldiers in the field. I remember reading it first at a link provided by Juan Cole’s site back at the end of winter or beginning of spring. It was inevitable, and is the kind of thing enlisted men and NCOs often create when frustrated.
I’d look for the link, but what with NCOs who write to the NYT dying and USAF crewmen involved in the Minot-Barksdale hijack derailment being hit, I’d rather not expose anybody new to these gangsters.
I hate to have to agree with Jane about somebody I’ve come to respect as much as Elizabeth Edwards on this, but you’re right, Jane.
Please remember, folks – MoveOn.Org was merely expressing a term in common usage over in Iraq by our highly abused service men and women.
So Jane, basically the gist of your post is that the merits and principles behind what “we” say are subordinate to the tactic turning up the dial on our own echo chamber? A bit of realpolitik for the campaign trail, then.. but as a tree hugging far left liberal myself, I was astonished at moveon for stooping to Ann Coulter’s level. Accusing a military officer of betrayal is tantamount to accusing him of treason, and regardless of whether he is a willing hostage of Bush’s tactic to hide behind his medals, you don’t shoot the hostage. Whatever happened to defeating the enemy without becoming like them?
And there are other Dems who need to get the same message.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 9
You beat me to it.
schwifty @ 14
Do you think he did NOT betray the troops? Ask the troops. Ask Patraeus’s boss.
Jim Clausen @ 11
We, that is Lahoma and I, think this is something that needed to be said. ;0)
Maybe it’s a money issue — my personal pittance that was allotted for the Edwards campaign this month went to MoveOn instead. I wonder if JRE’s campaign saw the dollars drop-off this week?
Nicely said, Jane. Being part of the Wurlitzer is always a mistake for anyone on our side. If MoveOn wasn’t on the spectrum, JRE would be the flaming radical. Is that the positioning Elizabeth seeks? I think not.
Just when I want to sit with EE and talk with her about this, I find myself without the proper words…
snip
Enter Jane. Precisely.
The fickle finger of fate flips fat frogs flat!
God damn it! What the hell is wrong with the Move on ad?
As far as Ms Edwards is concerned- if she wants to join the crowd of Dem bashers and if she wants to see the goopers in power for the time needed to totally finish their job of destroying this country then ya all know what? screw her! Not one red cent to her husbands campaign. NOT ONE RED CENT. AGAIN-What the hell is wrong with that ad?
No one but MoveOn could deliver that message. And no one but Jane could’ve taken Mrs. Edwards to woodshed.
Bravo.
Exactamundo. That said, I believe the politics on the right is so empty, out of touch, and reliant on falsehood, there is no need for ad hominem attacks. Petreus’ spin and selective political perspective may very well turn out to be a disaster if it forestalls any real formulation for redeployment, but the real burden for Dems and the left is to show how the heck we can get out of there, while acknowledging the seriousness of such a move, in a way that the populace can sign onto in no uncertain terms because in the US like most places our populace will always choose the devil we know, no matter how diabolic, to the devil we don’t. That’s what Bush is banking on, all the way to the bank and the end of his term.
Pivot and attack.
Words to live by in the world of progressive politics. Thanks, Jane.
billjpa @ 22
That is Joke Line and Lieberman’s job.
Back by popular demand, a comment I made Tuesday (ok not really, but because it is STILL applicable):
I just don’t understand all the self loathing and immolation over this freaking ad. Every word in it was true. Petraeus has been shilling for Bush in a dishonorable fashion, for a military man in his position, since he made an intentional and dishonest attempt to influence the 2004 election (who knows; he may actually have) by writing his “everything is peachy in Iraq” editorial supporting the Administration in the Washington Post. Could a couple of words have been phrased more delicately in the caption; probably, but every word in the ad is true; that is what is important.
Furthermore, the fact is, it was the Surgin General’s own fellow military officers and troops that coined the term “General Betrayus”. Jam that and the fact that every single word in the ad is true right back down anybody’s throat that makes a peep. These junk concerns are exactly why we always get rolled over. It is there; beat them over the head with it any way you can. Time to quit apologizing for being impolite to a bunch of traitors that are ruining our country; and Petraeus has been belligerently right with them the whole time. I have no symapthy. Democrats should stop beating themselves up for this junk; leave the self flaggellation to Republicans in airport stalls.
billjpa @ 22
I think the ad is like Colbert’s White House Correspondants gig.
” I am shocked, shocked , I tell you that there is gambling(truth) going on here. Round up the usual suspects”
and for EE, ” I think(Thought) we were going to have a beautiful friendship”
Jane, has any campaign ever approached you about being a consultant of some sort? Just curious. I’ve gotten to know Amanda Marcotte from pandagon since she lives close by and attended our first Central Texas Firepup picnic at my place. She has a wonderfully razor-sharp pen and wit and would have been so good for the Edwards campaign. (She was one of two bloggers that got “fired” because of the naughty things they wrote about The Church.) Where is all this caution coming from? Our candidates need people like you, me, Amanda and all of the thoughtful regulars here and at the other blog sites. Hopefully at least some important person from each of the “good” campaigns is reading “us.”
What is it going to take to wake them (and Pelosi and Reid) up? Sign me frustrated. And sad . . .
BAM
excellant jane, WHENEVER a republcian says ANYTHING about Iraq, “pivot and attack”
pheonix women had an INCREDIBLE line that can be used ANYWHERE Iraq is even referanced;
she then came up with something even better and more suscinct to which I will paraphrase and add my own signature personality to which democrats can happily plaguerize if they so choose;
these moronic republicans actually bought into “the flypaper strategy” when it was CLEARLY a “fertilizer strategy”
pivot and attack…man oh man I hope there are some democrats reading your post today
Never explain, never defend…ATTAAAACK!
words of wisdom by TRex
Jane–
Good post. I especially like your suggestions about better ways to respond. Very good wording!
Bob in HI
Democratic contenders for president need to heed the message. Don’t let the left down. Do not turn rightward.
You can rightly criticize Petraeus ad nauseum for misguiding, misleading, dissembling, etc. But betrayal is the language of treason for a person in uniform. Everyone here needs to take a step back and realize that they have wholly succumbed to the Bush tactic of hiding behind our service members.
Consider that while it is certainly beneficial for Bush to not take any bullets, that it is also beneficial for Bush that a military man be the one that takes them, with the shooter plain to see. We do ourselves no favors in the long run with these sort of tactics, and anyone who thinks this went down well overall in the armed services is kidding themselves. As of now, anyone in uniform that happens to agree with his chain of command has been accused by some crunchy hippies of treason.
Petraeus implements policy as per his chain of command, he does not originate it, to paraphrase Col. Lang. I doubt many here have given an iota of thought to the alternative.
petwrecker @ 21
*G*
Gnome, when I went to YKos2 I met several bloggers attached to campaigns. Specifically, I had some interesting conversation with Biden’s bloggers the night after the conference ended.
I hope Elizabeth drops by for a mea culppa coffee. I know she has dropped by before. Has anybody let them know about this post?
schwifty @ 14
Swifty, I don’t buy it. The Betrayus meme came from Iraq, from the troops. They know what this guy is all about, and what he is about is ambition. General Petraeus wants to be President someday, and he is training for the job by being a willing tool for the current WH occupant. He has put himself in the political arena with self-serving moves like his op-ed just before the 2004 election, praising progress and predicting victory right before the election. If you think that is the proper role for a field commander, you are sorely mistaken. This general has been on the side of Team Bush, front and center, for the entire fiasco, with rosy projections about an Iraqi army that never has been what he said it was. He loses 190,000 assault rifles and calls it an accounting problem. What it is a troop problem. Allowing weapons to fall into the hands of the enemy is not a pro-troops move. That’s why he is Betrayus.
Well, at least MoveOn did not call the General a chickenshit little asskisser, you know, like his boss did.
Does anyone understand in the Clinton camp why a large block of the left has turned on her?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 40
They don’t care till the general.
Oilfieldguy @ 37
OFG,
I will Spotlight it to her campaign.I get 4 messages a week from them-(Iowa and Joe Trippi you know.)
TexBetsy @ 41
This ruffles my feathers even more.
Oilfieldguy @ 39
wow…that would be a great response as well, wouldn’t it?
“I’m glad you brought that up cris, while I would not have used the word betrayal myself it was certainly more appropriate then what his boss called him, don’t you think?”
Betsy, Biden’s bloggers? That is interesting. I want to hear more. When are you and I going to have lunch again? Is school in the way now?
schwifty @ 14
Petraeus is willing to advance himself politically by enabling the deaths of a lot of people. He is not noble, he is being political, and they are not stooping to Ann Coulter’s level to point that out — unless you are you equating her with the fellow men and women in uniform who gave Petraeus the name in the first place.
Bush sent him up there because he knew the media would be okay with going after a hack like Rumsfeld, but they’d be afraid to attack a military man. A cluster of ribbons on your chest does not make you immune to criticism if you’re acting Rumsfeld’s part now.
Gnome de Plume @ 45
Between school and Jewish holidays, things are pretty busy around. Give me two more weeks.
Very well said Jane! I haven’t read through the comments yet, but any chance Elizabeth Edwards is going to get this message?
I doubt many here have given an iota of thought to the alternative.
Interesting comment from someone who presumes to lecture us on why the choice of words matters.
TexBetsy @ 36
Biden has bloggers? They don’t seem to be getting him into a dialogue with the netroots.
Over the holidays of 1966-67, I was an enlisted man assigned to an aviation company at Ft. Lewis. After a night of drinking, some warrant officers and officers took down the photos in the company barracks of the entire chain of command, with the exception of President Johnson. They made a bonfire out behind the parking lot and burnt the photos.
The next day the CO started an investigation. For the next month, we enlisted men had to stand armed (!!) guard on the NEW chain-of-command pictures 24/7. The CO stated that this would continue until the culprits, assumed to be enlisted men, came forward. We didn’t budge. Finally, the CO must have heard the truth through some officer grapevine, and the guard duty stopped.
I imagine the term “Betrayus” is one of the gentler if most apt terms of endearment given to General
McClellan, uh, Napoleon, uh Arnold, uh…..Jim Clausen,
I remember when Jane wrote a wonderful post defending John Edwards decision to stay in the race despite his wifes health problems and reallt took the lumber to critics of that decision. Mrs. Edwards showed up on that thread and thanked Jane for the support. I was just wondering if she’ll again show up and thank Jane for contributing to her (and all other please hit me again Democrats) for the continuing education credits.
It really is a community service Lady Jane has performed here today. Anybody remember RR’s 11th commandment?
Jane, when I read the title I thought it was Elizabeth Edwards telling others to lay off MoveOn. And I thought to myself alright Elizabeth you tell’em! I was really surprised when I read your piece that she was joining with the NeoCons in the bashing of MoveOn over their ad on Petreaus. It does not seem like her to do that kind of behavior. Thank you for letting her know how that looks to the rest of us trying to be supportive of her husband in his bid for the Presidency.
After reading what Admiral Fallon said to General Petreaus’ face, I think MoveOn was actually soft on him.
SeamusD @ 38
I’d be more sympathetic to Swifty if the depressing pattern of former Bush shills recanting didn’t exist. Today we had Greenspan and in subtle way, Peter Pace. Before that we’ve had many including Powell, Paul O’Neill, etc. The ones who spoke out have been kicked to the curb. This is a group of thugs who do not have the best interest of the country and the troops at heart.
schwifty @ 14
I suggest that you take a deep breath and try to see this from another point of view.
Few people blame Petraeus for the overall mess in Iraq, clearly he’s trying to “do his job”–which includes keeping his boss happy. And just as clearly, he’s helped to cook the books on the results of the escalation, so is responsible at least to that degree.
The move.on add can hardly be compare to Coulter–read what is says! It is well-argued and supported with references, a far cry from the kind of screaming hyperbole that she puts out.
Furthermore, agree with the tactic of calling him “Betray Us” or not, it is playing into the repugs hands to complain about it. If you don’t like it, ignore it and concentrate on the underlying message of the ad. Don’t play into their game!
And Jane, where did you ever get such fine-tuned political antennae? I never cease to be impressed…
TexBetsy @ 47
Yes, I was surprised to see you on line today. Is Snarky feeling any better?
“They’re out there on the left so you can look ‘moderate.’ They’re saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isn’t considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to.”
This is such an important point. And it should be so fucking obvious to someone like Edwards that it is, frankly, frightening that it apparently isn’t.
Have the Democrats learned nothing from the way that the Repubs and their right-wing wurlitzer have repeatedly beaten the living shit out of them for the last 13 years? For crying out loud!
BTW, there is a great post from Driftglass today related to this issue:
http://driftglass.blogspot.com…..ation.html
schwifty @ 34
This guy put himself in the path as Bush’s cover man, and Bush had to go through quite a few generals to find the one who would parrot his talking points rather than resign. Patraeus is a symbol for all that is wrong at the Pentagon. Political generals who sacrifice troops for ambition. He signed on top Team Bush, and he’s getting what he deserves for pimping for Chimpy. He is not well liked or respected in the Army, his boss, Admiral Fallon, called him an “ass kissing little chickenshit”. I agree.
There does exist a “vast right wing conspiracy (neo-cons, Grover Norquist, O’Reilly, Rush, Halliburton, Kissinger, etc.)”. They need no direct or accidental support from the wives of presidential candidates. Or presidential contenders, for that matter.
