MoveOn: "Our ad on General Patraeus"

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus_ad.html?id=11240-5865584-ECG2re&t=3


We've been hearing lots of feedback from MoveOn members about the Petraeus ad. Most MoveOn members liked it, but there have been some folks who've questioned why we targeted General Petraeus or chose the langauge we did. (You can see the full ad and the citations that back up each claim it contains here). The ad has also been the target of a concerted right-wing smear campaign (read this Huffington Post article for more on that).
So we wanted to share some of the thinking behind the ad.

...more at link....

I think it was great, we need to get tough with these Republican right wing thugs
They were whining yesterday about the ad...I say GOOD, wake them up, and keep
hitting them hard!!!!!!

'Hit Em Harder'
USS Harder

I do wonder how many or what percentage of members complained-- the word "some" is rather ambiguous.

I thought they explained it clearly there....

Bush/Cheney are the architects of the Iraq war. Going after the mililtary not a good idea.

...read the link :)

As for me, I helped pay for it, and glad I did.

but that is what I think of him. Does this General have his troops and country's best interest at heart?

That is not over the top
It is the truth, and to the point

I say hit em again.........................Damn the torpedoes

Like Admiral Halsey said..."ATTACK, REPEAT ATTACK" :hi:

The Republicans don't need anything to gin up some "controversy" or to holler that someone else is "over the top." They'll latch onto anything, no matter how small or picayune. If a Democratic candidate had said the same thing Fred Thompson said about due process for Osama bin Laden, the GOP smear machine would have hyperventilated itself into overdrive huffing and puffing about it. But because it was good ol' Fred, you probably haven't heard about it twice.

This manufactured outrage is about all the Republicans have left, and if it wasn't the Move On ad, it would have been something else just as silly. I don't know if you saw the clip yesterday with Rep. Ros-Lehtinen apparently trying to hold the Democrats accountable for the Move On ad, but when she was tersely reminded that the Democrats hadn't put out the ad and had no reason to "distance" themselves from it, she grimaced like someone had poked her with a cattle prod and quickly went on to something else.

They'll find something to trash, cuz trashin' is all they got. Why should we base our behavior on the possibility that they might fling their filthy feces?

NGU.

Never forget that the M$M is obligated to spin all news to benefit their masters (advertisers) within the corporations who comprise The Military Industrial Complex.

I say, "We're damned if we do and damned if we don't." Therefore, Fire away MoveOn.org - you speak for me! :patriot:

It was a brilliant ad.

They own the False Noise Machine. If you don't want to be attacked by the False Noise Echo Chamber, I suggest you sit very still and keep very quiet.

:rofl:
rocknation

It was no leap of imagination to hear some variation on Petraeus' name; I heard the same Betrayus stuff in DU some months ago. And I think most of us are aware of Bush/Cheney strategy to get a General to be the "last word" on Iraq to justify their failures. My problem was with the childish bathroom scrawl/flame bait that MoveOn used. Why volunteer to help Rove when the S.O.B. would probably pay you for that kind of crap?

There is such a synthetic quality to the street-fightin' language of MoveOn (and often in DU) that one suspects there is more fear of Bush/Cheney than these keyboard potty mouths would admit to.

The time for "explaining" why an ad was run (Petraeus' past record) was when the ad was run; otherwise, it's a studdering rationale. As Rove says: "if you're explaining, you're losing."

Or maybe already did?

I stopped paying attention to MoveOn sometime around the Iraq invasion, or just before it. It seemed to me that they just kept coming up with one lame and useless campaign after another. For years now, they've rarely come up with something that doesn't make me wince to one degree or another -- as well as fervently wish that *someone* in that supposed powerhouse grass roots organization had a fucking clue.

Anyhow, your post got me wondering: are they just that clueless, or are they infiltrated?

sw

Childish maybe, but most campaigns use that cutsie stuff in their 30 sec. ads. The repubs are the worst. People remember those sound bites.

Didn't Petraeus betray us with his report that is suppose to give New Direction to the killing fields?

They finally do something important like the "ear worm" of "Be-Tray-Us" and the swarms attack them.

