Yeah, but I'm still pissed at MoveOn for giving them such a shiny toy to play with. Why make it so easy for them?

The "Betrayus" slogan was not a mistake, it was brilliant. Move On got more publicity than they ever expected, and far more than their meager advertising budget could ever create on its own.
The plain fact is, people hate this war, and they hate Bush and his sycophants. The People agree with the sentiments expressed in the Move On advertisement. If that upsets both Republicans and Democrats, they better get used to it.

1)This is classic Rovian behavior. When unpleasantness rears its ugly head, change the subject.

2) MoveOn desperately needs a decent ad agency.

This is just another in a long succession of things that Beltway types will froth about, but nobody anywhere else will even care about. Thank God for the professional media.

People seem to really think that this was not merely a misstep, but a huge blunder of world-historical proportions.

Giving us a pretty good idea of why this same bunch (the liberal establishment) has been getting its ass handed to it for decades.

Am I the only one who thinks this shows a desire to change the subject so palpable as to be almost desperate?

The only part I disagree with is the word "almost."

I hope Kevin is right.

Royko, focusing on MoveOn here is condemning the person who leaves the door unlocked when the house gets robbed, or the inattentive bartender whose customer gets in a drunk-driving accident on the way home.

Seriously. The surprise at this point isn't that the right wing has been going so nuts over this but that a supposedly sophisticated political outfit played so easily into their hands. This is nothing new. The Republicans are brilliant at taking the slightest infraction and turning it into an epic crisis. All Dem-leaning organizations should hire someone whose sole job is to vet their materials and speeches for the obvious few words they'll jump all over (only half-kidding). Rather than defend MoveOn, the left should take it as a lesson. The war will render this whole thing moot in short time. But when the Dem nominee makes another botched joke or some such thing, they'll go nuclear all over again and maybe have a real impact, especially when the MSM is primed to run with ti. It's time to stop making it so easy for them.

If you think political attacks on generals who enter the political debate are out of bounds, you are not a liberal.

Am I the only one who thinks this shows a desire to change the subject so palpable as to be almost desperate?

No, sir, you emphatically are not.

Excellent point, Kevin. And I mean no criticism when I say it is, or should be, superabundantly, manifestly, blazingly obvious. But the people who ought to know this and ought to be driving the point home over and over again are the Democrats. Apart from Chris Dodd (and perhaps a few others I'm missing) they're not.

I gave up on the right-wing echo chamber a long time ago-- My suspicion is that non-stop outrage over a minor stupidity will only increase the number of people who just get tired of it. Also, there's some folk-wisdom in the back of people's minds that warns them about guys in uniform saying that things are just going swimmingly.

Yeah, but I'm still pissed at MoveOn for giving them such a shiny toy to play with. Why make it so easy for them?

The "General Betray Us" insult originated with the troops under his command.

Looks to me like the MoveOn ad was brilliant.

It's received massive attention for a minimal cost, and raised the main issue of Bush's military mouthpieces similar to the issue of Powell's credibility leading up to Iraq or Greenspans credibility in promoting Bush's tax cuts. (Of course, both Powell and Greenspan have tried to weasel out of their support.)

So Washington has the vapors. What else is new?

As far as the Betrayus name, I felt it was a typical kinda-corny yet catchy enough to be redeeming political slogan that all except the weird and the dorks would have said only half-seriously, and it served to express outrage. But, since it was so obvious, the right seemed to make moves to head off our using it (at least trying to make us think we were going to make ourselves look stupid if we used it, so that we wouldn't?), which I caught some allusions to online, but didn't care enough about it to look into them. If there had been some good grassroots opposition orgazined (MoveOn doesn't have to be a part of this) to the Petraeus presentation, then the Betrayus name could have been a good part of that, but now the deed is done.

I completely agree with the dread DC Establishment that calling General Petraeus "General Betrayus" was dumb.

You know what was dumb? Democrats in Congress going along with the Republicans rather than blasting them for trying to make political hay with the condemnation measure while blocking measures designed to deal with the real problems America is having.

And its that kind of failure, repeated ad nauseum, that robs the United States of effective political opposition to the authoritarian right.

Exactly, ferg. From the quote, it sounds like Yglesias is in DC. He should get out of there before his conversion to a pod person is complete.

I agree that the ad was dumb, but the GOP look like crazed freaks. I mean, "General Betrayus" is nothing more than a stupid school-yard taunt. Yet the GOPers are still wringing their little hankies over this.

But you have them credit where credit is due; they are masters at creating these petty, tiny little narratives that "seem" to illustrate something larger but in reality don't amount to anything larger than a hill of beans. Tiny, little navy beans.

Dems could learn an awful lot from the GOP playbook, especially given that there are about 5,000 little narratives that could be played to high heaven. The fact that they can't coordinate their efforts around a single narrative is just plain sad.

Of course Kevin. And that is why Move On was so stupid (or smart if their goal was to be attacked by the Right and have the duped Left Blogs rally in teir defense, given the complete sellout Move On has been in defense of Democratic capitulation in the Congress on Iraq).

Has MoveOn said anything about not funding the Iraq Debacle? Hell no.

The Republicans are doing exactly what they should be doing. This is what the Democrats should have been doing in response to the nonsense about Edwards's hair: expressing loud, coordinated outrage for as long as anyone will point a camera at any of them. (Better: they should have done it in response to the similar nonsense about Kerry in 2004, or better yet, Gore in 1999-2000.)

The Republican reaction is the reason the Democratic establishment is in such an awkward position. Regrettably, the Dem establishment is too clueless to do this sort of thing themselves when the occasion calls for it.