Ed*ard Teller @ 51
ET,
I was in HS and college ROTC in the late ’60s/early ’70s. The Army Officer’s Guide at that time still contained the following statement” “The Enlisted Man is a devious and conniving person and not to be trusted…”
PeterK @ 55
I read Digby.
I completely agree with Jane. We can’t stop the war unless we knock down the surrogates that Bush uses to advance his lies – whoever those surrogates may be.
Bush chose Petraeus to give a report to Congress precisely because Bush knew Petraeus would get a free pass from the media to reissue Bush’s bad faith claims about the war. Bush’s credibility was shot and he needed a new spokesman to deliver the same old propaganda.
With the ad, MoveOn knocked down Bush’s new spokesman – thus exposing Bush again as the man behind the curtain. I don’t think the Reblicans thought anyone on our side had the guts to do it.
It turns out, Move On had the guts. Thank goodness.
Mr. Sandman @ 4
Still wondering what can be done, and waiting for answers/suggestions/ideas. I see two major problems here:
1) The candidates so far aren’t proficient at mastering public relations/attack modes as they should be. Jane’s admonishment of Mrs. Edwards is part of the remedy for that.
2) How to reform the Corporate Media so that we can expand the “message machine,” as Jane puts it. I think this is crucial; we can have a candidate that says and does all the right things in interviews, press releases, and so on, but still face a Corporate Media that sits on its hands and does nothing.
The way I see it, do #1 first, then concentrate on #2. But as I said, how to do both simultaneously?
I have no problem whatsoever blasting a member of my party, if necessary.
This also equates somewhat to Digby’s coming out announcement when she said something to the effect after the 2000 election the media joined with the right wing and told the rest of us Bush is President and we should get over it…to which Digby responed, “I have never gotten over it.”
Waving to Jane and all the firepups…gotta go do laundry…yuckk
Col Ted Westhuling accused Betrayus of worse in his “suicide” note questioning the corruption and human rights abuses – I am sullied no more and given Betrayus’s tactics of bombing residential neighborhoods and “pacification” such as in Fallujah where thug police “arrest” anyone they feel like and the residents cannot drive to hospitals and have trouble even getting food, I’d say Betrayus got off light in the MoveOn ad. And our candidates – and their spokespeople like Elizabeth – should start owning up to the real horror that is this occupation.
Well said Jane – well said!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 59
Myself, I always prefer to call it a “vast right wing industry” (thanks to Mark Shields). Seems a bit more apt, no?
SeamusD @ 38
The foxhole etymology of Betrayus is totally irrelevant in the face of a full page in the NYTimes that was then rolled up, chambered, and fired back at us by the wingnuts. I am not disputing that Petraeus is not incompetent to some degree, self-serving in the extreme, politically ambitious, and so on. But there are a thousand ways to say that without resorting to the LANGUAGE OF TREASON, which is precisely what Elizabeth Edwards said. And in fact, the narrative around here doesn’t seem to worry as much about the merits of the ad so much as the tactical campaign value of nibbling the hand that feeds you.
So allow me to turn the tables. Why was it necessary to invoke treachery and treason to knock the bark off of Petraeus? THAT to me is the relevant point, and I don’t think it should be superceded by worrying over whether moveon’s feelings are hurt.
TexasEllen @ 8
When I marched in the demonstration in DeeCee today, my sign said
Glad some of us can remember these advertising slogans.
Gnome, Snarky is doing much better. I, on the other hand, am having lots of leg pain and trying hard to distract myself.
—
The Biden folks were bloggers and his advance team. The AFL CIO debate was two days after YKos, and they were sticking around to work on his participation and interviews around that.
Great post Jane!
Why is it that when anyone left of center says anything controversial (and in this case, I too, believe Petraeus is an enabler of death) that Democrats are expected to apologize, denounce, or distance themselves from it? I don’t hear the Republicans apologizing for anything, ever! Screw ‘em! I’m tired of this crap. Attack back!
I met Elizabeth Edwards and she is at least as classy and warm in person as she is on teevee. But, I have repeatedly asked Edwards’ campaign, and her, about what it meant when Edwards told the Herzliya conference in Israel that “Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.” I have yet to get any answer beyond Elizabeth saying that she was sure he would not use any weapons that I would find unacceptable. Meaning, nuclear, I suppose.
I really like the guy on domestic policy, but I would like to know that he has learned something from the Iraq vote, and would not get us into another war. The silence in response to three separate inquiries from someone who self-identifies as an Iowa precinct captain says to me that they don’t think I’ll like the answer.
Jane Hamsher @ 61
Oh don’t be so modest!
schwifty @ 68
Do you think the MoveOn ad would have gotten ANY attention if they had been nice and polite and bland?
We can all answer that with a resounding NO.
Yes, never respond to the substance of an issue. We libs need to pivot and dodge because arguing the merits is too dangerous and tends to reveal our real thinking. Stick to revealing only our thoughtful, diverse and nuanced positions by repeating the daily Democratic talking points.
Jane wrote: When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack.
The people who are shreiking about the Petraeus ad are the same shills who failed to denounce Ann Coulter when she smeared the 9/11 widows for ‘enjoying martrhood’.
MoveOn could have sent Petraeus flowers, and the wingnuts woud have shrieked that MoveOn is unAmerican. The wingnuts were desparate to use anything — ANYTHING — they could puff up to distract from the rank hypocrisy of a US General shilling to cover Bush’s ass on 9/11.
The wingnuts would have gone into a rabid frenzy if MoveOn had dropped a gum wrapper.
This isn’t about the ad. It’s about the intensity of wingnut desparation, aggressiveness, and the fact that they’re used to getting what they want via intimidation. Their ideas cannot win on the merits; they always have to intimidate, lie, cheat, or steal in order to ‘win’. Which makes their victories Phyrric.
Stand your ground. Always. Always. Always.
Damn, Jane. You hit the bullseye with this post.
We needed to hear from Adm. Fallon in tandem w/Petraeus & Crocker, not those two alone. That we didn’t fortells much.
As for E. Edwards’ reaction to the MovOn ad- dealt & passed.
Elizabeth- don’t ever again be thought to be on the bandwagon created by the GWB administration. It leads ultimately to the same place they will end up…
Why is it I don’t hear any in my party questioning the motives of DLC?
Mauimom @ 69
Mauimom, how did that go?
Here’s some substance for ya:
dakine01 @ 74
I thought the Move On ad was stupid at the time and got my ass handed to me on the Lake and I still think it was stupid.
schwifty @ 68
You seem to miss the point here. First of all, I don’t think move.on’s feelings are hurt. Quite the contrary, the attention they are getting is an enormous lever and opportunity for them, and I hope they can make good use of it. It’s very hard, if not impossible, to “knock the bark off Petraeus” in any useful way without media exposure. Secondly, the fuss on FDL is to large extent about the dems playing into the rethug game by agreeing (publicly, I mean) that the ad is insulting, etc. If you think that it is (and certainly left wing people differ on that), OK, but don’t make a public point of it. Rather, use the opportunity to drive home the important arguments re Iraq.
Oilfieldguy @ 39
“;-)))))
Too right!
I don’t quite agree with Jane. I think there is away to disagree without repeating the Republicans “talking points” or “spin”. Somewhere in between what Hillary did with Kerry’s comment (attacking Kerry and looking like a fool doing it) and now Elizabeth Edwards in regard to Move on’s add.
Elizabeth could simply say “I did not like it, but ” as Chris Matthews said “no one has died due to this add”. Somewhere in between bending over to the left (the really right” Ha) and repeating the Republicans over the top spin, which as Jane has said (and I agree with) gives them ammunition to spend more time on this add.
I love almost everything Elizabeth Edwards has to say. Did you ever hear her one hour interview with Diane Rehm. If you have not all ready fallen in love with her..listen and you will.
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/10/02.php#11424
Jane, WHAT A POST! So right that when the other side only knows attack, you can only survive by becoming a better attacker. Especially when your opponents JUST CAN’T TAKE IT. No fucking mercy, they never had any for us or anybody else that refused to blindly follow their dictates.
Edwards is my preferred candidate, I think he’s got the right stuff and maybe even a soul to boot, and I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth, but she made a serious mistake here, and needed to have it pointed out to her. If she is the woman I believe her to be, she will be grateful for the education.
To Schwifty, if you perceive Petraeus as a “hostage,” then he is certainly the most willing hostage since they invented the Stockholm syndrome. If he chooses to corrupt his military role by playing and spinning in the political and PR arena, he deserves to take the legitimate hits, and this one was very legitimate, IMO. And I think his boss, Admiral Fallon, probably understands him a lot better than you do. I’m just sayin’.
raven @ 81
But someday, our critters and such will have grown a pair and will latch on. MoveOn is flying in the face of THEIR ignorance/fright and they are to be commended for it, IMO.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 43
Clinton is being so careful – and has been since her initial election – trying to position herself as acceptable to as many mainstream voters as possible in order to become the first woman president. I think it got forgotten somewhere in the planning that she would have to get past the lefty diehards (us) in the primaries. I would dearly love to embrace her as my candidate, but because of her posturing, trying to be all things to all sides, I don’t trust her. She seems to be stuck in 1994 when Bill had to play ball with the rethugs, and sell some people (single mothers on welfare, for instance) down the river in order to get other things done.
John Edwards, when he or Elizabeth is not fighting alongside the Wurlitzer, is my guy because of his poverty stance.
Susan in Iowa @ 72
Americans can be “educated” to come along with what “needs” to be done with Iran. WTF??
I am picking my jaw up off the floor. How incredibly patronizing. How incredibly hypocritical. I’m totally turned off.
“Impeach” the DLC. This little organization is a weed that thrives right in our own backyard.
Jane Hamsher @ 46
Once again: what made it necessary to invoke Ann Coulter’s language of Treason in the first place? So Petraeus is the latest in a long line of hacks.
Did that just become a hanging offense?
If not, then the ad slogan was poorly chosen. Moveon also does not refer to Iraqi civilian casualties as “dead hajis” either; pointing to the etymological origins of what began as a play on words over in the sand is a weak strawman, at best.
I respect the pragmatic idea that as a rule, Democrats should not bite the hands that feed them, but I fully agree with EE’s view (it helps to go back and read exactly what she said) and do not believe that she said any of this for any other reason than that she actually believes it.
edit: closed off a tag
Jane, you are so on the money.
Oilfieldguy @ 52
I admire the both of them. Thanks for the eloquent post OFG.
ps Was an assistant driller in Libya in 1979. Iran is my Karma.
newtonusr @ 85
Let me revise that, I thought the “Betrayus” was stupid. The content of the add was fine.
Pivot and attack.
I like it when Randi Rhodes does so.
I also like the phraseology you propose like, “I personally would not have chosen the word….”[add sane policy here].
Kucinich on AAR Wednesday had a good point: attack the source of the policy. Change the policy. I think so many more miles could have gained out of the September trainwreck by a little more finesse in the MO ad (and on the part of those who would be elected or reelected). Edwards showed class by representing decent people in all classes (as well as in various high school classes) by airing his ‘get an exit’ plan video to respond to Little Pretzle. Somebody in his PR campain (and it may be Edwards himself) realizes you have got to pivot and attack.
And, re: OK at 59, Ralph Nader making nice with Norquist now on election reform. I’m getting dizzy. Home schoolling, gun forging, flag sewing, public asset surrendering, baby-drowning Grover Norquist.
Susan in Iowa @ 72
Not happy to hear this. I was so hoping that Edwards would not be a floor mat for the I-lobby. Again somewhere in between like working with reasonable and sane Jewish organizations, instead of right wing nutcase organizations.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
http://www.tikkun.org/
schwifty @ 68
You are the one who is all fired up about treason. Treason is not mentioned, you are reading your own interpretation into it. The facts are undeniable, and what he’s done is betray his troops for his ambition and George Bush’s attaboy, Davey. Again, if his own troops call him that, there is good reason for it, believe me.
I definitely will not be voting for Edwards – not because of anything Elizabeth said, but because of what he said. I’m done. He’s off my list.
Lindy @ 79:
It’s beautiful here: bright sunny weather, cool crisp air. A wonderful crew of folks; all sorts of great signs, both the “professional” [i.e., mass produced ones] and hand-made. Wide range of participants, ranging from old farts like me who protested Vietnam here in the very same spot, to folks with kids in strollers and everyone in between. [Even some folks older than me.]
Unfortunately, the walk organizers don’t know how to do speakers. Everyone and his cat is allowed to take to the microphone and rant on in ways that are neither to-the-point nor comprehensible. And this competes with guys on the fringes with bullhorns touting Jesus etc.
They REALLY need to pull in some “expertise” from King’s March on Washington & Vietnam marches: a limited number of relevant, inspirational speakers.
I don’t have much idea of how many folks were there, but the vibe was good and welcoming. We even talked to Park Police [about the Ohio State-Michigan rivalry].
Speaking of the general ….
When I first saw the NY Times ad, I thought that the headline detracted from the message. They can attack Move-on all they want but the more MSM covers this the more the betrayus name becomes engraved in the mind of the listeners.
PeterK @ 82
1. Focusing on Petraeus rather than Bush is playing into Bush’s hands, in that Bush stays clean and the left is forced to attack a man in uniform.
2. If EE is to be faulted for making her genuinely felt disgust known publicly, then that is a right wing campaign tactic I feel that we can do without. We are winning the broader argument on the merits just fine, and when something within our own ranks is worth criticizing we should be just as prepared to do so as if it came from them.