When former GE Chair, Jack Welch has to leave his Nantucket Mansion to get out on CNBC (GE) on Larry Kudlow's business show to ATTACK ANGRILY Move On's Ad...then I know Move On did a GOOD THING and it took courage. Just saying. You are defined by your Enemies. If Jack Welch (GE) is your Enemy then you gotta be doing something Good.

The time to "play nice" is over!

do too :evilgrin:

I prefer to donate to the DSCC, candidates, etc.

and sellouts to corporate America. No wonder you don't support MoveOn.

The DCCC in particular backs War Party Democrats over antiwar Democrats.

phrases such as "I will no longer support Moveon", or "Moveon is childish" are very likely to come mainly from Republican trolls who have always hated Moveon.

Let's bring it to the main page.

We've been hearing lots of feedback from MoveOn members about the Petraeus ad.
We didn't really expect so many of you to dislike it.

Most MoveOn members liked it, but there have been some folks who've questioned why we targeted General Petraeus or chose the langauge we did.
We've gotten letters threatening to cancel donations.

The ad has also been the target of a concerted right-wing smear campaign
We want you to think that if you find it embarrassing, it's because the Republicans want you to.

So we wanted to share some of the thinking behind the ad.
Let's start with the soft backpedal. We'll focus on the parts that nobody had any problems with. Then we'll claim it's okay that it had that embarrassing nonsense about "General Betrayus" in there because people talked about it--never mind that they were talking about how ridiculously childish our namecalling was, not about our case against him.

In the end, we believe the ad helped ensure that one of the dominant questions asked about Petraeus’ testimony was, “is it true?”
Please redirect your outrage towards the Republicans. Thank you.

A poll was done about it.
Are you a Republican?

MoveOn wouldn't be publishing a defensive piece like this.

I'm not going to dignify the second part of your asinine post.

I posted a poll in which 71% of us said we love the ad.
Welcome to the minority.

"Patraeus Will Not Be Forthcoming!" would not have caught all that attention.

--IMM

and we have been.

Stop all the pussyfooting around and be thankful for the work they do.

Is this a vendetta against moveon?

And nothing they said here makes me want to change my mind.

If they want to get involved in silly name calling, they can do it w/o my money.

This ad has driven away more people than it brought in for one simple reason. There are people who blindly support "the military" and right or wrong calling someone names drives those people away.

A very simple change, General Petreaus, don't Betray Us is just as "catchy", without actual name calling.

:evilgrin:

My God he was bloviating the evils of MoveOn this morning, I could feel his spit from my car radio. (Sorry, I know, I know, I should have turned it off, but he WAS spewing all the negative garbage I've read on DU lately....faux outrage? Who died from this ad?)

Iraqi citizens, More troops. Moveon, in one foolish moment, lost the anti-war movement tens of thousands of possible supporters, beacause people who "support the troops" will not want to be associated with people who "bash" the military.

I am very surprised at moveon... I thought they had more sense than this, but I guess not.

Other "faux outrages" lately...Code Pink didn't kill them....Cindy Sheehan didn't kill them....but it's always convenient to let the GOP frame it that way, so please, stop carrying their water.

:toast:

That's similar to the argument that Edwards/Clinton/Biden/Dodd aren't responsible because they didn't MEAN for war to happen when they voted for the war.

The Reality is that the ad is going to push people away from the anti-war movement and cause those on the fence to rush to defend the honor of the military.

THAT extends the war, extends the killing and thus, extends the responsibility.

... cuz you ain't gonna do it with ads like this.

It cheapens the anti-Iraq-war position and makes those who hold such position look nasty and petty.

Sorry.

Or perhaps General Peaches Betrayus can be characterized as "an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill."

The good General Officers have been purged and what's left are merely morally bankrupt spring-butt "yes" front men for the Military Industrial Complex, i.e., pushing perpetual war for profit. :thumbsdown:

Betrayus? INDEED! :puke:

This is not an ordinary case of, "don't shoot the messenger." The reality is that the Bush administration has been pushing its message through "experts in the field," and gettng them to take on more responsibility for what they recite, than they really want to. But they do it anyways to be a "team player."

