MoveOn.org slammed Petraeus in a full page New York Times ad.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – A liberal advocacy group's print ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus drew a firestorm of criticism from both sides of the aisle on Monday.
The ad, running in Monday's edition of the New York Times, shows a picture of Petraeus. Bold letters spell out "General Petraeus or General Betray us?"
Moveon.org Political Action, which paid for the ad, accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House" on progress being made in Iraq and calls him "a military man constantly at war with the facts."
What do you mean, the Democrats slammed the ad? All the Democratic quotes here are about how the MoveOn add is "unhelpful" or "over the top," not the despicable character assassination that it is.
Mrs. Smith in Seattle,
Technically Tony Snow IS the White House spokesman until the 16th. He only announced last week he was leaving. His last day is this Sunday.
Kind of like what Swift Boat Veterans, did to John Kerry..
– Keepspinnin Seattle WA
John Kerry, American war hero? HAHAHA What a joke!!
His only kill was a wounded Vitnamese soldier, that from his own testimony..
Swiftboat veterns were war heroes stating their version of history.
Moveon.org is an anti-American orgaization funded by outside interests looking to alter the US elections to their benefit.
If you can't see the difference, stop drinking the kool-aid..
Posted By spinstopper : September 10, 2007 4:40 pm
add to the list Max Cleland, Jim Webb,
John Murtha and one of their own, John McCain. The Republicans don't hesitate to smear anyone to further their agenda. Since when is "killing" the criteria for being a war hero? And by the way that is one more kill than our chicken in chief had.
Let's see...people like Ron from TX want to immediately jump on the "Petraeus' report is BS" bandwagon. Yet, what is the basis for this opinion, and that of many other anti-Bush, anti-war opinions, to include Moveon.org's own admitted source? Major media. Someone mentioned drinking from the Kool-aid and oh how appropriate. So many people base their opinion only on what they read/see in the papers...gee, no wonder the opinion when the only thing we see, especially on CNN, is # of dead, military abuse, explosions, etc. I was amazed at the response to an article recently posted on CNN about Iraqi women prostituting themselves and some people actually claiming the Iraqis were better off under Saddam! How the heck would they know?!? Because they read one freaking article, yet had not clue one about what it was like for these women under Saddam! I've been there and while no doubt it's not an ideal situation, there's alot of good going on behind the scenes and it IS getting better. The hypocritical irony is oh so thick as these same people accuse others disagreeing with their anti-war views as being misled by Bush and his spin machine, yet these Lemmings are just as guilty as they run off the "it's so, because I read it" cliff!
And for Mark in TX, your complete ignorance of world events and naivity about terrorism is truly remarkable. For starters, it is a global war on terror and I've met many people sympathetic w/ these extremists (AKA terrorists)...they actually do want to dominate the world w/ Islam, specifically the Sharia version (most restricted). Let's see if the victims from Spain, Great Britain, Germany, Bali, and even Egypt would agree with you inane assessments.
BTW, neither Dems or Repubs are exclusively to blame for Bin Laden's success...keep in mind Bill Clinton had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden several years back following the 1st WTC, African Embassy & USS Cole attacks (I guess those were all lies too, huh?). We had exact intelligence on Bin Laden's location in Afghanistan and despite his own NSA, SecDef and the military's recommendation, he waffled on the decision to take him out w/ a Tomahawk. By the time he gave the go-ahead, Bin Laden was 3 hrs gone and the Tomahawk missed him. Not only did Clinton miss him, but he raised & cemented Bin Laden's reputation as an Islamic leader & prophet, as many Muslims believed he must be blessed to have avoided certain oblivion.
Suggesting Gen. Petraeus is a traitor is shameful and is libel.
Only a sick person would agree with moveon.org's portrayal of this man.
Way to go Harry. Get outraged. Get mortified. Get incensed. Get off topic with all the other pro war zealots and divert focus to Moveon.org and away from the real issue which is PR campaign to prolong the war. Also, explain to me how Petraeus became a war hero? And the "support the troops" chant is getting a little long in the tooth too.
Sorry if MoveOn.org offended your Boston Brahmin sensibilities, Senator Kerry, but you were also too timid to attack Bush in your campaign when he needed attacking. End this war now or else I'm your political enemy.
Not a sheep you say? Bzzzt, wrong! Straight from the 9/11 Commission Report: "The memo found no 'compelling case' that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks." AND "Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons."
You keep on believing those lies perpetuated by the supporters of the war. Or should I say, "baaaaa"?
And, shame on you to play the partisan politics game. Your neo-conservative ways are not that of a true conservative. All through history, it has been the conservatives that pull us out of the wars, not get us into wars.
Do you support the elimination of the bureaucratic Dept. of Homeland Security? I do–it is still being put in place after billions of dollars spent–we had all of the information to prevent 9/11 before this Dept. was even put in place. How about the Dept. of Education? I do–education has only gone downhill since it was established in 1980–yes, we didn't have a Dept. of Ed. before 1980. Do you support the abolishment of the IRS? I do–if we reduce our spending levels to that of 2000 levels, an IRS wouldn't be necessary. Do you support the elimination of the Federal Reserve? I do–the inflation tax is thievery, plain and simple, and I do not appreciate people making decisions about my money behind closed doors without facing ANY audits.
So, Scott, I fail to see how I blindly follow the dems. Maybe it's you, supporting the big spending, ever-bloating deficit that our (un-conservative) foreign policy is producing who is truly the dem. Nice try with the partisan politics, though.
Oh, and next time you plan on mentioning something that Dubya tells ya, because you seem to place him on a pedestal, do some research first (i.e. Iraq and 9/11), but then again, that's not a sheep's job. Or, should I say parrot?