None of the arguments advanced here can withstand the premise that the ad itself was a bad thing in and of itself. The trouble is that virtually no one is allowing themselves to think this through with that premise in mind. And I’ll say again: what made it necessary to couch all of this in Ann Coulter’s terms?
JPL @ 99
I agree. More people will look at the move-on site and more people will feel comfortable being critical of General Bush Puppet.
LS @ 96
Would you tell me which thing he said. Thanks.
schwifty @ 14
Sorry, schwifty, I don’t buy your line of thinking. After the way the right wing neocons were allowed to destroy Max Cleland and John Kerry with impunity, I don’t think the right wing has any room to talk. John Kerry tried to stay above the fray, and it lost him an election because he didn’t defend himself fast enough or hard enough. He was thought to be too courtly, his sensibilities too delicate, to be President.
Besides mentioning that, Elizabeth is a lawyer and she could have brought up the fact that in this country we have free speech. Then she could have quoted or paraphrased Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
For those who missed the point, I believe Jane’s post is about how to respond to the the MoveOn ad, not the content of the MoveOn ad.
one more:
Military Families: Bush/Petraeus “Drawdown” Is Pure Politics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..64554.html
from Huff Po by The Huffington Post News Editors
In endorsing Gen. David Petraeus’s recommendations on Iraq, President George W. Bush said Thursday night that at least 21,500 U.S. combat forces, plus support troops, could leave Iraq and come home by next July. Curiously, the first military unit designated by Petraeus to return is the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit based at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., north of San Diego.
But the 13th MEU, a support unit that has been in Iraq on its current tour for about three months, was already scheduled to return home from Iraq on Nov. 17. Their new date of arrival under the drawdown plan? Still Nov. 17. Other Marine units have been in Iraq as much as three times longer than the 13th MEU, and some active-duty Army soldiers are serving 15-month tours, the longest of the war. Relatives of the 2,000-member 13th MEU, most of whom have known for more than a month that the unit was coming home, are collectively a bit confused by the inclusion of the 13th MEU in the announcement of troop cuts, and some are even angry.
“I think General Petraeus is using normal circumstances and turning them into some kind of big deal,” says Melissa Hurt, 24, wife of a 13th MEU Sgt. Andy Hurt, 24. Originally from Minnesota, the couple has been married for four years and they have a 9-month-old son. “I don’t understand how this can be called a troop reduction since Andy was already scheduled to come home in November and was not scheduled to return to Iraq. There are guys who’ve been in Iraq for more than a year. They should bring them home first. I know my husband agrees with me.”
schwifty @ 68
TeddySanFran @ 104
You are exactly right and I’m sorry if I moved it in the wrong direction.
Twain @ 102
See Susan at 72 for the link,
“Edwards told the Herzliya conference in Israel that “Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.”
Kathleen at 95. I kept persisting because I was hoping he would say that what he really meant was something different, or he changed his mind, or whatever he was going to say. I went to his event here with a copy of that speech, and yellow highlighting on that sentence. I did not get called on, so I gave it to a staffer who was traveling with him, with my name and phone number on it. I got to talk to Elizabeth briefly, and pointed out the staffer, said I needed to understand this or I could not caucus for him. Nothing came of it.
I think all the candidates should be sounding the alarm on what we are being “educated” to do about Iran.
Let me be clear — I don’t care if the MoveOn ad WAS out of line (and I don’t think it was). You have to examine it in the larger context of what they’ve done, what we’re ALL trying to do to end the war, and when you disempower them publicly and attack their credibility you do a lot more than just slap their wrists over this one ad. You inhibit their ability to keep on fighting and get their message across without being discredited.
The tactics of the moment often have to be subservient to those of the long term. There are those willing to advance themselves by sabotaging that with triangulation, but I think we all saw in the 90s that didn’t work out so well.
Thanks JANE I don’t have a lot but when I saw the ad I sent MOVE ON 25 bucks! My donations have all gone to JOHN E.
LS @ 88
WTF? F!!
Schwifty, I am curious about your passionate reactions to the words betrayal and especially treason. The Bush administration and all of its followers have been calling us DFH’s and anyone else who questions them traitors and treasonous for six years. What is setting you off with respect to the Move On ad? I found it very brave and exhilarating. Just what the situation warranted. Especially after reading what Admiral Fallon said about the guy.
LS @ 108
Perhaps it is old fashioned diplomacy that needs to be done.
raven @ 108
Plenty of responsibility for that one. Don’t hog!
:-)
newtonusr @ 86
Sorry you felt like you had “your ass handed to you”. Maybe you did.
There is a bit of “bend over” here at the Lake. Let me repeat a “bit”, on some topics more of a bit.
But generally here at the Lake if you can hang with your argument be reasonable, argue respectfully, and it makes sense, people can generally settle down and listen. It is healthy to disagree for our own personal growth and for the direction of our country, debate is critical.
I do see Jane’s point that someone like Edwards should not be giving them extra ammunition. I also believe Edwards has every right not to bend over to the “left” , but can disagree without giving the “far right” ammunition.
LS @ 108
Thanks. Thought maybe he had said something I missed. That remark is disturbing.
TexBetsy @ 114
I’m offended that Edwards is telling citizens of another nation that citizens of his nation can be dealt with “educated”, trained, to go along with something that is their agenda.
SeamusD @ 95
What’s it called when a member of the military betrays his side? I can’t believe you’re actually asking me to spell out the treason-betrayal connection.
Actually, the fact that I have to do so may go a long way toward explaining why people do not understand why the ad could have been perceived as offensive, even to liberals such as EE.
schwifty @ 101
jane hamsher @ 111
{{{Jane}}} You leave me almost speechless. So well put (and you look great in that hat!).
Kathleen @ 116
I can take it.
Attack Iran? Sounds bipartisan.
Why are Democrats so stupid? Augh.
This is the same tactic used to turn Paul Wellstone’s memorial into a way to take his senate seat. It’s the same thing used to get Dan Rather out at CBS. The GOP tactic is to create faux outrage about something, get it to stick and then use it to cudgel their opponents.
Thanks to people like John Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards they’ve given this stupid thing stickiness, and now it’s being expanded by Giuliani attacking Hillary Clinton for criticizing Petraeus.
It’s all part of the same GOP-fueled propaganda machine. Not only does this hurt MoveOn, it hurts all Democratic candidates. Thanks a lot, Elizabeth Edwards.
Sooper Dooper excellent points Jane! I can only hope that Elizabeth reads this and takes your advice to heart……It is a cause for despair to watch well meaning people more towards our side of the aisle jump up and join the Wing Nut Wurlitzer like the ReThugs have managed to train and house break them.
I especially liked the point about MoveOn being out there so people like John and Elizabeth could appear “moderate.” Nowadays I think Ike Eisenhower would be considered a lefty peacenik by the likes of the Criminal Syndicate running the US of eh? into the ground.
TexBetsy @ 70
Betsy,
I’m sorry to hear of your additional problems! May you find relief!
Bob in HI
James E. Thompson @ 112
I sent them a donation too, right after I saw the ad. I hope a lot of folks did, or will. It can help make a difference.
Which candidates want out of Iraq and won’t attack Iran?
readerOfTeaLeaves @ 106
So far, so good. You are comparing presidents, not generals. That is good, because generals do not originate policy.
That you speak of “willingness” within the military chain of command is telling. Do you think Petraeus, willing or not, had a choice? This gets to the very heart of why it is a complete distraction for us to even talk about the general instead of his commanding officer.
Thanks, Bob.
theExile @ 126
Even Bill Clinton said, not long ago, that Nixon was a communist compared to the Bush crew…
I havent read all the comments but the Move-on ad has brought the conversation to the place we need to have it. Someone has to get it front and center and besides they are using the rights own trick. Who in the country doesnt hear Betray-us when they hear the Generals name. Good work Move-on
The issue isn’t politics, its getting the troops home.
schwifty @ 129
We need to get the admiral under oath and into some very public hearings.
Jane, love your post.
So disappointing to watch all the Dem pearl clutching on the media “firestorm” over the Move-on ad….
while the ad gets replayed over and over on cable news and “Betryaus” is on the pundits’ lips.
They’ve forgotten what Nixon’s ad men and this week’s starlet know in their bones:
all publicity is good publicity.
Remember the far side cartoon with the guy talking to the dog?
One bubble full of the human’s words to Spot.
The other buuble: the one the dog hears?
“blah-blah-blah-SPOT-blah-blah-blah”.
All the right wing noise and vapors machine has done is to brand “Betryaus” on the Iraq Occupation’s extension.
Except for political junkies – all 200,000 of ‘em – the voters will hear:
“Blah-blah-blah-Iraq-Betryaus-blah-blah
Jeebus – if the Beltway Dem candidates don’t know this basic fact, what other parts of messaging psych 101 don’t they get?
I agree with you up to a point. As a Vietnam veteran, I saw the same crap there- bogus CIA intelligence and generals reporting inflated body counts and good news that was misused by McNamara and his successors. We never had any honest public discussion about Vietnam after the war ended. We had J Kerry saying things like most troops have committed war crimes, throwing away his medals and never going public with the idea, ‘the war was wrong and stupid, and it’s not surprising that GIs were trigger-happy when they couldn’t tell who was friend/foe and I (Kerry) went over the top in denouncing GIs rather than the military-industrial complex that supported this war and still claims that we would have won if only Congress had not panicked.’
What were the lessons of Vietnam? The warmongers, buttressed by a group of mostly Southern military historians, draw a very different conclusion than I do. From what I saw, we could never have won real support from the Vietnamese people because of the way we treated them and their land. I believe that is equally true in Iraq today.
Petraeus is a smart guy, swelled up with pride, hoping to be President someday. He’s no Eisenhower. Ike said in 1953 “”All of us have heard this term ‘preventative war’ since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don’t believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.”
Until I hear Hillary and other tough Democratic machos renounce preventative war and strikes against Iran, Syria etc. I will vote against them and work against them. Defense spending is bankrupting our country, especially when coupled with Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. We can’t afford more wars.
Now as far as MoveOn, I think that they waste a lot of money on these big ads. The problem is not a lack of information about Bush’s lies and Petraeus’ distortions, it is that the American public is divided into three groups who can’t see the needs and problems of one another. We are past the point of consciousness raising. Most Americans have given up on politics, rarely vote and are very cynical- whatever a politician says will be false. In fact, much of what Democratic & Republican politicians say is false- we must figure out ways to hold them to their promises, and change our political system, but not voting is stupid.
Bush-haters cheer for the MoveOn ads, but they were already convinced. A third group longs for authoritarian discipline and a cleansing holy war. They believe that we were on the verge of Victory in Nam and are now on the verge of Victory in Iraq. “America can only lose a war if we are betrayed by traitors”. They don’t want to hear how badly things are going in A’stan and how we lack the money and troops to continue the present pace in both Iraqnam and A’stan. Best thing would be to start pulling of Iraq this fall, send some additional men and money to A’stan and renounce the idea that we have the right to attack any country that doesn’t kiss our feet. No ad, print or video, will bridge this gap down the heart of America, or make the warmongers accept Bush’s defeat, which has already occurred. Only personal contact at the local level can do it, but few in either ideological camp, left or right, are interested in personal contact and working to solve local problems.
LS @ 129
My guess, and that’s all it is, would be Kucinich and perhaps Obama.
schwifty @ 130
And oh, do I hate to give Tweety props, but he pounded this home on Thursday before and after Chimpy’s speech.
LS @ 128
It depends on the meaning of out of Iraq. Sorry, about that comment but it seems true, although Richardson and Dodd give pretty concise answers.
“Triangulation”. That’s a great descriptive word.
The right wing is trying to make the MoveOn brand synonomous with “traitor,” as they have tried to do with Michael Moore, George Soros, Jane Fonda, and the word “liberal.” Every time they go after someone, the majority of prominent Democrats start distancing themselves from whoever the current target is. I think we behave like victims if we go along with it in any way. No one respects you for being a civil and polite victim.
A great post Jane! I wholeheartedly agree. What infuriates me so much is the Dem’s seeming UNWILLINGNESS or INABILITY to both stay on message, and viciously either defend one of their PRIMARY POLICIES, such as ending the war, or attack the opposition’s noise machine, which should often include the MSM itself. Every well trained salesman knows that the best way to overcome an objection is to restate the argument/situation clearly, in calculated terms favorably clarifying the scenario, and then to rebut the argument directly if at all possible, and if not, to minimize the buyer’s objections, one by one. The GOP is incessant in their willingness to go for their victim’s jugular. They never back off message, and always defend to the death, their viewpoints.
The Senate and House Dem leadership needs to be taught this most valuable lesson, in no uncertain terms, or believe me, the GOP will prevail. ALL Dems should be together, at all times defending their position on the war lockstep, NEVER apologizing for their position. The GOP views such defensive actions as inherently weak-kneed, or reprehensible! We should also.
McCain says MoveOn should be thrown out of the country . . . before he says he didn’t mean that.
From C&L
One thing a Democrat could say if asked about the MoveOn ad:
Another thing:
Here’s a third idea:
I need a nap. Hopefully the leg will hurt less when I wake up.
Hey Shwifty, are you breakings news here? Did someone actually hang Petraeus (”hanging offense”)? I thought they just subjected him to some biting and well-deserved criticisms.