So, if they are going to allow themselves to be used in this manner, they better be prepared to take the heat.

get attention, call the Bush monarchy's bluff, and paint Patraeus into an ideological corner by correctly predicting that through lies and book-cooking, he WOULD betray us. Mission Accomplished!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
rocknation

This organization could help turn a close election AGAINST democrats.

could prostitute themselves to the neocon thugs and in do so soiled our military. Who on earth will trust the military to tell us the truth now? It will take decades to trust them again.

In fact, as a major, Colin Powell helped to "cover up" war crimes by some Army Units.

The men who NOW remain are not "good" but "spring-butts."

The fact that they haven't retired/resigned in protest PROVES that their only concern is their own ambitions for power and success.

You want to know a truly honorable (now retired) General Officer? A man who warned of this fiasco in 2002 and is still criticizing this MESS today: General Anthony Zinni.

October 10, 2002

“If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don’t understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath-suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily.” (Zinni, 10/10/2002)


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

when I asked you what a "spring-butt" was?

:rofl:
rocknation

halfway around the world before the truth can put its shoes on. Furthermore, after a lie has been told, any attempt to offer the truth in rebuttal reinforces the lie, simply because one has to repeat it to rebut it, and repetition is the key. Early visibility followed by repetition = acceptance.

The "Betrayus" meme is catchy and people became widely aware of it. And when the RW went after the ads, that had the effect of reinforcing the idea that the man supporting continuation of the useless escalation is betraying us. I doubt that many people can hear "Petraus" now without a faint subconscious echo of "Betray us"--and for some the effect will be even more powerful than that.

It's okay for Dems to cover themselves by saying, "I could do without name-calling 'Petraus' as 'Betray us," but. . . ." That will reinfoce the association, which is entirely appropriate, while helping the Dem to stay above the fray.

I think the MoveOn ad was very effective, and that in the long run it will serve its purpose admirably. Besises, when have the RW or their most vicious spokespersons ever hesitated to throw nastiness at respectable people on our side--even those respectable people who are in the military and the intelligence comunity. Look how they treated John Kerry, Max Cleland, and the 9/11 widows. Their delicate sensibilities are nowhere near that dainty when they are on the atatck.

On our side we don't like to "play dirty," but the battle is in "the dirt," and that is what makes people take notice. We also have the not inconsiderable benefit of the ad's being the truth.

but still basically support its message. Sorry, Petraeus WAS played for a stooge. I said in a recent column that bush has effectively hung yet another general out to dry.

There ARE generals who couldn't take it anymore and resigned. And some of them have come forward to speak the truth. There's something in David Petraeus that motivates him not to do that. Perhaps he's one of those who still clings to hope, against all hope, that - uh - well - er - ahem - um - well - bush COULD EVENTUALLY be right. Maybe? Huh? Maybe-maybe??? PLEEEEEZE??? Sadly, he's positioned himself as one of the last to jump off the Titanic. Unfortunately, before he jumps, he fails to notice the rope coiled around his ankle that will hold him fast. It's a shame. This gent spent many years serving his country. All that brass on his uniform means something, week-by-week, month-by-month in terms of hard experience. He did his time. And this is what he gets as a thank-you. The colin powell treatment. He probably originally looked on this as "well, maybe, just maybe, I can solve this. Maybe it's I MYSELF who will make the difference. And maybe there'll be a UFO landing on St. Patrick's Cathedral tomorrow just before afternoon rush hour. Perhaps he saw this as - well, if I toe the company line, look at the promotion I just got. Maybe he saw no other way to advance his career, and looks at his four stars on each shoulder as too important and too costly in terms of his own sweat, tears, and years, that he doesn't want to risk them.

But the fact remains, this poor bloke made a deal with the Devil. And I'm sure no one held a gun to his head and forced him to take this job. Plus, foolhardy optimism can SERIOUSLY cloud someone's objectivity and vision. We should be able to rely on someone with that much stature and impact to TELL US THE TRUTH about the whole picture, not just one itty-bitty corner of it. What he's done with this "I just hunker down and focus on my job which is accomplish the mission" is to announce how tightly his blinders are on, and how justified it is to keep them that way. It shows very limited thinking rather than expansive thinking.