I agree that the ad was dumb, but the GOP look like crazed freaks.

Which only would have mattered if enough Democrats hadn't validated their crazed freakishness to make the headlines read, e.g., "Senate Condemns MoveOn Ad".

What prevents Democrats from publicly agreeing with the Republicans that "Betray Us" was over the top THEN adding, as Goran notes, the moniker was given to the general by his own troops and, more importantly, the content of the MoveOn ad has not been challenged by Republicans. Then ask, can we therefore assume Republicans agree that the Administration cooked its Iraq numbers in an effort to confuse the public? That the general is simply spouting political points handed to him by the White House?

Basically use this stupid issue to push back, to set the terms of the debate. Whatever you feel about the term "Betray Us," surely everyone has ignored the contents of the ad and its merits.

This sounds like a classic political football the Dems could easily turn to their own advantage without too much fuss.

You're wrong, Kevin -- there's nothing particularly interesting about the Republican reaction. You always knew how they were going to react. What was *not* foretold, but sadly is not entirely surprising, is that the Democratic leadership let them get away with it so easily. You think Republicans are looking for distractions? Sure, but Democratic Senators are looking for an alibi, and seized upon the MoveOn ad. Henceforth they can blame the poisoning influence of radical lefties for their own capitulations. They'll say MoveOn forced Dems onto the defensive by making them look unpatriotic. Just watch -- the historical revisionism is already underway.

Meanwhile, the ad was pathetic. It was always going to be politically problematic -- inviting precisely the GOP reaction is got -- but that would have been OK if it had made some subtantive point that resonated and advanced the antiwar argument. But I'm still at a loss to understand the point of calling him 'Betrayus'. For all the convoluted arguments they might attempt, there's just no credible sense in which the man betrayed anybody.

No matter how mild the MoveOn ad might have been, the Republican reaction would have been the same.

The motivation is not just to change the subject, but to cripple MoveOn, which they view as an organization that empowers the opponents of the GOP. They will do whatever it takes to discredit any democrat or any other entity that supports any democrat.

The democrats better learn to live in this environment, or we will have eight more years of a GOP presidency, and, consequently, more wars, deaths, pestillence, and general decline of America.

I sounded off on this very topic about an hour ago. I had never given money to MoveOn before, but I did yesterday. Someone has to stand up for the god-damned First Amendment, and our elected representation ain't doing it.

Just to remind us that, in spite of the histrionics, this started out as a real, flesh-and-blood issue:

It's generally understood already (ask the Pentagon?) that the "facts" that this four-star fool delivered to Congress were false. That may not make it an open-and-shut that the general has betrayed us, but it's a fair accusation if he didn't tell the truth.

For him to betray the trust that we, his troops, and the Iraqis placed in him, all he has to do is lie--to misrepresent our actions and their causes and consequences. It's not even necessary that he know that his testimony is false. It's sufficient that, as the commanding officer, he knew that he didn't know, but failed to qualify his statement.

"General Betrayus" fits. MoveOn is doing what he didn't: telling it like it is.

What prevents Democrats from publicly agreeing with the Republicans that "Betray Us" was over the top THEN adding, as Goran notes, the moniker was given to the general by his own troops and, more importantly, the content of the MoveOn ad has not been challenged by Republicans.

If you agree up front, that's the point that people turn out. The impulse to agree with things that are beside the point, perhaps out of a misguided hope that doing so will make the speaker appear more "balanced", does not help counter the distractions from the Right, it validates them.

You are 100% right on this Kevin. The Republicans are facing a bloodbath in 2008 and its because of the war. They are on the wrong side from the majority of Americans and tied to the most unpopular president in recent memory but, because their base is fanatical in support, they dare not move. So they will DO ANYTHING to try to change the subject.

And that's where the Dems are so lame. I also agree with Mike Molloy above. The donkeys sit there and say "please don't hurt me!" They get swift-boated. They refuse to have real debates where the rethugs have to filibuster for real. And they turn on their friends so their beltway buddies in the media will still like them and invite them over for cocktails!

We're in a world of shit with a moron for a president who thinks God will vindicate him. And Iran is next and no one will stop it. Its going to get very bad indeed.

Excuse me, but I'm damn tired of people on the left watching their language and conforming their behavior for fear of handing the Rethughlicans a pretext for attacking them. That's a suckers game we need to quit.

Do we see James Dobson, Bill Donohue, or any right-wing activist minding his or her words for fear of provoking a left-wing attack, or appearing disrespectful? After Max Cleland and the Kerry Swift Boating, it's clear that the GOP machine will generate a smear where none exists. We should stop worrying about giving the a "pretext" because THEY DON'T NEED ONE.

Thank goodness for Move On refusing to buy into the posturing that Petraeus was an impartial military man, not acting as a political operative. Democratic leaders should have been using the opportunity to highlight that problem, and confront the biased rhetorical frame of the Iraq debate, not throwing stones at the people who were pointing it out.

Yeah, but I'm still pissed at MoveOn for giving them such a shiny toy to play with. Why make it so easy for them?

It's John Edwards' fault for getting that haircut when he should know his financial situation is under a lot of scrutiny.

It's Nancy Pelosi's fault for wanting to fly in a huge government airplane at taxpayers' expense.

It's John Kerry's fault for saying he was "reporting for duty" when he accepted the Democratic nomination.

It's Al Gore's fault for, well, for doing something, although we're not sure what.

It's Bill and Hillary's fault for not immediately turning over every single record that ever existed regarding a ten-year-old real estate investment.