Move-On just used a term that the advertising industry would recognize as aiming for IMPACT, a key element in any media strategy because you have to do something unusual just to break through the noise and get your message noticed.
You find it too uncivil? I say to you, sir, that the reason the Rethugs keep pleading for civility, while never honoring such restraints themselves, is that they understand full well, as a matter of game strategy, that only uncivil comments will break through the noise and unleash the anger that is rightfully simmering just below the surface throughout this great nation. If they are begging for civility, then I say we should be coming at them with harsh language.
SeamusD @ 128
here
Y’all solve the country’s problems while I am napping, OK?
My respect for Elizabeth Edwards just plummeted.
[sigh]
Knee-jerk patriotism and unthinking support for the killing machine that is the United States military is something I expect from Republicans, not enlightened Democrats.
Wake up, Elizabeth!
Is there anybody who thinks we got the straight truth from Petraeus? Is there anyone who thinks he is standing with and for the men and women serving under him in Iraq? What’s not a betrayal of his duty to Country and his soldiers?
TexBetsy @ 145
Sleep well. May the pain go away soon.
Susan in Iowa @ 72
OKK and I were discussing aspects of this earlier:
OKK: There will never be peace in the Middle East without a Palestinian homeland. This is not necessarily a sufficiant condition. But it is a necessary condition for peace. The view is if the next president would locate this at the top of the ‘to do’ agenda it just might help diffuse the volitility of the region.
ET: I truly believe that it is impossible to make it into the finals as a presidential candidate if one openly suggests such an agenda, or even posits that it might be fair to have an “even playing field” on this issue.
In the spring of 2004, within 72 hours of Howard Dean’s statement that we should treat Palestinian and Israeli demands regarding territorial integrity in that area even-handedly, his campaign was turned into toast in one of the most amazing media turnarounds I’ve ever witnessed.
In order to make it to the finals of the American Presidential Contest, one has to declare undying fealty to a foreign power – a theocracy without a constitution, no less…
Buy this book!
jc inOR @ 113
The way most all of the candidates view Iran is very troubling. It’s like they have all taken the bait and fallen for the same crap that got us where we are in Iraq. It is the total failure of the American foreign policy establishment to move away from American exceptionalism and the war as a legitimate foreign policy crowd that runs everything. Glenn Greenwald is really out front on this issue, and it is one that FDL might like to look at more, because it is such a prevalent view that no one even thinks about how radical a concept it really is.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, and again until it changes:
DEMOCRATS DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR ACTIVISTS!
And that’s just dumb, stupid and wrong. WE ARE HERE FOR YOU, you need to be FOR US!
There have been times before and will likely be again times when we are alllll you have. We are FIGHTING for YOU. It’s time for some respect, recognition and some loyalty and cover. We’ll keep keeping on, you need to hop on that boat with us, or no matter what we do, sinkin’ is going to happen!
siri@legitgov.org
OT
Bill Maher, we love you.
Knock it off.
http://rawstory.com//news/2007….._0915.html
Here’s the transcripts from firemen on the 74th fl of the South Tower:
http://prisonplanet.com/multim…..stape.html
The South Tower went down in free-fall speed 7 minutes after two isolated fires were discovered.
Rudy Mussolini — you have some splaining to do.
old croaker @ 136
Nice post! You have really thought about these things, IMO. The point about talking to people individually is right on, although sometimes people change their minds all together, I think.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 137
Obama is saying the right things IMHO, although he seems to have changed his thinking.
I got to ask Biden about it over Labor Day. I think he thinks attacking Iran would be catastrophically stupid, and would provoke a constitutional crisis. He talked about Iran and Iraq at some length, and I am at least satisfied that he would not do what I think Bush may be about to do.
I did not get to ask Richardson about it.
I think I have heard Dodd speak out against it, but no linky.
Mauimom @ 98
Thanks for the report, I was not able to make it. The everyone speaking is a problem with the marches put together by “International Answer”. Even though I respect their work and their organization, peoples eyes glaze over when they have an endless list of speakers from every organization in D.C.
At the very first large anti-invasion marches Oct 2002 (International Answer put several of them together) the crowds were really a mix of age and backgrounds , grandmothers in wheelchairs, babies in strollers, families, Teamsters, teachers, lawyers, Doctors, plumbers students, Vets from WWII on, even Republicans (I was talking to many). Of course any MSM coverage of these marches would show footage of a few people smoking pot during the march over and over again on the evening news. The MSM fooled those at home watching the under reported and misrepresented coverage allowing them to think that they must be alone in their questions about whether the Bush administration was telling the truth. (no one like them at the marches, just pot smoking hippies)
Even though I question International Answers strategy, their intentions are of the highest order…Justice and Peace. Thank you to all of the hard working organizers!
There is another march coming up in October.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
If you cannot be there march in your own communities…until they hear us loud and clear. “Give Impeachment a Chance” and “bring the troops home”.
There is a “political” angle here – by accidentally siding with Rudy, John Edwards, through EE, gets to spank Hillary a bit. It was a stupid way to do it, but there is a calculus.
Susan in Iowa @ 157
I really envy Iowans their retail politics. I expect I’ll envy Iowans more as autumn passes. Please continue your intent questioning. And please come back here often to tell us about it.
Oh — and please choose wisely!
RJ is upstairs!
Wow – what great pearls and medals clutching.
When the vapors pass, hope you time to give your lecture to the 101st Airborne troops in Iraq under Petraeus’ command.
The nickname “Betrayus” is theirs – for their beloved commander.
Now you wouldn’t us civvies disrespecting the troops’ choice of terms, would you?
Might give someone the vapors for our apostasy in failing to give absolute deference in choosing our words to the people with guns.
‘Cause they’re fighting for our freedom.
Like that funny First Amendement to the Constitutio9n.
Oh – you rememeber the Constitution – the one the soldiers swear the Oath to uphold?
The same Constitution establishes Congressional oversight over the military – and General Betryaus conspired with the Executive Branch to knowingly provide false testimony to the Legislative Branch.
Gen. Betrayus’ criminal consipracy and his lies to Congress are both Federal crimes.
These crimes – in wartime – extended the course of the iraq Occupation and the number of US troops who will be killed and wounded in the Occupation.
Of course, since he is a traitor to the Republic, his Oath to uphold the Constitution, and the troops he is sworn to lead, Gen. Betryaus pulled it off without a hitch.
Now that the military has brought back the death penalty, Gen. Petraus’ crimies may not always wiegh so litely on his shoulders.
Of course if the method is still hanging, neither would his head.
New thread upstairs.
Scarecrow @ 143
McCain might have some credibility if he weren’t an apologist for Boehner by saying Boehner “just misspoke.”
That you speak of “willingness” within the military chain of command is telling. Do you think Petraeus, willing or not, had a choice? This gets to the very heart of why it is a complete distraction for us to even talk about the general instead of his commanding officer.
Patraeus could have resigned. That’s what honorable general officers do when their CinC gives them orders that conflict with proper military order. Flacking for a politician is not part of the job description, not when it comes to deceiving Congress.
Ed*ard Teller @ 152
Ed I think I understand your reasoning and there is plenty of evidence to support it. (I think Bush 41 was taken out based on his and Bakers stance on the I/P issue, we know the I-lobby influenced Carters campaign to be re-elected)
But with Carter’s book “Palestine Peace: Not Apartheid” and Mearsheimer and Walts paper and Book focused on the influence of the Israeli Lobby don’t you think a candidate can get away with coming closer to the center on this issue?
jane hamsher @ 111
Amen!
You don’t ‘compromise’ with thugs simply because they wail that you are ‘unreasonable’. That’s their modus operandi. They always operate by destroying the opposition — whether the ‘opposition’ is a moderate Republican, or whether they’re Dems.
I know this is a late comment but damn it what’s wrong with these people! You have to get off the fence and realize what side of the issue you are on and stick to the dialogue that supports/defends that issue.
Thanks Jane your insight is consistently on the mark.
dakine01 @ 164
Well, maybe Boehner will now say, “McCain just misspoke.” Then they can all say that about Bush and Cheney wrt to WMD and Saddam working with AQ. Before you know it, all will be forgiven.
Kathleen @ 166
When I see evidence of that happening, you probably will too. Phil Weiss is more optimistic than am I.
ET said:
Now I had not known about that sequence of events. It does ring true.
Scarecrow @ 169
Or, in the polite form, a “Circle-Jerk”.
Susan in Iowa @ 110
I think candidates are underestimating what people feel about this issue.
TeddySanFran @ 160
Thanks, Teddy. I read here every day, but work makes it difficult to be here while the discussion is ongoing. I will try to post more about what I see and hear as the campaign heats up. (Going to Harkin’s steak fry tomorrow.) I do feel that living in Iowa confers a responsibility to your fellow Americans to give tough job interviews. I am doing my best.
I liked Richardson, and thought he had a great resume and some good ideas, like letting veterans get their health care wherever they are instead of making them trek to distant VA facilities. But I do not think he will be able to connect with people and convince them to vote for him.
My biggest surprise thus far was Biden. I expected to be underwhelmed, and was really impressed instead. He has the B. Clinton quality of making you feel like you are all he is aware of at the moment he is talking to you. He’s really bright, charismatic and funny, and his long-form answers work well in person. I have some questions about him, but have put him on the list for consideration. I have run into quite a few Democrats who were at that event and had the same reaction, including some who were for Hillary or Edwards and changed their minds.
jane hamsher @ 111
As I have said, I understand the realpolitik behind the campaign tactics you are espousing. But I am not willing to march in lockstep with statements that I find despicable, and I don’t mind that EE is unwilling to do so either. While you perceive her statement as a cave-in to right wing political pressure, I perceive it (and welcome it) as simply an honest assessment of the ad. I despise ill-advised partisan hackery regardless of what side it comes from, and I certainly am not offended that anyone would distance themselves from it.
Imagine for a second that there was a vast deafening silence from the democrats on the ad; that Kerry had said nothing, that no one had. The right wing now has a new unchallenged cudgel to swing because you were too worried about sacrificing leftward momentum to honestly assess a despicable ad. Now if the cudgel gains traction and sticks you are screwed. Either you distance yourself from it late and make yourself look like an ass (and feel like one if you didn’t like it in the first place) or you let the cudgel stand.
Pretending that the merits of the ad slogan don’t matter because of this “larger context” we’re in is only sound if you believe that the ad was OK. But if you happen to actually believe that the ad was out of line enough to be politically damaging, then it DOES matter and your “larger context” becomes a cop-out. And that’s precisely what all this hand wringing over EE is to me: a cop-out. Don’t run shitty ads and then people won’t have to distance themselves from them.
And so here we are, blaming Petraeus instead of Bush and blaming Edwards’ wife instead of Moveon.
schwifty,
I think you explained your reasoning very well, and I learned more than a little bit from the way you handled it. Thanks.
We are so far past the point of having “polite” conversations about the pressing issues confronting us, that I am truly amazed by those who seek to preserve the niceties of civilized political debate at this point in time. I note and admire and give you credit for your good manners and breeding (semi-snark), but I pity your lack of perception and judgement. We are in a fight to the death here, and it started by the right wing hitting us in the face with a hammer. Anyone who starts a fight that way deserves to have their heads pounded into the concrete until they stop moving (rhetorically speaking), and those who are not willing to use streetfighting tactics when they are caught up in a streetfight do not deserve to survive. And Darwin would agree with that, I’m sure.
Truth is no excuse for a stupendously idiotic headline. Edwards owes no one an apology. With friends like MoveOn, I worry about next year’s election.
Betrayus is OK for B-list blogs and the rest of us, but not for a one-page NYTimes ad. MoveOn gave comfort to our enemies by allowing them to spend the last week talking about a stupid ad instead of our stupid president.
Thank for stating what should be obvious so well.
kirk murphy @ 162
I had to laugh when i read this, because I happen to be one of those people who think several impeachment should be followed by a considerable number of life sentences. I like how you describe the chain of command as a conspiracy between the executive branch and the military, though. Nice touch.
Ed*ard Teller @ 176
The really awful part about all this is that I had to vehemently disagree with jane, who I would rather just continue having a wonky crush on.
Oops, I think I just lost the argument..
Schwifty said “What’s it called when a member of the military betrays his side?”
Answer: General Betrayus
schwifty,
you said:
This reads into the post what was not advised. Namely, the pivot part. One can offer a simple one sentence mild rebuke to MoveOn about word choice, then use the opportunity to hit the Achilles heel of the Republicans.
If the other side wants to feign outrage and issue demands about some perceived slight for against the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the world, designed by, marketed by, sold by delivered by and implemented by Republicans, who were wrong about every single part of every single thing, it is incumbent on any rational person to point this out.
To Shwifty, re Comment #175, you are obviously intelligent and well-meaning, and this comment shows it, but I submit to you that you are trying to be sophisticated and civilized at a time when we are being forcibly plunged into blatant fascism. You may well be a fine surgeon of debate and discourse, but this is not a time for scalpels, it is a time for sledgehammers. We can afford some tertiary collateral damage, but cannot afford to fail to wake the somnambulant populace (the vast mjority!) up to the fact that this is a war we are fighting here on the domestic front, and that everyone must choose a side and go all-out, even if they would rather not, or America will be lost.
In that context, your assertion that you would not align yourself with language you disagree with on narrow grounds, but would rather expend your energy lecturing the source of that language, seems a bit silly and ineffectual to me.
The hypocrisy on the right is unsufferable, but Petreus was roundly critiqued by editorial pages all throughout the United States.
