Matthew Yglesias (September 10, 2007) - Moving On (Foreign Policy)

IT'S NOT RANDOM U LEFTARD!!!!! THEY ALL SHOW TEH PROGRESS OF TEH SURGE!!!!! BUT NOT TOO MUCH PROGRESS THAT WE NEED NEED U DUMB-O LEFTARD!!!!!

Posted by CKT | September 10, 2007 5:28 PM

Right, and because we live in a world where the media is relentless in its seeking out of the facts, the fact that the argument is sound means that the headline, however obnoxious, won't be a distraction.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 10, 2007 5:29 PM

This is the "Oh Noes! Dick Cheney Has A Lesbian Daughter!" moment of 2007. And the press chases it round like seven-year-olds (or the Argentine women's team, sorry) playing soccer.

Never mind that Petraeus has basically gone up there and asked for the lives of 600 troops between now and spring. Because that's not uncivil at all.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 10, 2007 5:35 PM

Yes, if you accuse a highly respected general of treason, it will tend to overshadow the point that you're making about data analysis, however "eminently sensible" it might be. Why this astonishes Matt is less clear.

Posted by Jim | September 10, 2007 5:37 PM

Did the Republicans get Alito's wife to walk out of the hearing in tears again? That always works.

Posted by Royko | September 10, 2007 5:40 PM

Meanwhile the basic point of the MoveOn ad

Huh? The point of the MoveOn ad is that Petraeus is committing treason ("betray[ing] us"). It is a typical thuggish Left-wing smear tactic.

It is all part of the anti-war strategy of smearing and undermining Petraeus, something Matthew has been doing his own part towards (the undermining, not the smearing, of course). All of this - from the Congressional talking points against Petraeus to Moveon smearing Petraeus as a traitor to the left-wing bloggers working to undermine Petraeus - has clearly been part of an orchestrated campaign.

Petraeus' slides are just random pictures with no sourcing,

Huh? The sourcing is the military's direct observation. Duh.

Posted by Al | September 10, 2007 5:41 PM

Petraeus' slides are just random pictures with no sourcing, it's ridiculous.

But ya gotta love how one of the map slides had scary arrows pointing at Iraq from Iran (smaller, skinnier ones from Syria). Kinda reminds one of those old Nazi arrows moving into Poland, eh? A purely unintentional coincidence, I'm sure.....

Posted by sglover | September 10, 2007 5:46 PM

More on the coordination between the Democrat politicans and Moveon's smear - the Democrats in Congress knew perfectly well that Moveon was going to smear Petraeus:

'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'

Posted by Al | September 10, 2007 5:49 PM

'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'

In this case, with an assist by the House Republicans. Thanks, guys!

Posted by neil | September 10, 2007 6:00 PM

"It is all part of the anti-war strategy of smearing and undermining Petraeus, something Matthew has been doing his own part towards (the undermining, not the smearing, of course)."

I love your commitment to Democratic values and civilian control of the military.

Posted by Reality Man | September 10, 2007 6:05 PM

"Direct observation" by the military means that if an Iraqi gets shot in the front of the head, it counts as a murder, not sectarian violence. If you get shot in the back of the head, it's sectarian violence.

Al is an idiot.

But you all knew this already.

Posted by Jamie's Cryin' | September 10, 2007 6:05 PM

Al's level of girlish hysteria has really gone up recently.

Posted by grh | September 10, 2007 6:06 PM

I think you have to assume that members of congress see all Petreus's raw data.

"publicly available assssments as well as work by the GAO, CIA, and DIA "

So I guess Matt trusts CIA data now as accurate?

Posted by Dave | September 10, 2007 6:09 PM

"So I guess Matt trusts CIA data now as accurate?"

So what, Dave? We just make it all up?

Posted by tree | September 10, 2007 6:16 PM

The saddest thing about Al is that his hackery used to be of a far higher quality than that of the literal cretins, such as Dave. But I guess Al is too busy clutching his teddy bear and weeping angry tears to put in the effort he used to.

Posted by grh | September 10, 2007 6:19 PM

And when I saw it this kornng it looked dumb.

Gotta love this typo. Is it the new, hip, alt-rock version of "morning"?

Posted by Haggai | September 10, 2007 6:26 PM

The fact that the Republicans want to distract from Petraeus' evidence by complaining about Moveon.org, instead of setting aside distractions and calling everyone's attention to the evidence, really is incredibly telling.