Don't you understand? Republicans don't want to have to attack Democrats over trivia -- it's the Democrats' fault for creating the trivia in the first place!

Ehhh...

It was a childish taunt, really. So what are we to make of this? MoveOn is childish? Doubtful. MoveOn is so mad they don't realize how childish it is? Probably not. MoveOn knew this would attract attention, and that's what they want? Bingo!

The Republicans seize on this because it is a way to enrage and activate their base without alienating the middle. So they play along and make noise, just as MoveOn wanted.

They both get what they want, and the level of dialogue in this country drops another notch. (Just when you thought it couldn't go any lower.)

I think the Dem leadership would have done better to ignore this in public, while cautiously deploring it on background. But what do I know?

You make it sound almost optimistic, Kevin.

You spin this as something good, by showing how crazed Republicans got over this. You say their reaction shows a desperate willingness to change the subject, less Petraeus be questioned.

But there's a problem with that, which is actually two-fold: the media response to the Republican outrage, and its influence on the DEMOCRATIC response.

The polls show America almost collectively YAWNING at the Petraeus report, with something that was supposed to help drum up support to 'keep winning the war' seeing a DROP in war support. Virtually no one registered real, palpable outrage at the ad.

Except the Republicans, and the media, and the pundits.

Guess who the Democrats listened to, and whose opinion they internalized in addressing this and the war votes to come.

Here's a hint: NOT US.

For what the liberal establishment has gotten us over the last couple of decades, I'm all for the George Costanza-esque strategy of deciding what they would do, and doing the exact opposite. The establishment's basic strategy as far as I can see it, is "Don't make trouble." If you don't want to make trouble, get out of politics.

Remember that most households in the U.S. do not have framed pictures of Petraeus with candles and flowers adorning them. Another guy with a full salad bar and a bunch of stars. The reactions I can see from non-wingnuts are:

-Why are these nutcases foaming at the mouth about a stupid ad? I see four thousand stupid ads a day!

-Petraeus. Betray-us. Heh. Good one.

I don't think you'll see:
-What a horrid attack on our beyond-reproach general staff and by extension all men and women in uniform! I shall vote for every Republican I can find henceforwards!

Get the establishment some balls and some downers, please.

From a moderate, mom and pop American middle class point of view, the MoveOn ad would seem to force people to oppose them and support the fucking general. From my point of view, it is about the first time MoveOn has done anything I approve of. I have always been critical of MoveOn for being too concerned about the delicate sensitivies of W. Bush Republicans and the timid moderates. I think MoveOn is trying to earn my support and the support of other anti-war, anti-establishment advocates. More ads calling out war pigs may win it.

If you agree up front, that's the point that people turn out. The impulse to agree with things that are beside the point, perhaps out of a misguided hope that doing so will make the speaker appear more "balanced", does not help counter the distractions from the Right, it validates them.

cmdicely is exactly correct here, reliable as a swiss clock. Why do you think the Republicans that were trying to defend the Iraq war made sure the first order of business when debating a Democrat was to get the Democrat to concede that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man and that the world is better off without him in power?

i don't know. i tend to agree with royko that it allowed the repubs to shift the spotlight, that the same arguments could have been made in a more straight-forward way without such an over-the-top attack on petraeus that discredits the anti-war movement as extreme and the democrats as anti military and soft on security (never mind that an increasing number of republicans see the war as folly as well).

on the other hand, charlie makes a point, that a more sober approach probably would not have gotten nearly as much attention.

the problem is that it is so far over the top that that it overshadows anything petraeus actually said and focuses attention on a one word attack rather than the evidence against him. it's the kind of ad that you remember but not for the right reason. the ad speaks to the convinced and not to those who might be on the fence ready to jump to the anti-war side.

charlie is right that most people do oppose the war but being on the right side of the issue is not enough. there is an election to be won. democrats have to convince a majority of the electorate that ending the war is the right thing to do and they're the party to do it. in that sense, the ad does more harm than good.

As pointed out above (but it bears repeating), MoveOn was not the first to give "Betrayus" his nickname:

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

This was reported over a month ago. Odd that Repubs didn't get the vapors then.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2284289.ece

From a moderate, mom and pop American middle class point of view, the MoveOn ad would seem to force people to oppose them and support the fucking general.

We're not even seeing THAT Brojo. The only real notable outrage over this damn ad are from the braying idiots of the media spectacle, the usual Republican suspects in Washington, and even more depressingly, the caving Democrats who take their cues from a complicit media and a Republican party that somehow still manages to bully them into cowering masses.

No one will ever be able to say “Petraeus” without thinking "Betrayus". That is pretty handy. The Republicans have run a cottage industry working the betrayal-traitor angle for more than half a century and the Dems have never been able to neutralize this or any other of their memes. The Republicans run any kind of ugly, slanderous campaign of distraction they want and time and again the Dems play into it. It is hard to know if they are just stupid, or unorganized, or afraid, or in agreement.

This little hoi polloi circus show is like a marker dye that reveals the hidden lines in Washington. Yet again we see the Republicans writing the script and the Dems responding by following it. Newt Gingrich admonishes the Dems to attack MoveOn, one the most effective grassroots movements on the left for many, many decades, and low they get it. Seems that for the Washington establishment there are no enemies to the right but there are enemies on the left. The conventional wisdom created by years of right-wing propaganda, particularly neoliberal morsels of economic wisdom and an unquestioning embrace of militant nationalism – are accepted by the Democratic Party establishment as inevitable. It is as if the DLC wants to run the Democratic Party without a left grassroots. This is one of the most important points of this episode.