What the left should be demanding of Democrats, beyond reminding them not to get involved in food fights, is a plan for redeployment and an honest accounting of its difficulty, that will turn the tide.
I read this thread and while I feel sympathy with the frustration, the MoveOn ad did nothing to further its own purpose, and could have been far more effective if it began to spell out details of a strategy that takes on the complexity of getting the hell out, rather than wasting time and money with something that was fait accompli; the nation did not/ does not believe the surge is working, but is still waiting around for leaders to figure out how to change things.
i could care less what the spouse of a candidate thinks….and frankly, i get sick of hearing them pimp their mates….they’re not who i am voting for………they’re not gonna be the one with their hand on the button…….
think a company hires a ceo because of their wife??????????
not unless her daddy owns the company………
gimme a break……..
even bill clinton knew how to keep his mouth shut about this one…….
ever wonder why the repub’s wives stay out of the news? because they know they can lose elections for their spouse……..that’s why…….the more ghouliani’s wife is on tv and radio, the lower his rating……duh.
elizabeth seems articulate and intelligent, so, she should know better, and that makes it worse……..
schwifty — I do not think you have any appreciation of what a tenuous thread we are all here by. Your moment of high dudgeon comes with a very high price. If you woke up tomorrow and we were no longer here, would it be worth it?
Gnome de Plume @ 114
Last one for this dead thread, promise. Let me put it this way, and this is FAR too dramatic an analogy but I couldn’t think of anything more apt on the fly. When totalitarian dictators torture people you expect it. When your own representative government does you are appalled. In that sense, I don’t give a two flying shits what the republican attack machine dreams about, but what our attack machine says matters to me.
That said, the best thing in Jane’s post was the idea that Moveon plays it hard left so that the candidates don’t have to. But here’s a reality check: if the candidates don’t distance themselves now and again, how exactly are they not being pulled hard left? Seems a bit paradoxical to me.
I don’t agree that EE is smart. I think we’re seeing the limits of both John and EE. However much I like some of their positions, its clear to me that neither is a top caliber mind.
EE has said too many stupid things—esp. the “reverse discrimination complaint” about JE—for me to respect her opinion as a national political figure.
Jane Hamsher @ 46
And don’t forget, Petraeus has been on totally partisan outfits like Hugh Hewitt’s radio show.
jane hamsher @ 186
I don’t really understand your question.. do you mean that since Iraq is a matter of life and death for so many, that the ends justify the means in ending it?
I think that’s what you mean. If so, then you’d better damn well hope the Moveon ad hasn’t backfired. In other words, right back atcha: since the Iraq war IS such an urgent matter we shouldn’t tsk tsk over our side’s politicians when they distance themselves from very risky ads that could jeopardize the effort to bring our troops home.
The republicans are going to take it and beat the patriotism support the troops drum to an even bloodier pulp now. Did moveon just buy them more time?
And so, the merits of the ad matter after all.
MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us” in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines on Friday.
Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by using Petraeus’ own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.
She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says,” she said.
Look at the whole quote. She was probably asked the question. EVERYTHING she and John say is attacked, whereas Barack and Hillary are constantly being given a pass.
My feeling is that occasionally “our side” is set up by a question framed so that we can be beaten up over it (the infamous “impeachment is off the table” was not a speech of Pelosi’s, but a response to tim russert).
Clearly primary voters still don’t get it that Hillary is not the anti-war candidate. Clearly the push is on for the Dems to choose a “moderate,” and somehow Obama/Hillary have come to seem that person. The Edwards’ need occasionally to separate themselves from the targets of the right. This is strategy…until the netroots endorses them (which will probably never happen), this campaign HAS to survive, because this is the only couple who can win America’s affection, and thus the Presidency.
schwifty @ 120
treason is treason. betrayal is betrayal. petraeus betrayed the troops in iraq by acting as a shill to further his political ambitions. there’s a difference, and the point that you keep bringing up about ann coulter is not a comparison because her and her ilk believe treason is disagreeing with the president, and speaking your mind, and worthy of another al queda attack in s.f… there is no comparison, so equating the two just plays in to the repugs playbook…
you seem to be bent about how the ad would be perceived and used as a cudgel to bash democrats with about their supposed lack of respect of the military.. but maybe the true point of attack to point out (like jane did so well) the complete double standard that the media spotlight supposed irrelevant “scandals” (haircut, dress, etc.) of the left while ignoring the real and obvious character questions on the right… don’t play their game. don’t operate by those rules- challenge them..
the administration using the military for cover for their policy is bullshit, because the reason we have a civilian command structure is to formulate policy, so it’s all on the bushites, not the military. the military is task oriented and are always going to lean forward to complete a task.. they need the leadership to look out for them to send to do the right missions and not risk their lives needlessly.. multiple generals and commanders have taken the task and realized that the solution in iraq cannot be arrived at militarily, so if petraeus wants to be a hack and spout of misleading numbers to support the administration, then he’s fair game.
Schwifty – in which forum will you be upbraiding the active duty soldiers in the 101 for their choice of language?
I’m rooting for in person.
May we watch?
Schwifty, the criminal conspiracy is Gen Betryaus’ collaboration with the Executive Branch in providing false information to Congress.
While the chain of command runs from the Executive to the military – oversight is vested in the Congress by the Constitution.
The chain of oversight runs from the duly constituted Congressional Committees to the Pentagon – includig the power to compel truthful testimony even without swearing in the officer.
[Oh yeah - UFMJ has something to say of Betrayus’ false statements to duly constituted authority.]
Gen. Petraeus is obligated to disobey illegal orders – the chain of command neither excuses nor absolves him of his Federal crime before that body.
The chain of command also does not absolve Gen. Petraeus’ decision to conspire with the Executive Branch in the deliberate preparation and presentation of false statements to Congress.
[That guy in the suit up with Petraeus? He’s an Ambassador - they’re from the State Dept, which is part of the Executive Branch.
Gen Betrayus and Ambassador Pining-for-Baghdad didn’t just meet that day in the hearing room – they’d been working jointly on their deliberate false statements to Congress.
Gen Betrayus – deceiving Congress to keep his job.
And to keep his job, the chain of command asks him to lie.
To lie to keep his job – which is to extend the war.
And ensure more of the troops he commanded will die for the sole objective of to contining the Occupation past Bush’s term..
A single hemorrhoids on a park-bench drunk has more moral courage than Gen Petraeus has in his entire ambition-drunk body.
He sacrifices US servicemen and women for no military objective to keep the favot of his political masters.
But don’t take my word for it – take Admiral Fallon’s.
Poor Gen. Betryaus – he just don’t get no respects from the troops?
Why won’t they repsect the uniform, and just ignore the man?
Oh yeah – they know he’ll do anything for ambition.
Even when it costs their lives.
Hey – worth a star, right?
The Lake flows on and I’m very late to this thread but…..
THANK YOU, JANE!
When I heard EE said this I thought, “How could she?” and “What is heaven’s name was the woman thinking?”
Knives in our back we expect from enemies but not from those whose backs we protect.
What Jane said.
When the military has gone from being a neutral institution to a political one, where it is delivering a report written by the White House, there is grave cause for concern. Having a military that is political is very dangerous to its society. A society can get broken down bits by bits under the nose of it’s citzen without anyone realizing before it is too late.
Politicizing the military is one notch on the Republican manifesto for a permanent majority. MoveOn was able to recognize the implications of this quiet undercurrent and knock the hammer off the handle using the right amount of force that was necessary…. for this MoveOn gets the medal of the week for being a patriot.
Shwifty you should have quit when you said you were going to.
When Jane said we were hanging by a thread, and you found paradox in that, the supposed paradox arose from your own misinterpretation of her comment. I’m quite sure she meant the loyal left activist opposition to the right wing fascist machine was what was hanging by a thread, and that was at risk of being gone tomorrow if we don’t win this election. Believe me, there is no plausible scenario where our war machine will ever be hanging by a thread or in danger of being gone tomorrow. But those who stand up and fight for our side (your side, too, I presume) will be gone if we don’t fight this fight with maximum ferocity. That should be clear to anyone who’s been paying attention. And that’s why you should modify your niceties and scruples a bit. We can all re-adopt them when the contry is brought back into reasonable balance. But for now, I think the correct view is that anyone who responds to right-wing criticism of the Move-On ad by deserting the Democrats, as you say you fear, probably wasn’t very committed to this fight in the first place, and their loss won’t be felt for very long. On the other hand, consider how many might be galvanized into finally getting off the fence and fighting on our side for real by that same ad. I would put my money on the latter.
Sorry I’m coming to this late.
We should print the Democratic PR lessons on laminated cards and hand them out to the Dem candidates.
On the moveon subject: McCain has gone nuts.
No, I mean more nuts.
No, that’s not sufficiently descriptive. How about he’s dropped off the radar screen of political sanity.
toby martin @ 198
The progressive tilt in America will vanish tomorrow if we don’t start painting more of our policy opponents in uniform as treasonous? You’ll forgive me for not pulling that out of my crystal ball of Jane Hamsher’s brain.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether such ads add to or detract from our progressive momentum. I for one am not looking forward to the Vietnamesque repolarization of post-Iraq America. Granted, at this point much of that is inevitable, and we will be hearing for years after a withdrawal about how counter-insurgency would/could/should have worked if we had just stayed longer. But I believe that such ads only serve to alienate what may be a blue political shift in the armed services as a whole. Vietnam defeat angst played a huge role in getting us into this mess in the first place, and it would be nice to extract ourselves from it by focusing the blame precisely where it belongs, namely on the policy originators. You want the screaming eagles’ vote? Then pressure our weak kneed democratic leadership into a cohesive party platform instead of wasting time pointing your attacks where Bush wants them to land.
Elizabeth Edwards disagrees with the school yard taunt–to “your momma” or not “your momma”–that is the question; Jane Hamsher chides Elizabeth Edwards–if we don’t bust em on the dozens, they’ll sack us in cement–not a game we’re playing here.
Brothers and sisters squabble, so what else is new?
Keep the eye on the prize, which isn’t victory, but humanity and the miraculous earth we live on. That’s my 2 cents.
Move on shouldn’t apologize; they should get more effective, so their voice doesn’t get marginalized via Swift Boat, ala Michael Moore.
Elizabeth Edwards, I cut her a bit more slack; neither Michelle Obama, nor Bill Clinton, and certainly none of the other spouses are in the light of fire like her. She believes in the ideas she is campaigning for and in her husband’s vision as a public servant. She believes that they’re very rightness ought to be the grounds for winning the day. Naive? Foolish? maybe so, but gutsy, you got to say that for her.
Jane faces slander and marginalization from these right wing bums every day. Thanks for the the fire Jane, and the dogs I can tell are fighting to keep the wolf from the door.
Keep your eyes on the prize brothers and sisters.
schwifty 201 — Yeah that’s Doug Schoen’s argument too, the Democrats should stop harping on withdrawal because it might alienate voters and they’ll lose in 2008. You’ll forgive me if I say the culture of timidity and caution this position fosters is not only amoral, it’s self-defeating and strategically naïve at the same time.
Your strategy of shooting allies in the back when they don’t perform to your expectations is also known as ‘fragging’ and it’s just about as politically astute as it is militarily expedient. Good luck with that.
Yo
Schwifty
If it walks like a duck…
billjpa @ 22
I disagree with Ms. Edwards opinion about the ad but it certainly won’t stop me from supporting John Edwards, whom I feel is the best candidate. No one is perfect and I’m with Elizabeth on so many things that I won’t turn on her and John for one misstep. I hope you will reconsider withdrawing your support.
Shwifty, you are clearly getting fatigued from this debate, your eyes as well as your fingers. You misread Jane, and you misread me. I clearly said the left was in danger of disappearing “if we don’t win this election,” and that is because the Rethugs will then have a chance to consolidate their position and extend it to an outright dictatorship. To your other point, the Rethugs wil blame the Dems no matter what happens, and if it works for them like it did with Vietnam, that can’t be helped, they will try and the corporate MSM will enable them, as always. Out of our control.
Another thing I’d like to point out to you is that the military of any country always leans to the right, it is an authoritarian heirarchy, and rightly so when your business is killing and destroying. And I wouldn’t want out warrior class to be any other way, they couldn’t do their job properly if they were different, and I am pretty hard-line when it comes to the LEGITIMATE defense of our country. But they are fighters, not thinkers, and their lives are shaped by different criteria than the general citizenry. So, don’t concentrate on getting the soldiers to vote progressive, concentrate on trying to get the PEOPLE to vote progressive. That’s what I and many other activist types are trying to do.
jane hamsher @ 203
You misread. I don’t want the democrats to harp on betrayal, not for them to avoid withdrawal. What I in fact sais was that after a withdrawal we’ll face some years of societal polarization a la Vietnam as described by old croaker above:
More of what I actually said: we need a cohesive party platform from the Democratic leadership, meaning an end to the vote-your-conscience way of doing things right now. As for the fragging, once again, right back at you: it’s what you might call it when moveon provides the republicans with their latest inflammatory talking point.
AMEN.
I don’t comment on much these days, and I feel like I’m at Digby’s just doing “what she said”, but dammit, there isn’t anything else to say.
I also think Elizabeth Edwards is, most days, one smart puppy. This is the least smart thing I can remember her doing.
Petraeus doesn’t represent the troops. Period. Ass-licking little chickenshit. I support the troops and that’s why I call him a brown-nosing careerist sell-out asshole.