Posted by Steve | September 10, 2007 6:28 PM

My understanding is that Petraeus and Crocker are giving a long, EXCLUSIVE interview to FOX NEWS tonight to discuss their findings.

I guess they were looking for a "fair and balanced" forum in which to discuss their "fair and balanced" assessment of the Iraq situation and this was the best they could come up with.

What I would DEARLY, DEARLY love to know is if their Commander in Chief --or any of his subordinates -- set this up. Because the line between respected military officer and right wing propagandist seems to be suddenly getting narrower and narrower.

Posted by Don Williams | September 10, 2007 6:37 PM

sglover --

How about those especially frightening arrows pointing from Saudi Arabia?

Posted by Steve V | September 10, 2007 6:37 PM

BTW, whether the Moveon.org ad was "silly" or not it strikes me as pretty classic political speech. Petraeus is a civil servant who ultimately works for us.

Posted by Steve V | September 10, 2007 6:49 PM

Oh really? Let's see how long it takes for the outrage to spill next time some conservative questions the patriotism of a notable member of the left - because that's what MoveOn just did. They actually accuse him of treason, which is pretty serious stuff.

You're the one being ridiculous here.

Posted by James Robertson | September 10, 2007 7:24 PM

Let's see how long it takes for the outrage to spill next time some conservative questions the patriotism of a notable member of the left

What you don't understand is: IOKIYAD - It's OK If You're A Democrat to question someone's patriotism.

Posted by Al | September 10, 2007 7:28 PM

BTW, whether the Moveon.org ad was "silly" or not it strikes me as pretty classic political speech. Petraeus is a civil servant who ultimately works for us.Posted by Steve V

Not exactly. The military is not anything analogous to a civilian in a lifetime job as a Tresury Dept accountant. They are not covered by any civil service laws, not hired or promoted or disciplined under the civil service system.

The military serves the nation, reports to a chain of command ending with the President and is budgeted by Congress. By no means do the military "work for the consumers that are the general public, with an obligation to satisfy various groups", nor do they report directly to the general public. They report to the People's elected representatives in two arenas - operations and strategic direction from the Executive, funding and some budget guidance from Congress.

Nor is there any great political tradition in the US of accusing our field commanders of treason for partisan political reasons. We do not want our military to become politically active for a host of good reasons - and for that reason there is nothing "silly" about reaching out and questioning the patriotism of distinguished field military commanders and their subordinates.
It only reinforces the impression that Lefties despise the military and it's people.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 10, 2007 7:36 PM

James Robertson:
So you are okay with Petraeus whoring himself for partisan political purposes? What do you call going on Faux Noise, or Hugh Hewitt's show? He's stepping over the line and you know it.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 10, 2007 7:44 PM

Chris Ford:
I'll ask you: If we don't want our military becoming politically active, what do you call General Petraeus going on Hugh Hewitt's show? Is that not a highly partisan activity?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 10, 2007 7:48 PM

They actually accuse him of treason, which is pretty serious stuff.

I find this kind of thing pretty funny actually. The Right routinely flings around the language of treason, including things they think are code words such as "aid and comfort." And it's routine for certain parties in the blogosphere to opine "they're not anti-war, they're just on the other side," and then when someone calls that an accusation of treason, they act all coy.

But Moveon's play on General Petraeus' name, why that's just so clearly a literal accusation of treason. Good Lord, let me know when you guys are ready to vacate the fainting couch.

Posted by Steve | September 10, 2007 7:53 PM

I'm not James Robertson or Chris Ford, but I'll answer Joe Klein's conscience's question to them anyway: Petraeus's appearance on Hugh Hewitt's radio show was just as partisan as Petraeus's appearance on Alan Combes's radio show.

Posted by Al | September 10, 2007 7:58 PM

What you don't understand is: IOKIYAD - It's OK If You're A Democrat to question someone's patriotism.

I hope Al hasn't wet his little pants.

Posted by grh | September 10, 2007 8:00 PM

"I'm not James Robertson or Chris Ford, but I'll answer Joe Klein's conscience's question to them anyway: Petraeus's appearance on Hugh Hewitt's radio show was just as partisan as Petraeus's appearance on Alan Combes's radio show.

Posted by Al | September 10, 2007 7:58 PM"

Wow, the token "liberal" on FoxNews. You really don't know how to use data to back up your own points, do you?

Posted by Reality Man | September 10, 2007 8:25 PM

How about those especially frightening arrows pointing from Saudi Arabia?

In the map I'm thinking of, all's quiet on the Saudi front. Which I'm completely certain is totally accurate. No Saudi would dream of harming an American.