After the dust has settled, the meme "Betray Us" will still be out in the public consciousness, and it will be attached to George W. Bush and his gang, not to previously little-known lefties. I say, let the pundits pipe of hate, in their foolish ways. We're going to see vomit-covered ballots in 2008.

"Am I the only one who thinks this shows a desire to change the subject so palpable as to be almost desperate?"

No, you're not the only one, Kevin, cause this is obvious. But the more urgent question is, why do Dem Senators let the repubs get away with that gameplay? This lazyness will come back to haunt them before the next elections! Someone (sry, forgot who) made a good point in inventing a headline for 2008: "Extremist organisation, censured by a bipartisan Senate bill, supports Senator X!". Yup, that's exactly what will happen, no doubt about that. What were those idiotic Senators THINKING, if at all?
Grrrr.

I was so inspired I just donated to Moveon. from what I've heard so has thousands of others. Great Job Moveon. I'll keep donating if they keep attacking.

I have not seen the ad. However, judging by the reaction, Moveon.org actually might be visionary here. I guess we will see. But if we remain in Iraq, and I think that we probably will, this ad will be seen in different context a year from now. The luster of hearings will have faded, and the sad spiral downward of Iraq will be more clear, with our position in the tragic mess even worse. People will only vaguely remember what the fuss was about, but they will remember what side the Republicans took.

What this incident proves is that the Democratic Establishment has concluded that the MoveOn types have nowhere to go.

It also proves that the primary impetus of the Iraq War is not to attack al Qaeda or terrorists or whatnot but rather to attack MoveOn types.

Those who have not yet contributed to MoveOn should do so.

It's where the Repubs are at their greatest. They have been enormously successful at keeping the focus on the Demos. Together with a sick news medium you hear "MoveOn/Petraeus, Demos FAIL, etc". It's an art form and the demos just have never learned how to top it. The Demos need to focus on each Repub Senator goose stepping enabler and make certain that it is pointed out to their constituents how he/she is avoiding the facts and are not representative of their wishes.
MoveOn has begun a move on Mitch McConnell in KY and we need more of it. They need to be EXPOSED!

i also wonder if the cable advertisers aren't also playing a role here. msnbc is especially pimping this story for the past several days. even this a.m. willieboy covering for scarborough had two separate segments -- one with medal of honor winner, ret col jack jacobs; and another with ret gen barry mccaffrey. golly, such unbiased opinions being sought.

lotsa chatter about insulting the troops and disrespecting the military -- it's a concerted smear campaign against one of the most effective progressive groups out there. can't possibly imagine why the media and political whores are in such a tizzy over this....

I just did something I have never done before. I made a donation to MoveOn. Not only that, throughout the rest of the month, I am donating half of every donation that is made to my blog to MoveOn, just because it will agitate the fuck out of the squawking chickenhawks on the right. I want yellow feathers to fill the air. I will not be happy if less than three foam-flecked fuckwits fall over twitching, having stroked out at the audacity of us dirty fucking hippies.

The Republican't Talking Point machine is certainly cranked up to 11, but why, pray tell me, did any Dumbocrat in the Senate vote for the ReThuglican chastisement when the Boxer one was available, adding the slimes against Kerry and Cleland to the mix?

They should ALL at least have done what Obama did and vote for the Boxer slap and not vote at all on the ReThuglican one.

Let's give credit where credit's due. It really is pretty remarkable how much political hay Republicans have been able to make out of the MoveOn ad.

The first time I was truly stuck by this ability to make as big of a mountain as they wanted out of a molehill was the Kerry botched joke before the 2006 election. Of course, that joke was only helped to greater prominence by the piling on of supposed Democrats, who couldn't deplore enough that Kerry might have dared to have misspoken the simply awful mistaken way he did.

I concluded that the Republicans can succeed as they do in changing the subject like this because 1) they exercise extraordinary message discipline and 2) Democrats do nothing to rally behind their own people, and are eager, in contrast, to throw them under the bus on any occasion.

Now, I'm not going to defend what MoveOn said in its ad about Petraeus. But what I think is pretty clearly true is this: if the Republicans were in a like position, they would come out in full on attack against those who would criticize their ally, even if they acknowledged that the ally overstepped a bound they themselves would respect. They would do this because they would know that the ongoing credibility of that ally was important to them, and that looking defensive had nothing but downside for their cause. They would devise a counterattack, and stick to it through thick and thin.

In short, for the Republicans, it's pretty clear that they really do understand the concept and value of teamwork when it comes to message discipline. It is this, more than anything else, that makes it so easily possible for them to make something out of nothing. It is the failure of the Democrats to do the like that makes them so very bad at getting their message out.

The simple fact is that General Petraeus sat in a hearing and deliberately told blatant, bald-faced lies to the United States Congress and the American people -- just as other principals of the Cheney-Bush administration have done repeatedly.

My only criticism of MoveOn's ad is that "betrayal" is too soft a word. The better word for what General Petraeus did -- and what Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and others did before him -- would be "treason".

But I understand that they used "betray-us" for the sake of the wordplay on the general's name.

Could the furor over Moveon be to occlude what should be a furor over this:

"The Senate on Friday blocked legislation that would have ordered most U.S. troops home from Iraq in nine months."

or this?

"Republican members say they now remain hopeful that another year of combat will stabilize Iraq and prevent U.S. troops from returning to the region a decade later."

This country is the Titanic and I am a third class passenger in steerage waiting my turn to go up to the boats....

if the Republicans were in a like position, they would come out in full on attack against those who would criticize their ally

And therein lies the rub. The Democratic Party does not consider MoveOn an ally. They consider them - us - I can say that now, I donated yesterday - adversarially because we are not compliant and complicit and quiet. No one who rocks the boat and challenges the status quo is an ally to the national party.