Some day MoveOn will be totally vindicated….doing what’s right is never always very popular….a political military has no place in a society.
toby martin @ 206
Progressive movement, electing progressives, my response still stands:
The next election will be lost if we don’t start painting more of our policy opponents in uniform as treasonous?
You are of course correct about the inherently authoritarian nature of the military. But if there were ever a time to drive home that the Republican party does not have their best interests at heart, this is it, as they find themselves in a Republican generated clusterfuck.
Oilfieldguy @ 39
Oilfieldguy @ 39
That’s an idea because the admiral’s remarks are in the public domain now. As long as they’re put in quotation marks and attributed to the source.
TexBetsy @ 41
I don’t understand?? whose camp? “…till the general…” what does that mean?
naschkatze @ 211
oilfieldguy: you just won the thread.
er, I mean naschkatze sorry..
Schwifty 210, now you’re either proving my point about your fatigue (the graceful way out of the hole you’ve dug yourself lol), or you are deliberately misunderstanding both me and Jane in her prior comment (it doesn’t take a crystal ball—show of hands, anyone?). We will lose the election if we don’t start fighting for real, even if that means using Rethug tactics that have been successfully used against us, and if we lose the election we may well be put out of business entirely by the incoming dictatorship.
If that means we must use hardball tactics in attacking an unscrupulous, ambition-driven general who is acting like a politician and lying, then we must not be dissuaded from doing so just because he happened to put on his fucking uniform before showing up in front of the cameras on 9/11. If he can’t handle being called a betrayer when he is in fact acting like one, he can always stop acting like one. In any case, the uniform should offer no protection, it’s just a piece of cloth. And more and more troops apparently are starting to see it that way as well. You can only beat a dog so many times before he loses faith in you.
But here again you are clearly and explicitly focusing on the votes of the troops, rather than the citizenry. Let me tell you something, friend, and let me tell it clear. If the time ever comes when we are forced to follow the lead laid out in the Declaration of Independence and fight in the streets to throw off an oppressive government that rules for its own interests and not ours, I can guarantee you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that those very same soldiers whose votes you are now wooing will be the ones shooting us down in the street to defend the government we are trying to replace. And they won’t give a FUCK about how YOU are going to vote in the following election. And they also won’t care whether you backed up Move-On or not.
Well, I spent a while in the garden, and the thread is still limping along. Interestingly, at the news conference with the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates and (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs still?) General Peter Pace, I caught a few minutes on C-SPAN yesterday. Pace said the Petraeus report could have been just as well signed by Pace or Fallon or some other cluster wearers, because they were all on board. Someone is not sleeping well at night.
Mrs. Edwards, when General Patreaus sat down and deliver a political report and not a military report…he betrayed the country.
Alecia @ 217
Thank you, Alecia. We can all go to bed now. Where were you before?
Thanks for the great post, Jane. I’ve passed the link to your post/comments to Elizabeth Edwards. I like to think that she would appreciate your eloquence.
toby – 215:
This is quite simply summarized: I am asking if you consider “loyal left opposition,” as you put it, to include portraying more uniformed mouthpieces as traitorous.
Jane maintains that such tactics are warranted because we are supposedly hanging by a thread. I maintain that they are not for precisely the same reason.
This is not a question of whether or not we should play hardball. The question is whether invoking the language of treason is hardball or retardball.
The followup question is how political campaigns should deal with it, whether it is legitimate hardball or mere stupidity.
Since Jane et al seems to think it is legitimate hardball, then the campaigns should pivot (I believe that yesterday we used to call this “spin”) around it.
Since I however seem to think it is mere stupidity, I am fine with the idea that campaigns dismiss it rather than spin it.
Do I have all of that about right? Now, could you address any of this substantively without examining the performance of my eyes and fingers for clues?
schwifty @ 220
OK, my eyes and fingers are getting tired lol. No offense intended.
First, hardball means telling the ugly truth that lurks behind a shiny facade. Period, No exceptions. Here, the betrayal took place on many different levels, excluding only giving actual assistance to an armed enemy (perhaps, depending on how you view the avowed strategy)
Second, neither the public nor the military is very good at details, so you need a simple message that packs a punch and appeals at the gut level to motivate people to change their previous position. There are lots of studies on this. I used to be in advertising media, and we all knew that 30 years ago. Without the word “betray,” a long detailed explanation of what was wrong would be required, and you cannot deliver that message to a mass audience.
Not in the real world as it is.
Third, you need outliers in a fight, so the established mainstream candidates can be perceived as a little mainstream, but there is no doubt that the work of the outliers serves to open up the overall substantive debate, by loosening restrictive taboos, and that works to the benefit of the mainstream candidate because it removes the taboo from specific subjects that ought to be addressed. So, if it benefits them, they should refrain from actively undercutting it.
Fourth, and most important, I want to attack the very premise of your entire position here today. The ad in question said “Betrayus.” You concluded that could only mean an accusation of formal treason, as in providing material support and assistance to a declared enemy, punishable by death. You further conclude that that is how a soldier would perceive it, and away you went. But it could mean many other things, and the soldiers are only a very small part of the audience, as they are only a small fraction of voters. They probably aren’t even allowed to get the Times in Iraq, if you know anything about how their media environment is shaped and controlled. If the intended audience was the citizenry, I can tell you that few citizens would automatically be getting ready to hang or shoot him because that word was used. We use it in many ways, as in a betrayal of trust, or expectation, or fraudulent advertising, or a lover’s cheating. Here, we expected him to play a straight military man and not be swayed by his personal political interests, but he didn’t, he ran the full dog-and-pony show and PR blitz, he betrayed us. We don’t hang a man for political ambition, but we need not treat him like a saint or a hero for doing so, either. You cannot justify your determination to see it only from the soldier’s point of view. So your entire argument is just a straw man, incidentally, the same straw man the Rethugs are desparately trying to erect by imposing the very same narrow, fixed interpretation of what the term was meant to convey in the ad.
We are all gettig a little too used to this kind of thing. It is a Rethug specialty. “You didn’t insult the troops directly, but you insulted their C-inC, so that’s the same thing.” You didn’t insult the troops directly, but you resisted the bill we favor, so that’s the same thing.” And on and on and on. Hear this, world: The only thing that is ever the same thing, is the same thing. Rinse and repeat. Good night, all.
Is there a link to the “chickenshit” remark besides this one:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
schwifty @ 220
I tuned in for one glimpse of one of the Petraes hearings when one rightwing Representative prefaced her remarks to the General with “we all distance ourselves from the ad in the NYT, etc.” I laughed my ass off when a loud voice (committee chairman?) stated it is not necessary for anyone to distance themselves from something with which they are not associated with. The Repug. Rep. brushed away the remark with irritation, looking like the pandering syncophant she was. And looking a little like drunk on a roll being told she had had too much to drink. Denial but a glimmer of recognition.
toby 221:
1. Policy executor, not originator. Your idea that Petraeus dropping arms on Sunnis somehow constitutes “betrayal” is laughable. Betrayal of what? Not the policy he was executing… oh, I know: the “public trust.” Pffff.
2. Efficacy of impact doesn’t make it right. Lewinsky had impact. Flip flopper had impact.
3. How do the outliers and the mainstream stay separate without differing occasionally? They don’t, so if you accept the outlier argument you have to accept the distance and differences that come with it. This very distance from EE is what you all are tut-tutting about today.
4. And now for a language lesson:
Here in Berlin it is very early in the morning, and I want to put this betrayal/treason thing to rest.
German:
Verräter: traitor/betrayer
Verrat: treason/betrayal
Look at the original French that the English words are derived from:
noun: traison: treason
infinitive verb: trair: to betray
You can add and subtract the be- and so on, but I hope it is supremely obvious now. Especially in a military context, betrayal and treason do not have distinct meanings. To argue otherwise at this point is to be disingenuous in the extreme. And even if none of this were etymologically true, betrayal and treason are perceived synonymously to any soldier.
The arguments I have seen so far are ridiculous on their face, from the idea that military betrayal and treason are distinct through some imaginary nuance, to the idea that “pivot” is some revolutionary new concept that politicians should practice employing. Is this now the no “pivot” zone? The bottom line is that many of you feel that it makes good, politically tactical sense to accuse a standing field commander of treason. “Chickenshit little asskisser,” on the other hand..
jc inOR @ 223
The video you saw is here, and I enjoyed her constipated expression at having been absolutely shut down by the most excellent parliamentary point of order as much as anyone. It was the perfect response to her hamfisted cudgel wielding. It remains unfortunate that she had this cudgel in the first place. Out in the political arena where Robert’s Rules of Order do not reign, you can’t expect the same reaction from politicians who are asked their honest opinion of the moveon ad.
Petraeus is a political figure as much as a military officer. He has written at least one op-ed hyping the ‘progress’ in Iraq (six weeks before the Nov 2004 elections!) He is certainly fair game for criticism. If he feels libeled by move.on let him sue.
Right on, Jane! I am a big fan of E Edwards, so that blunder of hers is disappointing. Your arguments were perfect.
schwifty @ 224
Chicken………isser is pretty personal. I have not seen the context. If words in anger at some meeting are fair game, why not the Betrayus, which after all came from GIs after the slow motion Saturday night massacre of top military brass since the start. I can’t remember them all. Petraeus stands as the analog to Robert Bork of the SNM.
I think you are misinterpreting pivot. The point of the article was not how to respond to Betrayus, it was about rhetorical tactic when attacked regarding the ad. Kucinich put all the blame on Bush and the rest of the authors of the bloody jihad without even mentioning the ad. Per the example on your excellent link, each individual can choose what to talk about. The unfathomable crimes perpetrated by Bush, Congress, and the military should be the subject of the day. Is there not bound to be someone who will either blurt an unseemly truth, or a rhetorical faux pax considering the times. I mean who else took out a full page add opposing the war that day. Why not take the point of order to heart. Move on as the saying goes.
Opposite of Zed!
Hey, one last thought, Shwifter. On you cool Crooks and Liars thread (I can’t get enough of it), downthread someone brought up the point, who has been calling who traitors since 2001. Yes, I was against the invasion of Afghanistan. Why fight on OBLs turf and terms, I thought. I was against Desert Storm. I thought that was for getting the oil for us, not for getting justice for anyone. So someone shouted ‘traitor’, or at least Betrayus back. Someone rose to the bait. Back to affinity group, nonviolent resistance bootcamp with ‘em.
jc inOR @ 228
At comment # 222 I posted the link to the “chickenshit” comment from the Admiral. You can see the context at that link if you like.
jc inOR @ 227
Not asleep yet, but maybe you should be.
I never specified the arming of the Sunnis, you seem to be using your crystal ball after all, but it is cracked. I meant the whole damn endeavor. But you just ignored all the other possibilities I cited. In my opinion, you revealed way too much about how your mind works with your total dismissal of the “public trust.” “Pfffff” indeed! Fuck the public, right? Who the hell do they think they are? Man, he was there for the public, don’t you get it? And honorable men resign if they disagree with the policy they are asked to execute.
And efficacy of impact doesn’t make it wrong, either, just effective. Can’t we use a little effective right about here?
And if the mainstream wants to identify itself as being different from the outliers, it can do so by saying what it believes, and does not have to choose to define itself in a negative way by attacking the outliers who are fighting on the same side and for the same cause (supposedly).
Finally, EXCUUUUUSE MEEE! I thought we were using English for this debate. Silly me. What is the Ethiopian definition of the word “betray?” FYI, my Webster’s Third New International Dictionary provides several definitions of the word, and guess what the primary one is? MISLEAD. Rather right on point, I would think.
You persist in applying the word “betray” only in a military context, after everything that has gone before, so I can only conclude that you must have some special connecion to the military that keeps you from seeing that the votes of the general public count just the same as those from the military, and that there are many more in the public, and that the military tends to vote for the right anyway, just as a general matter, with some self-interest thrown in. That is what is “ridiculous” here. But none is so blind as he who will not see.
BTW, I’d hate to play Scrabble with you. Only English words are permitted there.
MoveOn.org’s problem is not a performance one, but rather one of overachievement in the area of undermining substantive progress on the antiwar front. Anyone running to their defence is not paying close enough attention.
Eternally EPU’d, as usual.
Jane, terrific post. MoveOn’s ad would have gone unnoticed if it had been High Broderized per Schwifty’s notions. Happily, MoveOn devised a provocation that sent Republicans out to spread the word.
We don’t want to wallow in the gutter with Coulter and the SwiftBoaters. Which would be a good name for a rock group. But this ad came nowhere close to the gutter. It was accurate, given the General’s hand-in-hand script development with Ed Gillespie (sp?). It did the job it had to do.
We Dems have to remember that this isn’t a game. Thousands upon thousands of people are dying. But winning the attention of the public is something like a game, one that the Republicans play dirty all the time.
We want to be reasonable, respectful, and nice. But first, we have to drive the bullies off the playing field.
toby 230:
I just assumed the “actual assistance” to the enemy that you thought might be perceivable must have been referencing something a little more concrete than the entire war. Shrug. I keep forgetting that Petraeus was the one who got us into this in the first.. oh, wait a minute.
I had to smile when I read your guide to distancing yourself from an outlier as a mainstream candidate without attacking said outlier. Let me give that a shot. What if EE had said something like this?
Oh, wait a minute..
..and for that we must upbraid EE for not spin..er, what was it? Yawing? Rolling? Pivoting!