Posted by sglover | September 10, 2007 8:36 PM

Huh? The point of the MoveOn ad is that Petraeus is committing treason ("betray[ing] us"). It is a typical thuggish Left-wing smear tactic.

The ad upsets you? Go cry on John Kerry's shoulder, asshole.

Posted by Tyro | September 10, 2007 8:46 PM

That ad's not dumb. Did you read it? You know, like, past the headline? Its smarter than 99.9% of the journalists, pundits, and politicians I've heard speak on this subject.

Smarter, Matt, not dumber.

Sure the headline sounds over the top. But if you think it really IS over the top you haven't been living in the same USA I have. Petraeus is Bush's handpicked propagandist. He was sent there -- just like the godforsaken Colin Powell -- to convince everyone that what's not the case is the case, i.e. that the surge is working. But he is very cleverly changing the standards for assessing whether the surge is working to a standard that is irrelevant. And then he has to exaggerate the facts to meet that false standard anyway.

You know what you call it when a general tries to mislead the public?

Betrayal, Matt.

So the headline sounds like it must be over the top to people with integrity. But we're not talking about people with integrity. What in the world will it take for you to learn that, Matthew?

I'm not going to hold Moveon.org to some fake standard that none of the other players in this farce are held to. Why is it worse to call a liar a liar than to be a liar?

Don't be such a pussy Yglesias. Just because the Beltway Insiders call foul, don't be so quick to fall in line.

Posted by The Fool | September 10, 2007 8:59 PM

Fool, the reason the headline is bad isn't that it's shrill or uncivil. It's bad because it predictably led to people talking about the outrageousness of the headline and completely ignoring the content of the ad, which is what I'd like people to be paying attention to. Because of the headline the ad failed in its purpose.

Posted by KCinDC | September 10, 2007 9:10 PM

It's bad because it predictably led to people talking about the outrageousness of the headline and completely ignoring the content of the ad.

Yes. In an ideal world, political advertising (hell, all advertising) would be genteel, civil, and discreet.

Posted by James Gary | September 10, 2007 9:23 PM

So that people could hold calm, rational discussions on the merits and drawbacks of every issue.

Posted by James Gary | September 10, 2007 9:24 PM

KC in DC:

Its long past time for us to forget all the communications strategery and just start calling a spade a spade.

And anyway its not clear that the headline detracted from getting the contents paid attention to. Without the headline, the odds are about 1000:1 that people would have heard about the ad at all. Anyone with an open mind who heard about the controversy and read the ad would have found it persuasive. Those without open minds couldn't be persuaded no matter what the headline.

Posted by The Fool | September 10, 2007 9:54 PM

Those with an open mind aren't going to be persuaded by a stupid pun on the general's name, are they? It was dumb and counterproductive. The ad should have just made the damn substantive point.

Posted by mq | September 10, 2007 10:08 PM

Personally, I think it's pretty clever, and I think the degree to which this ad has put various Republicans on the defensive is interesting. Given that this conflict in Iraq has been sold to the public through several marketing iterations, it seems fitting that it be addressed this way. None of which addresses the very real face of those wounded and killed in the conflict. I found Alive Day Memories on HBO compelling. I doubt those who believe staying the course, is the only course, even watched it. If you can't appeal to a person's sense of humanity, then an insult or two will do. FYI, Open Left is launching its first action campaign, called "Stop the DC Establishment" at http://tinyurl.com/2amg9j if interested.

Posted by mk | September 10, 2007 10:12 PM

MQ:

"Those with an open mind aren't going to be persuaded by a stupid pun on the general's name, are they?"

Why, no, MQ. They sure aren't going to be persuaded by a stupid pun.

If there is any chance they're going to be persuaded, they're going to be persuaded by the cogent, well-reasoned argument with full documentary supporting evidence that came AFTER the stupid pun.

Posted by The Fool | September 10, 2007 10:20 PM

I'm not talking about an ideal world. In this world, what the headline accomplished was to allow the right wing to fire up the Outrage-O-Matic and dismiss everything MoveOn has to say and to distract people from talking about whether what Petraeus is saying has any relationship to reality by instead talking about whether accusing him of being a traitor is appropriate or not. Maybe it some mirror universe with a different media things would have worked out differently, but in our universe that outcome was completely predictable.

Posted by KCinDC | September 10, 2007 10:20 PM

KC in DC:

"I'm not talking about an ideal world. In this world, what the headline accomplished was to allow the right wing to fire up the Outrage-O-Matic and dismiss everything MoveOn has to say"

Oh, right, right. I see what you're saying. Sure, dude. I totally see where you're coming from.