You state that;
"First, Democrats are not getting lower numbers than Bush – stop listening to Rush and Sean tell you what you want to hear. The Congress as a whole is getting the low numbers. Last time I checked it had just become a slight Democratic majority."
I got the following from galluppoll.com Dated Aug 21,2007
"Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.
The nine-point drop in Congress' job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats' ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents' ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans' 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month. "
From the same source "Currently, 32% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president"
Of course, you can probably go out to myriad web sites and find numbers that agree with your ideology, but the last time I checked, 32 > 21.
Dakota – Lawrence, KS
It's always entertaining to see Bush-bashers simplifying history to fit their Johnny Cochran mantra approach to everything "Bush Lied – Soldier Died" or we "invaded" Iraq only because of WMDs or Saddam caused 9/11.
Why we removed Saddam from power:
1. Multiple sources (Germany, France, Russia, Bill Clinton, etc) suggested Saddam had WMDs.
2. WE (the US) gave Saddam WMDs years before.
3. MOST Important: 11 UN Resolutions passed calling for Saddam to comply with inspections, dismantling weapons programs, compensating Kuwait for losses, etc. Saddam over a decade toyed with UN inpsectors and refused to fully comply with resolutions.
4. The call for Saddam's removal included Leaders from: England, Australia, and Spain. Support for removing Saddam included: US, UK, Austalia, Poland, Denmark, South Korea, Romania, Georgia, El Salvador, Czech Republic, Azerjaijan, Latvia, Mongolia, Albania, Lithuania, Aremenia, Boznia, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldovia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Italy, ukraine, Netherleands, Japan, Thailand, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Nicaragua, Singapore, Norway, Portugal, New Zealand, Philippines, Tonga, Iceland.
I think you better read your own words a bit more slowly. The numbers represent how the different parties feel about congress as a whole...which means they are giving 21% to Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are frustrated with congress's inability to get anything done. Democrats in particular are frustrated with us still being in Iraq. So, your numbers cannot represent Democrats; other than they are the ones giving the numbers to congress of 21%.
Also, you cannot compare this number to Bush's 32%; as that is the country as a whole giving that number. If you assessed just the Democrats in this statistical analysis, it would be much lower than 21%.
Just wanted to clear up your statistical analysis.
I was curious to the headline, "Dems join GOP in slamming ad attacking Petraeus." During my journalism studies, stating attribution to a group (ie: Dems) would require attribution/ verbal participation of more than one Democrat. I do give kudos to Senator Kerry for denouncing the shameful ad placed by MoveOn.org. It was a shame that Senator Kerry was a victim, too. A big raspberry to the New York times for a fractured backbone. The decision to print an advertisement is always made in the attempt to earn money for the newspaper, BUT actually running an ad is at the discresion of the newspaper. BOO to you, New York times.
Should we not wait until the General, who was elected by 100% of the current members of Congress complete his report? What are the Dems afraid of? That things are going well? Good for America! Stop playing politics with our security!
The reason there are no suicide bombers in the U.S. or any terrorist attacks is because there isn't anyone out there that wants to do it.
Apparently the names Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, Ahmed Ressam, Assem Hammoud, James Elshafay, Shahawar Matin Siraj, Dhiren Barot, and Iyman Faris don't mean anything to you?
That statement right there should preclude you from any further participation in this or any other discussion on current events. If you really believe that statement I truly hope you aren't responsible for anyone else's safety, such as a wife or children.
Here's a link you might find interesting, except you're a liberal so facts mean nothing. But I'm willing to try anyway.
To all "grass roots Democrats" out there, you won control of Congress nearly a year ago, and what have you achieved? You can only speak of problems, not solutions. Pelosi and Reid have failed the American people – they are the ones who should face impeachment.
The way the generals have let Bush prosecuted the war in Iraq tells me that the have put their own interest above that of the American People and especially the troops that they command. The ones that spoke out were retired, the rest got the message.
If the siturations were reversed, the republicans would have no qualms saying,
"General Petraeus or General Betray us?" On that you can bet your bottom dollar.
Almost 3 years ago, Gen. PR Petraeus wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post gushing about the progress the Iraqi Army was making. The Jones Commission reported recently that the Iraqi Army wouldn't be ready for at least another year.
WHY BELIEVE PETRAEUS NOW?
Moveon has become a fringe element. As is usually the case they have gone from a political force to a political farce as the fringe elements take control. Lets leave the hate speak to the party that excels at it. The Gop and hate radio are better suited for off the cuff,unfounded, attacks.
Purists and Pollyannas can simplify everything to fit their POV, but that's debating on the cheap.
I'm a liberal. I don't feel compelled to prove who I support or not I recall an old saying: "the more he professed his honesty, the faster we counted the silverware." It certainly applies to those who claim that patriotism is a lemming-like commitment to identical beliefs.
I've been around military personnel for half my life.. I've seen plenty of idiots and dishonorable people in uniform. And plenty more who weren't.
Petraeus was selected to command because he remained in a dwindling group of generals who believed the war – or more correct, the Occupation – could be won. So his role is more about cheerleading than taking an active part in battle.
Criticizing him is criticizing one troop, not all. Moveon.org may be guilty of a gaffe in their choice of words, but their gaffe didn't cause hundreds of thousands of people to die. And the people attacking MoveOn studiously avoid critique of the greater evil.
You'd think they were partisans or something by the way they defend their daddies. And being for a quick end to the occupation is neither extreme nor cruel. It's the majority opinion, held by realists.
the real problem is senate Or congress does not recognize Treason and Betrayal, and still won't, This Corporate War is out of hand!. How many senators & congressmen are NOT INCORPORATED, getting close to the answer??????