“Public trust” was the nebulous phrase moveon used to pinpoint exactly what it was that Petraeus was betraying. They didn’t need to specify anything tangible because the word betrayal itself drips with Benedict Arnoldian connotation. Real courage from moveon, the sort that is being celebrated here, would have substituted those words with “oath of office” or “UCMJ.” That is, of course, if attacking the loyalty of the Commander in Chief’s Field Commander (ahem, loyalty to the “public trust,” of course) weren’t a complete fool’s errand.
I expect that the next ad will read “General Petraeus or General Beats his Children?” with “at monopoly” given as the explanation.
The mere fact that you are pulling out the dictionary to show me how much variety there is contained in the definition of betray, and how I must not get caught up in silly things such as, oh, synonyms, doesn’t further your argument. It just makes you look obtuse, especially if you stop reading at the very first word. Keep going and you may begin to understand what a little bit of French has to do with this (hint: it’s all conjugations and declinations of the SAME WORD).
Finally, I’m puzzled that you continue to think that it’s me and not the stars on Petraeus’ shoulders that are putting this in a military context..
Really, what is so hard about admitting that this is just a nasty tactical political attack ad? Is it so offensive that we may not be running the high road on this one? Do we have to pretend that “betray” doesn’t have the connotations that it does in the context that this ad has? Do we have to stamp our feet that the nastiness of the target justifies the nastiness of the ad? That the other side does it too? Why not just admit that this is good old fashioned mudslinging and move on?
Must we require that our politicians spin this mud into gold? Must we trip over ourselves defending the mudslinger? The real tragedy of all of this is the fact that Bush’s hide and go seek behind the armed services could pay off for him in red meat for his base and a distracted media.
Schwifty – I think this is what we must expect from officers…
By any standard, any at all, he has betrayed his oath to the Constitution. He is not immune from criticism and anyone who dares point that out is out of bounds? Please. Come hard or not at all, MoveOn. Any Patriots who decide to fulfill their oaths are obliged to do the same.
Then call it what it is. “Public trust” my foot.
schwifty @ 234
I beg you – name a higher public trust.
Kitt @ 229
Kitt, yeah, I caught the gist of that along the way. That’s why I mentioned at 216 that Pace is all ‘any one of us could have signed that report,’ and he mentioned Fallon by name. Now Pace is telling the world that he’s whipped Fallon into line. But isn’t Pace on the Samba line with Rove, Gonzales and the Krusty the Clown guy who just quit as Press Secretary? Or did Pace just get kicked upstairs to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
MoveOn attacks with a word. Bush attacks with bombs and bullets. The Establishment media goes tut-tut over a word, not Iraqi deaths in blood, maybe a million of them. Wolfe Blitzer asks John Edwards about the bad word and John says, haven’t seen the ad – what does it say? Wolfe can’t explain so anybody can get the picture. He minces his words.
Wolfe’s bad word is betrayal, not death, not one million. The bad word isn’t “lies.” Wolfe can’t say, Bush lied us into war, Bush betrayed the military by sending soldiers to war on his lie. Don’t anybody say the word betrayal when it means what it says – revealing the identity of your spy in time of war, Valerie Plame. Be nice with nice words because the truth isn’t nice. Thank you Jane, truthteller. Loving you is easy.
Scoot & Shoot betrayed Valerie Plame. This makes them what? Executers of the policy. No treason here. Move along now. No, you’ll have to leave your camera and any electronic devices, as well as any old magazines articles, op-eds, or recordings or memories of state of the union addresses, and United Nations presentations with me.
Anybody remember RR’s 11th commandment?
That was the 11th commandment for Republicans.
The 11th commandment for Democrats is, “Thou Democrats shalt form a circular firing squad at the earliest opportunity, especially around whosoever speaketh out against GOP talking points without being a mealy-mouthed worm.”
newtonusr: fair point. The crazy thing is that I believe that in Petraeus’ mind he is actually pursuing the political element of his military counter-insurgency objective as tasked to him by his chain of command.. and as crazy as that kind of military kool-aid is, the military is what it is.
To me, that is just not as egregiously unconstitutional as the unified executive that gave us the Plame betrayal, as jc mentioned. Transforming the civilian executive branch into an unbroken chain of command a la the military is just lunacy.
I have to admit, I am looking at all of this through the lens of someone who has been in Germany all summer. I spend hours a day (obviously) on this stuff online but it can’t really replace the immersion of being over there.
I’m in this nice bubble of sanity over here (for the express purpose of taking advantage of my second nationality’s national health care, no less) and so I may be out of touch with the general feeling of anguish and desperation over ending this war. Over here I am reminded that sanity exists in the world, but over there I understand what it means to feel claustrophobically trapped while you watch your country decay.
Still, to think that it has come so far that we have literally run out of targets in the administration and are now aiming directly at the loyalty of the military itself.. I can’t seem to get comfortable with that.
schwifty – late, even here…
I would only say that the target is Bush via his loyal vassal, Petraeus. The general is, like all things ChimpCo, an insulator.
I would and do distinguish between the General and the military as a whole. Perhaps this is wrong, but there it is.
I believe Petraeus to be untrustworthy, and that flaw is his alone. His responsibility is to the Constitution, and like so many others who have been in the ring closest to Bush-Orbit, they failed in their duty to the Constitution. Whether they did it on orders or because of coercion, it is an utter betrayal. They ‘betrayed’ the essential document from which all just things American derive.
Failure to point it out, failure to acknowledge it when it is plain, failure to act accordingly – that is treasonous.
If that means Pols have to do what’s right (which by the way is the consensus view of their constituencies), well, good on us.
It is time, because there is simply no time left. Look around here and see what is lost forever, what is being lost as we speak, and what is to be lost if nothing is done.
To quibble about the comfort of candidates – hey, they can go to the spa.
Nobody does it better. Salut! Jane.
The Betrayus-Petraeus comment was lame. I found it embarrassing. Like saying liar, liar, pants on fire.
I have no problem with criticizing Gen. Petraeus and saying he’s betrayed us. But I could’ve done without the lame-o schoolyard chant. It — predictably, IMO — became the story. Pity.
Mr. Sandman @ 4
Reinstating the media fairness doctrine would be a start at addressing the media issue. I think that there also is a need to limit the percentage of their overall add revenue that a media outlet may get from any 1 industry. I cringe every time that I see an advert from Kerr-McGee, BSF&G, or GE on a news program. Kerr-McGee and BSF&G don’t even sell a product for which news viewers are in the market. KM builds off-shore oil platforms! Viewers aren’t going to buy one of those! BSF&G proudly states: “We don’t make the products you buy; we make the products you buy better.” GE is the nation’s largest defense contractor! These people aren’t advertising to market a product. They’re advertising so that they can control content by threatening to pull their ads!
MoveOn.org is indeed a Republican’s best friend.
schwifty @ 233
New day, same stupid argument.
“When you assume, you make an ass of you and me” (Felix Unger). Mostly you. You “assumed” I meant arming the Sunnis, when in reality I meant every single aspect of the overall policy that has turned our fighting men into policemen, as which they are sitting duck targets in an impossible situation. That is a betrayal of the troops, who deserve much better, and every day it continues is a continuing betrayal, IMO, by the current policy executor as well as the policy originators, but I didn’t break it down that way for you because I was rather trying to focus on and show you all the ways that “betrayus” could apply to the non-military situation, in contrast to your fixed determination to pretend that ONLY the miltary context was or could be in play.
The outlier argument is very simple, just say what you want to say to define yourself, but don’t directly criticize the outlier. That is what the Rethugs do, and it is effective for them. See, “Ann Coulter,” for example. No Rethug atttacks her directly, they just change the subject and emphasize their own talking point. So she remains an effective tool and rallying point for them. I simply do not understand or agree with your moral code that requires that you identify and chastise every voice that does not rise to your personal standard and concept of integrity. When you go to church, do you feel the need to paint a scarlet A on the forehead of every adulterer, as well? Sometimes, it’s OK to just keep your mouth shut, especially when it is an ally that you are being invited to tear down, and most especially when your most obvious enemies are simultaneously engaged in making a major cause celebre (that’s French!) of making such direct attacks themselves.
The “public trust” is the real subject of the “betrayus” term, and you point out yourself that the ad referenced it directly. But still you insist that the only impact was on the troops’ morale. Absolutely incomprehensible! This was a major PR presentation that the Administration was relying on to pull their fat from the fire, one that Petraeus voluntarily made himself an integral part of, against a long and honorable military tradition that he has also violated in the past (pre-election 2004, and every year since), and the very purpose of it was to influence the minds of the PUBLIC, not the military. PR is what you turn to when the truth won’t do. To the extent that Petraeus facilitated this process and goal, he betrayed the public trust, and that is important and was in fact the avowed focus of the ad. Just because you demean the importance of manipulating and betraying the importance of the public trust, doesn’t make it any less important. It is more important than anything else where informed votes are the primary mechanism of democracy.
As to the dictionary, I cited the PRIMARY definition, rather than one of the several secondary references (yours came in second, BTW), because the primary definition is the one that a reasonable person would normally apply unless directed to one of the secondaries by a compelling reading of the context (none here), or a personal bias or agenda (like it seems you have, for some unexplained reason). To opt to choose a secondary meaning and insist it is the only one that may be considered, as you do, defies logic and common sense. Most of us can differentiate between coming in first as opposed to coming in second. It would thus appear that the “obtuseness” here is yours, not mine, “Schwifty” (hopefully, that is a voluntary misspelling on your part, but who can be sure in light of this discussion?). All the more so, when your preferred reliance on the root of the term in question derives entirely from your understanding of two entirely different languages, which means that you somehow think those roots carry more weight than the actual usage and meaning of the root material in the actual language we are discussing, as reflected in a premiere dictionary source for the language we are actually discussing. (Maybe you just wanted to show off that you have some familiarity with other languages? Admirable, but totally beside the point.)
When we are having a debate about the use of a term in the English language, the dispostive source is always going to be an authoritative English language dictionary, sir. The fact that I understand that and you do not, probably goes a long way toward explaining why I am widely known as a cunning linguist, and you probably are not.
“The tactics of the moment often have to be subservient to those of the long term.”
Elizabeth Edwards will not do that. She has her own credibility to consider. And she always says what she really thinks. Until now, that’s been okay with everyone here, but apparently, that’s only because she agreed with the party line.
Doesn’t anyone else remember that Elizabeth Edwards grew up in a military family? And that she may have been genuinely embarrassed by that ad and for those responsible for it?
The same passion that makes her speak out honestly, is also what makes her put her husband’s campaign at the top of her list of priorities. And that is probably in great part because she grew up as a military brat. One legacy of that kind of childhood is a greater focus on the greater good, rather than on one’s own personal needs.
dakine01 @ 74
Do you think the MoveOn ad would have gotten ANY attention if they had been nice and polite and bland?
We can all answer that with a resounding NO.
Did the ad advance the cause? Did the attention the ad got advance the cause? I think not which IMHO makes it ineffective advertising. I don’t see name calling as a substitute for argument whether by the right or left. The right accuses the left of wanting to impose lockstep conformity. When one cannot criticize MoveOn.org it’s too bad especially when MoveOn was wrong.
Oilfieldguy @ 39
That should be on billboards across the country. Ta f*ck with timidity. The Repuglikans screamed obscenities at “libruls” until it sounded like “truth”. (Not that I would want to imitate that.) But to publicly criticize Moveon’s rather sober ad, while Ingraham/Coulter/Rush/ChimpCo scream obscenities and untruths, because they know repetition works . . . well, it’s just plain stupid in this case. *my humble opinion*
And I do wish Elizabeth Edwards well, which makes this all the more painful.
EXACTLY!
MoveOn is telling the truth about that Admiral Fallon’s “ass kissing little chicken sh*t.”
Petraeus lost 190k weapons, failed to train the Iraqis troops and now he is lying about the escalation.
MoveOn should not be condemned they should be congratulated for bringing the facts to light.
John Kerry, Elizabeth Edwards and everyone on the left should know better than to add their voices to the echo chamber.
schwifty @ 14
Thank you. I share your sentiments exactly.
I think Jane Hamsher has one hell of a nerve to smack down Elizabeth Edwards for exercising her First Amendment right. Hypocritical and smug (and right-wing-fundy-ish) beyond belief. Moveon.org is not above criticism and IMO they deserved criticism in this case for giving the right wing such a huge piece of ammunition to use against us.
toby martin @ 247
At this point you are putting so many words and assertions into my mouth that I can’t but require you to show me where I said any of this stuff you are proclaiming. I maintain that this can not be divorced from a military context by virtue of the fact that Petraeus is the acting field commander. That is nowhere near pretending that the military context is the exclusive context. Straw man number one.
I can almost hear the whooshing sound as the “hypothetical” quote I proposed from EE as a non-hostile way of dealing with the ad, vs. the “chastising” or “attack” that you seem to think took place, flew right over your head. For the less careful readers, this is what she actually said: “Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us.’” THIS is your scarlet A? THIS is your harsh rebuke? I hardly consider this to be a scathing attack, therefore: strawman number two. And where do you get off assuming that I go to church?
Where do I assert that this “only” (or even at all) undermines troop morale? I spoke rather of the future vietnamesque societal divisiveness that would be exacerbated as a result of a liberal attack outlet impugning the loyalty of a man in uniform. Strawman number three. As for Petraeus’ culpability in misleading the public, I again refer you to his commander in chief who tasked him with doing so. Whether he is a willing participant or not is irrelevant. Again, you are falling hook, line, and sinker for Bush’s distraction.