Because, if not for that headline, the wingnuts would NEVER have fired up the Outrage-O-Matic and dismissed everything MoveOn has to say.

You know, in an ideal world, that is.

Posted by The Fool | September 10, 2007 10:25 PM

Yes, no blunder we make can ever make the right-wing message more effective, because after all they're already outraged. Just like we don't need to worry about whether our actions inflame Muslims, because the terrorists already hate us. In fact, the ad would have been even more effective if it had shown Petraeus in a Nazi uniform personally executing Uncle Sam.

Posted by KCinDC | September 10, 2007 11:09 PM

Let me get this straight: Fox News is some kind of horrid right wing spin machine, and Democrats are terrified of it. If the Democratic candidates can't hack Brit Hume, how exactly will they handle foreign affairs?

When liberals have enough guts to face up to Fox, maybe I'll take them seriously. Before then, no one should.

Posted by James Robertson | September 10, 2007 11:14 PM

The freakin' fatuous naivete of people like KC in DC is incredible.

Here we are in a disastrous war, costing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and thousands of American lives, with millions turned into refugees. A war that was started based on an unprecedentedly fradulous WMD hoax that was exposed. A war that was started in violation of international law that led to extreme war crimes in the form of torture. A war that has been supported by blatant lies all the way through. A war that has led to the President of the United States declaring himself free of all constitutional restraint in the form of checks and balances or Congress' constitutional role in war. A war that has led to the President of the United States declaring himself free of all legal restraint and freely admitting to violating the FISA laws over and over. We've been told by liars over and over again for years that things were improving based on the lastest change in strategy or new General or Prime Minister. We've been so propagandized as a nation that huge segments of the population continue to believe things that are demonstrably false about WMD and Saddam Hussein for years after they have been definitively disproven -- as if we were living in the USSR circa 1970. A war that led to vicious attacks on Democratic candidates like John Kerry whose heroic military service was absolutely smeared by the President's allies or Max Cleland whose sacrifice of 3 of 4 limbs didn't prevent the Republicans from accusing him of being on the side of Osama bin laden. A war that has led the president and his party to routinely charge their opponents - or anyone who even questions the president's policies -- with treason and a desire to harm our troops, etc etc etc ad infinitum........

And Mr. KC in DC is worried about what? He's worried sick that someone on our side made a play on one of the liars' names calling him "Betray us"! Even as he did in fact betray us!

Unfuckingbelievable what a bunch of incurably naive sheep so many Democrats are.

You're a joke, pal. The Republicans' punk. You have no conception of what is happening here. No sense of proportion at all. You're living in denial.

In short: you are a tremendous sucker.

And the Republican oligarchs know that there is another Democrat like you born every fucking minute. And they plan to exploit that fact for all its worth. And they will. And you will be polite and reasonable all the way to the slaughterhouse.

Posted by The Fool | September 10, 2007 11:53 PM

James Robertson:
Why didn't the Republicans show up at the NAACP convention? Why won't they go on Air America? You can take your dumb talking points and throw them in the trash. No one here is buying what you have to sell.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 11, 2007 12:06 AM

When liberals have enough guts to face up to Fox...

James, the Democrats know well that you don't negotiate with terrorists.

Posted by Tyro | September 11, 2007 12:25 AM

Jesus, The Fool. Get a grip and try to be civil and don't viciously attack your allies with whom you have only what is, in the bigger context, a minor argument.

“Democrats are terrified of it.”

No, we disdain it. Disdain. It's a good word, I'll wait while you look it up.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | September 11, 2007 2:30 AM

Wow, the Fool, you kinda totally snapped there. I think the argument was over EFFICACITY, not VALIDITY.

In the future, an ad hominem attack on Petraeus will be perfectly valid, and hopefully will be widely accepted as such; that is, just as "but he's working with Rove!" will suffice popularly.

Today, however, in order to convince people that Petraeus is being duplicitous, it is PERHAPS not the best method to resort to fairly oblique name-calling, especially insofar as what he's doing is book-cooking more so than betraying. Perhaps the name-calling is indeed effective.

MoveOn shouldn't be shocked when their reductivist ads, consisting most noteworthily of name-calling, are reduced rather than read.

Still, it's better than nothing.

Posted by Luke | September 11, 2007 3:09 AM

I cant understand why the left thought asking the public to choose between them and a highly respected army general over who to believe on what's really going on in iraq was a sensible political strategy.