30 years from now this ad will be mentioned
along with, maryjoe, vince foster, monica etc..
SOS

HR 1585 is the legislation with the: Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934; To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

To see if your senators wasted time voting on something so stupid go here then use the links to tell your senators what you think. I did; it's cheap, easy and fun!

Oh my, oh my, the Repugs were upset.

Well, piss on the 22 gutless Democratic Senators who joined with them.

I still like BetrayAss better.

I agree with Kevin. Although I think the surge will work in the long run, at present the war news isn't that great. Even the good news from Gen. Odierno that violence is down in Baghdad is offset by the violence still being too high in Baghdad and increasing in some other areas.

So, "Betray-us" is a great opportunity to attack the Dems. It fits the stereotype of liberals not supporting the troops. Also, the charge is obviously unfair. There's no evidence that Petraeus is anything other than a loyal, extremely compentent soldier.

It's funny to see the liberals putting so much money and effort into a campaign that makes them look bad.

Move on didn't give the Republicans a new toy to play with. The Democratic Leadership did, don't they control the calender and determine which bills go to the floor? Can you imagine a bill condeming what happened to Max Cleland coming to the floor when Trent Lott ran the show? There is such a thing as being too nice.

The Democratic Leadership did, don't they control the calender and determine which bills go to the floor? Can you imagine a bill condeming what happened to Max Cleland coming to the floor when Trent Lott ran the show?

Yeah, I wondered about that very point. How did this even become something the entire Senate might vote on?

**

"It fits the stereotype of liberals not supporting the troops."

My God, is this old hack still circulating?

It is such a good thing Republicans have stereotypes for classifying large groups of people who don't think like they do, otherwise they would have to wake up and actually see that that there are other priorities than war and profiteering from war or oil and profits from oil, that sort of thing.

Whoo, look at me, I am an enigma. I support the troops, and I STILL hate Bush and his war.

"The Democratic Leadership did, don't they control the calender and determine which bills go to the floor?"

Indeed! I already asked myself, who tf did allow this bill to move to a vote???
Anybody here surprised if it will turn out it was Lieberman?

It fits the stereotype

And that is all it is, Zit. A stereotype. There is no "there" there

Maybe they really are the Democrat party. I have contributed more to MoveOn this year than to the party, and that will continue after this latest betrayal. As Charles Pierce says,

"The country hates the war, hates this president, and isn't particularly fond of his party. It hates the Democratic Congress because that Congress doesn't hate the war, the president, and his party enough. The "controversy" existed only in the minds of useless political hucksters. Now, though, with the assistance of damned near half their caucus, the Democrats have managed to make a tactical blunder out of this affair a week later, cheesing off valuable friends, being laughed at by what is a despised minority party everywhere except Washington, D.C., and currying favor with a political elite that will never, EVER, give it any kind of credit for its abject self-abasement. It is an altogether remarkable feat."

"not supporting the troops"

Oh, I much prefer those who supported the troops so well by actually joining with them. Such as Cheney, Newt, Phil Gramm, Bill Kristol, Larry Craig, Rich Lowery and Jonah Goldberg, Pat Buchanan, Rush, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, ex-Liberal, and other fine "military macho types". Deferments R Us was very active. But, geez, with all of their exceptionally high GTs, the military would have had to create a very rarified "Intelligence" unit. Craig, himself, missed a great opportunity; he could have helped the Marines in looking for just "A Few Good Men".

Following frankly0, would the Republicans attack Focus on the Family for some ad? Instead of seizing on the meme that the politicians and yes men in the Pentagon have undermined the military and the country (let us count the ways) they help the Republicans re-enforce their own undeserved image as defenders of the institution AGAINST a Dem activist organization to the left that gets the vote out.

Now, I'm not going to defend what MoveOn said in its ad about Petraeus.

I am. Read it. Actually read it, then tell me how outrageous it isn't.

Whether or not you think the MoveOn ad was a good idea, new Dem senators like Tester, Webb, etc, owe their seats to grassroots organizations like MoveOn. MoveOn gave $300,000 to Tester alone.

Now these ingrates show their gratitude by condemning MoveOn. At the very least, they could have insisted that the SwiftBoats and the Max Cleland ads be condemned as well.

I don't buy the argument that the new "Red State" Dems have to cater to conservatives. The Red States are getting Bluer by the day. Not to mention that these new Senators have five years before they have to run again. Nice display of spinelessness, fellas.

I think the Move On Ad was really meant to just be a fund raiser for Move On, and in that they surpassed their goals.

I think the next ad that MoveOn runs will largely determine whether the Betrayus ad was the right move. I myself would not have thought it wise -- or had the balls, take your pick -- to run it in the first place. But now that they have everyone's attention, I hope they don't get cautious like the snivelling dem cowards in Congress who condemned them.

I say to MoveOn: Next time hit much harder with the conviction that the American people will be watching much more closely and are behind you.

Don't worry about the triangulating, calculating cowards in Congress for whom we mistakenly voted, expecting them to do the right thing. Not a one of them -- NOT A ONE -- is willing to act to save American and innocent Iraqi lives.

Blow right past their cowardice and save America.

Being on MoveOn's mailing list, I saw the ad pre-publication & thought it went too far with it's grade school mentality, name calling tactics. Like most moderate voters, I deplore attack ad politics.