Bluster away all you want on the order of dictionary definitions. The primacy of each definition is dependent on context, not on which number Webster’s assigns to it, and as long as Petraeus is an officer you can’t divorce this from a military context. Therefore, pretending that betrayal does not invoke its synonym treason in this context is to be utterly disingenuous. As for the spelling of my nickname, if you haven’t yet figured it out from my German nationality..
Color me utterly unsurprised that you are reduced to appealing to the authority of your so-called reputation as a linguist. I don’t know if I would have the balls to do so after insisting that context and etymology are irrelevant in the face of Webster’s outline formatting.
This has been a largely principled and stimulating debate. However, there is no room at all for calling out the manhood or honor of the participants. It will not be tolerated.
Keep it civil.
katandmoon @ 252
The right-wing will always harp on moveon. After all they are part of the “George Soros conspiracy” and all of bloggers do Soro’s bidding in the World According to the Far Right. Swift boating is a tactic the right have honed. Whether it’s moveon, George Soros or John Kerry. Why give them an inch?
katandmoon @ 252
Just because comments are still being taken on this topic:
Does anyone still believe that EE wasn’t delivering exactly what the Edwards candidacy wanted her to? Do you actually think she would step up on something like this and and go all extemporaneous? This was a botched (or not) attempt to spank the top of the ticket by riding Rudy’s coattails, and Jane is calling EE out for agreeing to do it, IMO.
I think the consensus in their war room was that all “reasonable” candidates will come flying out of their headquarters, seething at MoveOn and begging for the chance to opine. They got called on it and that’s the right thing.
What was the line from the West Wing – Why offend the Right when you can spank the people on your left? This is exactly what happened and Edwards needs to be careful about that, at least here.
The Lurking Mod @ 254
I had to chuckle when I read this; at first I thought it was another democratic reaction to the moveon ad..
Follow the money, Jane. Follow the money.
Never attack your own, huh?
Who’s attacking Elizabeth Edwards?
Pivot and Attack!
Why yes, thank you for calling me a dirty piece of dog shit. Now, can we discuss the thousands of dead Americans who will soon be joined by more because George W. Bush would rather have people die than admit he’s wrong?
Pivot and Attack, but be civil.
Does anyone remember the horrid demise of the Kerryosaur? Sure , it was a lumbering dolt of a species , but wow folks !Remember the Swift Boaters ? How many Months of former government officials appearing on talk shows and News Programs just plain lying and making shit up from the most vulgar places imaginable…about a persons recorded and proven military service?…no, the T-Rex of Rethug tactics will again lunge from the shrubs and take a huge bite out of any Democrat who dares raise it’s head from the pack , and the best possible tactic is to become a pack of sheep in the hopes it will roar past to some as-yet-cowed creature dumb enough to think it can fight back .
The Republicans changed the rules, that much is recorded history, so now it’s up to the rest of us to decide to live under their jackboots, stand up and clearly debate on issues , or admit we’re in politics and wade in . We’ve seen the results of the first two , and I for one think if we checked we’d find we haven’t de-evolved ourselves to the point of meat-animal, but perhaps still retain the brains and the teeth to compete in what has clearly become a jurrasic era game where the only rules are fight , flight or swim…or end up as more cud as always.
It isn’t a choice between decency and Ann Coulter , who doesn’t enter into any conversation about politics or tactics , she’s an insane person only other insane people listen to; it’s a choice between acknowledging the new rules or pretending that politics is an Honorable Profession. Maybe once we win something for real we can steer it back to something resembling Honorable , and maybe the nation will simply remember that Republicans Just Lie for Money and make a choice based on the merits of the discussion , but I think it’s a long hard slog back there , and untill then it’s a vile game requiring all manner of attack .
Mrs Edwards seems a delightful soul , but appearing along side any republican for any reason is tone deaf and self serving . Jane was right in telling her the basics of fighing in this already-begun competition, if the intent is to triumph over the patently false with what we hold true.
Not to mention that none of this much matters in any real way when compared to the root of the issue.
If the General allowed Politics to sway any part of the truth , allowed the White House to shape the data or massage the message even an inch , he’s done a disservice to the troops. His first and only duty is to be responsible For his Boys and for them to be responsible To him..they have to know they’ll be send where they are needed and with the least possible threat to life and limb and never squandered. They need to know their leaders are Honourable men who will report the straight goods to Home Base, no BS assessments of the state of his men and the achievable nature of the mission, then it is right that men who serve will walk into fire for the men they swear to obey. When their leaders in theatre do as asked by the Civilian command,in opposition of the facts, they betray that bond and place within the collective mind of the fighting men and women the seed of doubt that will invariably erode that trust , and rightly so , for they have sold the corporeal for the ethereal , re; the trust and lives of troops for the hope of future political gain or the goodwill of those Not under fire . That is the nature of integrity, and once cracked, it never heals . After all is said and done , it will be the opinion of the soldiers serving under the General that will ultimately matter most , and it saddens me to no end to think someone ,somewhere in Iraq, sank another inch lower under the weight their pack and ammo, having witnessed another of their betters act a whore to power .
And the same goes for John Kerry and Joe Biden. These men have learned nothing. Whatever hapenned to Boehner’s small price to pay?
In regard to the Move On add I thought Chris Matthews said it best “the ad did not kill anyone”
Am I the only who notices that this is, verbatim, Bob Dole’s drug policy from the ‘96 campaign?
Now used to defend MoveOn. Not saying that’s good, not saying that’s bad. Just interesting.
I have to agree with Elizabeth. MoveOn should attack the message, not the messenger. This ad did nothing but paste over the cracks that were developing in the Republican ranks. She may have repeated the RW talking points, but MoveOn gave the RW those talking points.
Schwifty, after reading your last response to me, now I’m convinced that your consistent misunderstanding of my arguments is no accident, but is rather deliberate and wilful and intended to allow you to avoid conceding the weakness of your arguments. I’m not going to expend any more energy on trying to get you to see the light that most of us here are able to see. I’ll just leave you with this, and I would say it even if you were not in Germany and of Greman ancestry, so don’t go there. Your argument that Petraeus is immune from criticism for facilitating the carrying out of an immoral policy, whether he created it or not, is indistinguishable from the “I was only following orders” defense that was soundly and properly rejected at Nuremberg. Since then, it has been dogma that a military man must accept the moral responsibility for his actions. And the mere wearing of his uniform does not require that the context be determined to be the understanding of a term in the military world (although it may well be a subtext, if the Rethugs choose to live by symbolism, that doesn’t obligate the left to defer to that symbolism), when the avowed audience is the public and the avowed victim is the public trust.
Aside from that, I recommend that you read Comments 260 and 261, and measure them honestly against your position.
Finally, for an avowed multi-linguist, I found it surprising that you failed to appreciate my parting double entendre (French again, hint, hint, smile, smile.)
I’m a Conservative and Republican. I think most of the people on this thread are crazy, but sound like they would be fun to get drunk with.
Someone please provide a link (verifiable) to the use of Betrayus as a nom de guerre for the General by his troops in Iraq. This smacks as a made up assertion.
Fallon has never called Patreaus a chickenshit ass kisser, unless you want to get your news from uncredited third sources who heard something from someone who knows someone that saw a note about it. Please, in an age where information is widely and freely available, grow up.
Anyone who wishes to understand the reasons for why Patreaus has embarked on the course he has (in Iraq) must first understand the counterinsurgency plan that the French used in Algeria. You all seem to have the French elite response down pat, however in order to be informed instead of pretending to be informed, it requires that you actually understand what you are commenting on.
Also, go to Strategy page, I believe they have a complete link to the Surge strategy (written in part by Patreaus) which details the operation from a unit and city block level. Fascinating reading, and helpful in explaining (even to folks who otherwise don’t care to know) whether the surge is working. And once you’ve digested that infromation, you can make your own determination as to whether or not the General is a traitor.
As for his 2004 editorial, was he required to write that, or did the WaPo ask him to write it? Seems a fair question.
Finally, the Moveon add was stupid, and offputting to most people. If you would bother to read your own polls, you’d find that the Milatary is the one institution that most folks in the country trust. Calling them traitors is stupid. But, I consider the source.
Elizabeth, you’re my sister, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with the right against the left again. Ever.
Is it me or is Move On again being used as the pinata personifying all that is wrong with the left?Personally, I go to almost every other progressive website more than Move-on, participate in polls and action calls through others like Sucky Atrios and The Great Orange Satan ( Notice how Billo et al gave up on attacking Kos once Kos Himself was so excellent live at Yearly Kos …and Faux couldn’t risk people Seeing how adorable and sincere he really is …)than I ever do at Move On …I don’t know why, it’s just never fit me as comfortably as FDL or many others in my link-bag…not to mention it’s nearly impossible to get a reply from a real person at Move on, or was last time I cared…
I never felt like they were down in it with us , never felt like the relationship was 2 way, and always find them the centre of controversy usually invented in deceit by the right , without ever seeing from them the same passion and personal investment I get here and the other blogs I read …not to say there isn’t a super-passionate deeply personal core of Moveoners out there , I just never bonded to them like I have to others. And I’ve never seen them as the Figurehead of the Online Left except when they are attacked by Bill Oreily and wrongly accused of taking money from Satan .
With that it seems we could all assemble in front of cameras and demand all the Wingnuts in Office denounce Stormfront and LGF every day and never run out of ugly sites to condemn, so again Move on is proxy for all the Hate Sites we don’t use , create or agree with , and we’re by force of media crammed into an identity that isn’t any of us , may be some of us , and really isn’t important . Move on fed the beast without sufficient tact or introspection, and did it in an unenlightened way, and made me sigh knowing they’d thought they were clever . It was obvious, hamfisted and clumsey without any self awareness to justify the point that might win some attention but might also drive away those who prefer something a bit more elevated . Like ” Petraeus, Please don’t Lie For Bush …Remember your Oath” and some text. Anything would have worked better and attracted less reflexive anger from the media dependant than a bouncy play on words …
It is after all an act of media , but too directed at the already-convinced and savvy, which wins few new comers.
And we free thinkers can say that among ourselves and our in-house spats are what sets us apart from the lockstep lizards and sheep , and that’s good , but none of us ever ever ever have to appear BiPartisan or whatever the hell we have to call it, by getting the Rethug stamp of approval and acknowledgement of the Establishement and (appologise for something that doesn’t even represent us as a group,) to a gang of oportunistic media sluts who will in a few weeks forget it all and slide a knife into any one of us who lets down our guard…
The left represents a massive majority of what is in the hearts of most of us , and knowing that we should appeal to the best of our natures, making that the contrast between us and those who appeal to greed for the few and hate of the Other . Once we harness the media to do just that, we can punch Republicans right in the stones with the truth and watch them melt.
Truth in one hand ,Fast Upper-Cuts with the other .
And so , How to Build the Pugalistic Left through Enlightened Universal Engagement …I’ll get to work on it now , stand by.
A.Scott @ 270
Good grief, use paragraphs.
Oh, and Moveon took out a full page add in the NYT. Sort of raised their heads out of the swamp, so to speak.
My God! What a scold you are.
“Good grief, use paragraphs.
Oh, and Moveon took out a full page add in the NYT. Sort of raised their heads out of the swamp, so to speak.”
I indented when I wrote it , I swear the indents vanished when it posted …not that that affects the substance of my comment Much , other than to make you more irritable, and so , sorry for that.
And yes, they raised their heads up out of the swamp , made a loud mooooing sound and prepared to take massive shit for it . And they are . And fine, they picked the fight the way they wanted it , but it could have been Much more effective and played so much less directly into the Right Wing Machine…speaking of handing the opponent an opportunity…obvious, hamfisted and self-congratulatory, and it’s their place to do exactly that if that’s the fight they want . I can’t wait to see how it turns out , and it might even make some people go over to Move on and find links to more and better progressive thought , though for me the word-play was dumb and counter productive.
And as you point out , a full page ad…not exactly Cheap . 1/2 a page of well thought out , universally appealing copy can do more than a billboards worth of Savvy Jargoneering.
Strictly a matter of opinion.
It’s not about attacking Elizabeth Edwards, “one of our own.” Personally, I think *all* the candidates–and Elizabeth is part of the Edwards campaign– have reached the stage, where they now have to show us why we should vote for them. I have put most of my money so to speak on the Edwards team and I am disappointed. I would like to consider Edwards “our own” certainly more than I would like to consider Hillary one of “our own.” If in fact, any politican can be one of “our own.”
I belive all the “outrage” over the Moveon ad initially came from the Repugs. It’s opportunistic “outrage.” Why? The Repugs started shreiking like banchees partly because they are desperate: Gonzales, Iraq, Petraeus, US Attorney scandal, scandal after scandal, and polls. What better way to defend than to attack? That is what they did. For them the moveon ad was an “opportunity” of the swiftboating variety. And also Petraues=Bush. Bush doesn’t have credibility anymore, so he invokes Petraues (the asskissing chickenshit.) No Democrat should give even an inch to this concerted effort by the Repuglikans to draw attention away from themselves, especially in the name of some BS “civility.” The repugs have swiftboated too many members of congress, plus Cindy Sheehan. Time to find a different tactic to deal with Rethug rage, rather than caving in.