You know, David Patraeus isn't living in a bubble (at least not like bush is). While he's been in Iraq, I'd expect that he's at a high enough level to hear ALL the input about how the war is going and how the surge is going in particular, and whether it's helping to make America safe. A general tends to hob-knob with other generals. A chain-of-command structure is one of very distinct strata. It's the ultimate class society. You are your rank. And you assemble with others of your rank. If your rank is general-level, you're not going to be hanging all the time with people who a) are unwilling to speak candidly to a superior officer about how THEY see the war is going and how the surge is going and whether it's making America safer; and b) well aware of what happens when someone DOES voice dissent. Someone at generals' rank hangs with the CEO levels. Other generals, colonels, ambassadors and high government officials. Folks of equal rank. THOSE people are less reluctant to be partially or totally candid. And in closed-door strategy sessions, you bet some of them will voice opposition. This guy has heard all this input, which means he should be familiar enough with the idea of a conflicting verdicts on the war, surge, and the are-we-safer question, especially considering what a POWERULLY OVERRIDING concern those verdicts are. Nobody around him is in total lockstep on this. And they can't avoid noticing the steady drumbeat of present and past colleagues who are coming out against all this. And when you have this kind of broadbased, and high-level conflicting opinion about the effectiveness of the mission of which YOU are placed in command, you damned well better take that conflicting opinion into account as you push ahead with your strategy, and have SOME clue whether you can show cause-and-effect justification. And David Petraeus is not doing that.

Lives are at stake. Ours AND those of everyone else our presence affects. Rather than hunker down with his blinder-visor in place and just carry out the strategy isolated in some sort of cone-of-silence, he absolutely should consider whether this wreckage and bloodshed he's exacerbating is having an impact. He should know the answer to such a hugely important life-and-death question - is this making America safer? And for him to say "I really don't know" - that's little more than an "I was just following orders" piece of crap.

The MoveOn.org ad did not damage him nearly as much as his own tunnel vision and misplaced loyalties have. Just why is it, I wonder, that thousands and thousands of people worked on and contributed to that ad, having been inspired by the very name "Petraeus" to jump instinctively to the phrase "Betray-us"? It wouldn't be such an automatic given if there were no reason to make that link.

And I GUARANTEE you this:

MANY on hate radio and the Dark Side would ABSOLUTELY be calling him that, nonstop, themselves for having the gall to disagree with his commander-in-chief/messiah. And they'd have a far more widespread media reach than just a single NYTimes ad - if they thought he'd realized the surge, overall, was counterproductive, in opposition to what their own precious fucking chickenhawk king asserts. They'd be first to go there. Bank on it. It's an irresistable metaphor and if our side hadn't thought it up, theirs would have. ABSOLUTELY. ESPECIALLY those many multitudes of them as media strategists and spinners and word-play specialists and other ruthless take-no-prisoners manipulators who bring us all the bumper sticker slogans that stick.

Somebody had to say it. It is no coincidence that the general said the same thing that * has been saying for weeks.
Petraeus and Crocker simply spewed the same old right wing talking points BS. Now we get to hear * go on TV and say the surge is working. Its the right wing well choreographed chorus of shit.

Just like Code Pink's protest at Betrayus' appearence - effective.

And it seems the only Senator that didn't like this MoveOn ad was Kerry, and that doesn't make much sense to me. Because it made for great reading material for Senator Craig while he has locked himself in his bathroom!

LoL

Peoples lives are at stake and did just what the system wanted him to do.

I think most Americans think a general of the Army is not above criticism. The right wing is set in its ways of thinking anyway. It will root for something to get self-righteously offended about at every opportunity. This was an opportunity and the way it's being spun is outrage that a hero of the war in Iraq is being disrespected and no Democrats are disapproving of it---the horror! I think the spin is only having effective on the right wing.