However, as we keep seeing, they have worked very well for the far right to gain & keep power. I love watching how they can dish it out but cry FOWL when such tactics are used against them. A year from now, the term Betray-us will still be clear in many memories as exactly what the Bushies have done to us. Such a tactic would not have worked for the Democratic Party, but coming from MoveOn, it was brilliant. An added plus is the Dem Party itself is seen as more reasonable than either MoveOn or the GOP.

Next time some bozo attacks MoveOn, ask him what he thinks of Sen Hegel.

Why? he'll rspond. What did Sen. Hegel (D-NE)** do?

Then, you can tell him.

"It’s not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s the Bush’s policy. The military is — certainly very clear in the Constitution — is subservient to the elected public officials of this country.. but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it’s dangerous.”

**joke.

This is just another in a long succession of things that Beltway types will froth about, but nobody anywhere else will even care about. Thank God for the professional media.Posted by: Lev

I do not know where you live, Lev. If I had to guess it would be somewhere between Fantasyland and the Haunted Mansion
================
If you think political attacks on generals who enter the political debate are out of bounds, you are not a liberal.Posted by: Boronx

If you think political attacks on a general who was given a mission that the Congress funded and demanded that he report to them on the condition of the mission at times chosen by Congress is not out of bounds, you are illiberal and probably living with Lev.

Love Charles Pierce's comment. Here is the bit just before Nemo's quote"

It was utterly unnecessary. First of all, it's pointless to respond every time someone flings poo out of the conservative monkeyhouse. It's what happens in a monkeyhouse. You duck and walk away to go watch the penguins. Secondly, it has been argued that the MoveOn ad was a "tactical" mistake. In what way? What tactical advantage did the Republicans gain from it? Every damn poll since General Petraeus set all the dogs and ponies to dancing shows that nothing he said moved the needle an inch in terms of support for the war. The country, you should pardon the expression, had MOVED ON. Certainly, Republican poo-flinging wasn't going to change that.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ are you people still talking about this? Drop it. MOVE ON about Move-On...soldiers are dying, Iraqis are dying, the treasury is being looted and we're here being played by the winger talking heads (as was Congress Dems yesterday). Enough already. Focus. Stop playing their asinine game and playing the fool.

Kinsley: "It just isn't done in polite society, it seems, to criticize a general in the middle of a war."

Oh, for cryin' out loud, Mike. Don't be a dolt. Perhaps the widespread criticism of McClennan's indolence is ancient history, but surly even you are aware of that crackpot MacAurther in Korea.

Criticize generals during war? Done all the time.

The "General Betray Us" insult originated with the troops under his command.
If you have to explain a headline, the headline sucks. Plain and simple.

On anything else, what cal gal said. Once it was done, defend it. Never complain, never explain. Dems blew the opportunity to make Boxer's resolution the issue when they voted for Cronyn's catastrophe. Then today's headlines would be about the GOP's cherrypicking their military folk.

Since it turned out the way it did I hope bob in fl is right.

That Hagel quote:

"It’s not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s the Bush’s policy."

is in line with this email Goldberg posted on NRO, obviosly with his approval:

"General Wesley Clark] acts just like the vast majority of general officers that it has been my displeasure to deal with during my 16 years in the U.S. military. Generals are, for the most part, a gigantic pain in the ass and we usually accomplish our military objectives despite their chaos-inducing presence. There are a few good generals here and there but most of them are an embarrassment. […]

- Generals are ambitious in the same way that wolverines are aggressive. It’s their defining trait. […]

- Generals are dull. I don’t mean this in the cant-tell-a-good-joke kind of way. I mean the anti-intellectual, zero-curiousity, hasn’t-read-a-real-book-in-years kind of dull. […]

- Generals are arrogant. Generals truly believe that they are completely right 100% of the time and woe to those underlings who demonstrate that this isn’t so. This trait is what makes generals so dangerous. They will ignore sound advice and do the stupidest things imaginable, all because “Well, I’m a general, dammit, I know what I’m doing and. . . ugh, what was the question again?” Generals can be damn near unreasonable when they get their minds made up and it’s almost impossible to get them to see an alternative way of doing things. […]

- Generals are dishonest. This is a tricky charge to throw out, but it’s the sad truth. I’ve seen more out-and-out lies from general officers than any other people in the military. In a weird way, they are just like professional politicians in this regard."

Obviously, criticising the military is only news when Democrats do it.

Now these ingrates show their gratitude by condemning MoveOn.

MoveOn is going to have to recognize supporting DLC Democrats is not going to help defeat W. Bush Republicanism or end the US occupation of Iraq. Giving their supporters' donations to conservative and moderate Democrats is one reason why I have not supported MoveOn. The ad was a good ploy to reenergize their base, but MoveOn must also put the pressure on Congressional Democrats by supporting primary challengers to both the DLC choices and the leadership as well.

Somebody please help bobbyp with his spelling.

One suggestion, bobbyp...Firefox!

The irony is that if the democratic establishment had showed some backbone and actually tried to do something meaningful to discredit Petraeus and try to end the war, the ad would never have run, or wouldn't have been an issue if it had.

Kevin -- If I were you, I'd slap a (tm) sticker on 'fatuous fatwa': It's got resonance, zing, alliteration, flags the Wingers' dogmatism. Plus, if it becomes a descriptor associated with them folks, it'll piss 'em off a whole lot.

Of course, given the nonmention of your scintillating phrase in the earlier 77 comments, maybe it's just my lunchtime burrito talking.

Actually read it, then tell me how outrageous it isn't.

What I really had in mind here was that I wasn't going to defend the headline in particular. Was that headline dumb? Absolutely yup.