Their best bet wouldve have been to wait until he delivered his report then to 'respectfully disagree' or accept his analysis of the current situation but offer a new interpretation of what to do going forward. In basically calling him a liar before he even opened his mouth they damaged nobodies credibility but their own.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | September 11, 2007 3:43 AM

KEITH: I care a lot less about "civility" than you do. Perhaps you care too much.

I am reminded of the cartoon that shows the Jewish couple in line for the gas chamber. The husband tentatively takes a step out of line and the wife scolds him, "Please, Harry! Don't make trouble!".

LUKE said, "MoveOn shouldn't be shocked when their reductivist ads, consisting most noteworthily of name-calling, are reduced rather than read."

Luke can bite me. He's an idiot. A lamb. The Republicans' punk.

Luke obviously didn't even read the Moveon ad. They call Petraeus a name in the headline and in the last line. That's it.

In between are sound arguments. Luke certainly couldn't have seen the web page where they support every line of the ad with multiple links to documentary evidence.

They point out, most notably, 1) that Petraeus has a history of deceit, and 2) that his claims are contradicted by all independent sources. And they are right.

Luke: Your accusation that the ad is "reductivist" is incomprehensible. First of all, "reductivist" is not even a word, bro. You're thinking of "reductionist" (a word that you probably picked up from that hip postmodernist visiting professor whose course you took last spring) but you clearly don't know what that word means either.

Posted by The Fool | September 11, 2007 7:20 AM

Huh? The point of the MoveOn ad is that Petraeus is committing treason ("betray[ing] us"). It is a typical thuggish Left-wing smear tactic.

Oh boy, more projection.

For six years, SIX FUCKING YEARS, all I have been hearing is anyone who does not fall in line with Bush is a terrorist. Wants the caliphate. Wants more Americans to die. Hates Americans.

This is not fringe people saying it. Right wing radio scum with huge audiences. Denny Hastert. Dick Cheney. George Bush. Karl Rove. I can go on forever.

And they are not just accusing some fringe nobodies. They have accused all sorts of people including Congresspeople with decades of experience. They have accused Presidential candidates.

It is what the right wing does and has done. As usual they are projecting with their MoveOn tactics.

I am glad MoveOn made the ad. Substantively its correct. He is letting himself be used by the Bush Administration. When Bush wanted the surge the one general that got on board enthusiastically was Petraeus, and he got rewarded with a promotion. He has been carrying the administration's water for years. This is just a fact. Someone had to say it.

The truth is, too, if you look at a poll, you see more Americans know this than do not. Most Americans don't think he is objective and free of Bushian influence. So where's the fucking story?

Oh, its that Republicans like Al and the pundits are liars, hypocrites and bloodthirsty, malignant trolls.

Posted by Joshua | September 11, 2007 9:22 AM

Sounds as if the Move-On ad was immensely successful. Everyone one is talking about it and those with an open mind may actually question whether Petraeus is a highly respected army general which, given the facts presented in the ad and elsewhere, appears doubtful or at least un-earned.

We are all adults, fully capable of separating the information from the propaganda (we have to do it with greater and greater frequency). We have to look at the preponderance of everyone's words and actions and determine who's telling the truth and who admits their errors (What exactly are we to make of his appearance on Faux News or Hugh Hewitt other than Petraeus is trying to shore up the Republican base?).

Unfortunately, like the Kerry swift-boating, the MSM is still reading the Republican talking points regarding such advertisements rather than examining the merits of the arguments made.

Civility is a noble attribute but is rarely associated with politics.

Posted by Rihilism | September 11, 2007 9:34 AM

What Rihilism said. The polls last week clearly showed that most Americans didn't expect Petraeus to be truthful. In other words--now everybody clutch your pearls and have the smelling salts handy--they expected him to lie to them. In this respect they were already one step ahead of the elite consensus, which holds that military brass are inherently saintly purveyors of The Truth (unless and until they run for the Democratic nomination for President, that is). As long as the military is considered beyond criticism, there is no hope for change.

Without the pun, the MoveOn ad would have disappeared without trace, a tiny pebble plopped into the ocean.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 11, 2007 9:43 AM

At first I thought it was going too far, and would backfire. But I think Uncle Kvetch summed it up. While most people paying attention assumed Patraeus was going to give a big spin job, the press seemed unwilling to even consider it a possibility. Now, In order to villify MoveOn, some news people might actually discuss MoveOn's message. If nothing else, it might get noticed that Patraeus is not an objective observer, he is grading his own work.