But here's the real point: so the fuck what? Why are Democrats obliged to apologize for it, or even address it? Why should they or the American people give the smallest shit about it when there are all kinds of real issues banging down our doors?

What the Democrats in Congress just don't get is that they can fight back when this shit is thrown at them.

I swear, sometimes these Democratic twits in Congress remind me of an abused spouse who won't for the life of them break away from the cycle of abuse, and have internalized all the ugly things their spouse has said about them.

In the end, they just look fucked and pathetic. All they have to do is walk away from it and be a person and find their strength. But they won't do it -- and sympathy has its limits.

After a decade of false accusations from the rabid right-wing against Bill and Hillary Clinton that ranged from the absurd (Hillary killed Vince Foster) to the preposterous (Bill ran a cocaine smuggling cartel out of Mena, AK airport), for these vermin to be incensed about a simple play on words (i.e. Petraeus/Betray Us) is the height of hypocrisy.

I am delighted to see that MoveOn has basically told Bush to go pound sand in his arse on a conference call (go to www.rawstory.com) in response to his dim-witted comments yesterday.

I plan on sending MoveOn.org a large donation this evening.

Over at Americablog is a post worth checking out:
http://www.americablog.com/2007/09/bush-raises-half-million-for-moveon.html

If nothing else, it's been a very effective fund-raiser. Almost 900% ROI!
It would appear they are getting a fair number of donations from families of military personnel previously and currently deployed.

Fatuous prediction:
MoveOn will raise more $ in the 4 weeks from their ad's date than any single POTUS candidate from any party.

ot:

ex-lib: Even the good news from Gen. Odierno that violence is down in Baghdad

a day late and a dollar short again?

the nat'l intell. estimate for iraq released in july said...that violence in baghdad was down..

(from the document)

Decrease in Baghdad violence due to sectarian cleansing:

The polarization of communities is most evident in Baghdad, where the Shia are a clear majority in more than half of all neighborhoods and Sunni areas have become surrounded by predominately Shia districts. Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves.

that's shorthand for..

...the sunni's lost

and the shiites won...

surge that...

I condemn MoveOn.org's comments on General Petraeus, and here is my plan for health-care reform."

That's like the parody (was it Saturday Night Live, or MAD TV) of Iranian TV.

Weatherman: "Put away your umbrellas, I'm calling for gorgeous weather in Tehran today, and Death to America!"

It was a fantastically dumb ad, but then it did come from Eli and Traveling Band of Boobs.

I am a MoveOn member, and I support this ad. I just sent them $25 for their next project.

The Wacky Right sure likes to dish it out, but they sure can not take it, right?

Ah, it was an Al Jazeera parody.

I remember when we pissed off the right-wing wackos in 1968 with "General Waste more land." He had just finished his "Light at the end of the tunnel" speech. Yeah, ,just before Tet. I predict "General Betrayus" will join him on history's laugh-sheet.

hmph...it's all just talk anyway. When's MoveOn [or any organization opposed to the shite state of the status quo] going to actually do something?!?
Seriously, all I've heard from them for the last few years is talk talk talk...so far their chief accomplishment seems to have been scoring that great domain name for their org...

Call me when the rioting starts.

Interesting thread. I would say that the reaction to the Moveon ad was Republicans doubling their bets on Iraq rather than Kevin's theory of changing the subject. The Democratic Congress has pi**ed away what credibility it had. Now everything depends on how Iraq goes by next summer. Republicans are getting some confidence that we are on the right track now. They want to pin the "loser" label on Democrats before 2008. Moveon helped. If Iraq goes to hell by a year from now, nothing the Republicans can do will distract attention from that fact. On the other hand, if by next October 1, Iraq is settling down and the Shia tribes are buying into the same cooperation as the Sunnis are now doing, the Democrats will have huge problems.

We will all see at the same time. The bets on each side are huge. Sort of like the 1864 election.

If the Democrats were even trying to win, they would have hammered the Republicans for the absolutely disgusting rendition of God Bless America performed at one of the Republican debates.

It was called "How Could God Bless America?", and the audience was lapping it up. Basically the song put to music Fallwell's views about 9/11. Resounding applause.

How the Democrats could ignore this opportunity and instead decide to eat their own is beyond me. Like I posted on a previous thread, I'm beginning to think they are trying not to win. They can't possibly be this stupid to get played like fools over and over and over.

Here it is:Why Should God Bless America?

I don't agree w/ Kinsley's adding "return her tainted money" to the list. Wasn't it always a given of proper representation that ours elected reps would give back money when it turned out to be from a murderer or other criminal, and not encourage it by treating the money as something they lucked into? We hardly want congressmen who villains can buy out.

Buddy66: I remember when we pissed off the right-wing wackos in 1968 with "General Waste more land." He had just finished his "Light at the end of the tunnel" speech. Yeah, ,just before Tet. I predict "General Betrayus" will join him on history's laugh-sheet.

Yes, I too remember the attacks on Gen. Westmoreland. (I was on the anti-war side then.) But, there's a difference. Westmoreland wasn't too swift; Petraeus is very smart and knowledgable.

Note also that none of us anti-war folks called Westmoreland a traitor. We just felt that he wasn't competent to win the war. The "betray-us" accusation is a big escalation in rhetoric.

I think the Move On Ad was really meant to just be a fund raiser for Move On

Considering that the ad only got this much attention because of the *Democratic* overreaction to it, I sincerely doubt that.

I'm a data point myself - I'd never given a dime to MoveOn, or any politician or political organization in my life until *after* that ridiculous vote yesterday. Had that vote never even come up, I doubt I'd have given what I did to MoveOn.

I'm with Brojo and Red Girl.

Up until now, MoveOn's (or rather the handful of people who make all the decisions for moveon) performance has been lackluster at best, and downright, well, a betrayal at worst (I stopped supporting them years ago when they insisted on using their resources to foster internecine war on the left). And while I find the name-calling juvenile, they are now finally bringing the attack to the enemy -- the war pigs -- and for that they are to be congratulated. And that the wingnuts have shown themselves to be weepy little schoolgirls over the name-calling, well, that's just an added bonus.

Note also that none of us anti-war folks called Westmoreland a traitor. We just felt that he wasn't competent to win the war.

I have a sudden urge to take a baseball bat to this liars skull.

Sheesh, what f-ing crap.

Great moments in personal courage - If only Kennedy were still alive, he could add a new chapter to "Profiles in Courage".

As Obama says "I first voted on something or other before the Move-On bill, then I voted on something or other after the Move-On bill."

Way to try and find your way to 1600.

I would say that the reaction to the Moveon ad was Republicans doubling their bets on Iraq rather than Kevin's theory of changing the subject.

Of course you would. But why would you say that - given you have no evidence to support you? Polls show no movement in the opposition to the Iraq war after Petraeus' little fantasy-speak. Or are you saying this because Republicans might as well double their bets - after all it's someone else's money and blood on the line. They have no 'skins' in the game.

If Iraq goes to hell by a year from now,
Of course, you need 2 more Friedman's. Psst, Iraq already gone to hell 4+ years running now.

I gave up on the right-wing echo chamber a long time ago-- My suspicion is that non-stop outrage over a minor stupidity will only increase the number of people who just get tired of it. Also, there's some folk-wisdom in the back of people's minds that warns them about guys in uniform saying that things are just going swimmingly.

Nailed it. This is just a re-do of the desperate John Kerry flubbed joke before the 2006 election. We all know how that worked for them. It's all they got.

Way to try and find your way to 1600.

Posted by: thethirdPaul

It has really difficult and painful to see Obama throw away the chance of a political lifetime. So many of us had such high hopes for him.

Issue by issue, the lack of promised "boldness" and "change" has been crushing. And avoiding this vote? WTF?

Fatuous prediction:
MoveOn will raise more $ in the 4 weeks from their ad's date than any single POTUS candidate from any party.

Their goal is to raise an additional $1M today.

The anti war majority in the US is desperate for someone to lead us out of Iraq.

The Dems had their chance and they have failed (ironically, with help and support in that failure by MoveOn).

But now in their desperate desire to talk about something, anything, but the war, the wingnut war pigs have viciously and ludicrously attacked MoveOn, going so far as to legislate against them, and turned them into a martyr and pretty much the accidental leader of the antiwar movement.

That is why so so many establishment pseudo lefties (like the big pharm lawyer upthread, Armando) are so pissed. And they'll continue to be pissed -- not because MoveOn did anything wrong, but because they finally stumbled into doing what is right, and they are being honored for that by having the guns of the mighty wurlitzer turned fully on them.

All that we peons on the Left have wanted is for someone to stand up with some guts against this admin. And we finally have it. I just hope that MoveOn actually runs with the ball, instead of dropping it like they did before. No more beltway compromises by those pseudo lefties who have been thoroughly compromised by the beltway.

LIke I said, ckelly, we'll find out.You seem a lot more sure than your fellow Democrats. Actually, the polls do show some movement and that is amazing considering the constant barrage of negative news from the MSM. We'll see, won't we.

Actually, the polls do show some movement

Yes they do -- they some movement against the war.

All that we peons on the Left have wanted is for someone to stand up with some guts against this admin. And we finally have it. I just hope that MoveOn actually runs with the ball, instead of dropping it like they did before. No more beltway compromises by those pseudo lefties who have been thoroughly compromised by the beltway.

Well, the Democrats are going to be running Hillary for president. Who's MoveOn going to be running?

It has really difficult and painful to see Obama throw away the chance of a political lifetime. So many of us had such high hopes for him. Issue by issue, the lack of promised "boldness" and "change" has been crushing. And avoiding this vote? WTF?

Spare me. He didn't "avoid" the vote. This is what Obama said:

"The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements," Obama says. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It's precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.

"All of us respect the service of General Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform. The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq."

Obama did the right thing by not dignifying the ridiculous amendment by casting a vote. Too bad the Senate leadership didn't have the balls to keep the amendment off the calender in the first place.

Who are the war pigs running, harry?

Per his playbook, the wingnut Harry misses (aka avoids) the point.

So. Damn. Predictable.

Spare me. Obama ... did the right thing by not dignifying the ridiculous amendment by casting a vote.

Posted by: Disputo

So he showed more courage than HRC?

So, how many troops have been killed and wounded since the Petraeus ad?

If we have that number, then the next time one of these Reproblicans gets lathery about the ad we can remind him that whilehe's fiddle-f**king around anther 20 troops have died, or whatever the number is.

So he showed more courage than HRC?

You're missing the point -- it's not about courage. But, yes he did. HRC's vote took no courage at all. In fact, it was dictated to her by her 2002 vote for the war. Obama, on the other hand, knew that doing the right thing was going to give more spin fodder to anti-Obama rubes like Stoller et al who predictably attacked him for not jumping into the pig sty.

Check out Olbermann's take on this.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092107A.shtml

Kenji: I say, let the pundits pipe of hate, in their foolish ways. We're going to see vomit-covered ballots in 2008.

Damn. Cole was a lyricist almost beyond compare, but I think this might be even better.

Per his playbook, the wingnut Ha