There is no real downside. Yes, some press will bloviate about the headline. What would those people be doing otherwise? Does anybody think that the "Betray Us" stories will displace stories critical of Patraeus' testimony? No. They will displace stories that uncritically repeat Patraeus testimony.

Posted by Njorl | September 11, 2007 10:51 AM

Here's what Moveon had to say about it today in an email:

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday, General David Petraeus misled the country.

He used faulty statistics and cherry-picked intelligence to argue that American troops should stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The general said we're making major progress1—and we have to stay the course. Sadly, independent assessments show that things in Iraq have gone from bad to worse (see below for more on how Petraeus stretched the truth).

Some of you have emailed to say it reminds you of the day four and a half years ago when President Bush sent General Colin Powell to the U.N. to make a trumped-up case for war.

Powell's WMDs helped justify the invasion of Iraq, and Petraeus' version of "progress"—if it goes unchallenged—will justify keeping troops there for years. Can you take a few minutes to write a letter-to-the editor reminding folks that the "surge" didn't work—and that the responsible thing to do is bring our troops home?

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=84&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=2

Petraeus based much of his assessment on the claim that violence in Iraq is dropping.2 That just isn't true:

Petraeus is using "funny math." According to the Washington Post, Petraeus and the Pentagon are using a bizarre formula for measuring violence in the country. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count.3 And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front.4

Iraqis believe the surge has failed. According to a massive new ABC/BBC poll, every single Iraqi polled in Baghdad, the primary target of the "surge," said it had made security worse. Iraqis themselves overwhelmingly think the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, in terms of security, political cooperation, the economy, and other measures. Overall, 70% think the escalation worsened rather than improved security conditions. 5
The independent GAO report found that violence is up. A comprehensive Government Accountability Office report ordered by Congress found that "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007."6 In August, things got worse, with civilian casualties rising according to the Associated Press7 and the Los Angeles Times.8
For our troops, it's the bloodiest summer yet. More U.S. troops died every month this year compared to the same month last year.9

Petraeus claimed that he compiled his report without conferring with the White House. But the Washington Post recently reported that Petraeus or his staff joined daily conference calls with the White House and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie this summer to "map out ways of selling the surge." The Post reported that Gillespie's White House political unit was "hard-wired" to Petraeus' military unit.10

We would all like to see life improving in Iraq. But it's not—it's getting worse. And if US forces stay in Iraq both Americans and Iraqis will pay a terrible price.

Today is the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. The wounds of 9/11 are still fresh for many of us. After 9/11, President Bush used fear, lies and trumped-up intelligence to stampede us into Iraq. Now, America is bogged down in an unwinnable civil war, and Al Qaeda has regained enough strength to once again menace the United States.11

It would be a tragic irony if, six years later, the administration used skewed intelligence to head off the growing momentum for an exit strategy from Iraq.

Please write a letter reminding America and Congress not to fall, ever again, for White House lies—we need a timeline to bring our troops home.

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=84&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=3

Thanks for all that you do,

–Nita, Karin, Laura, Eli, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, September 11th, 2007

P.S. Yesterday, MoveOn members sponsored an ad in the New York Times debunking Petraeus' claims. Click here to see the ad—and the evidence to back it up:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html?id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=4

The ad stirred a controversy on Capitol Hill—it accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books." And it charges that Petraeus is betraying the American peoples' trust by spinning the facts to support the White House. Some Democrats were uncomfortable with such strong language, and Republicans attacked MoveOn.

We're sure if we'd run an ad debunking Colin Powell's testimony in 2003, they would have done the same thing—but sometimes it's important to set the facts straight.

SOURCES
1. Washington Post, "Petraeus Backs Initial Pullout," 9/11/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2958&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=5 2. Ibid.
3. New York Times, "Time to Take a Stand," 9/7/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2941&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=6
4. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=7
5. ABC News, "Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment," 9/10/07
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3571504
6. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=8
7. Associated Press, "1,809 Iraqi civilians killed in August," 9/1/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20543737/
8. Los Angeles Times, "Iraqi civilian deaths climb again," 9/1/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2956&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=9
9. http://www.iCasualties.org
10. Washington Post, "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2957&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=10
11. Washington Post, "Scarier than Bin Laden," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2959&id=11221-1237838-q.PC12&t=11

Posted by The Fool | September 11, 2007 2:16 PM

"It only reinforces the impression that Lefties despise the military and it's people."

I don't know if "lefties" despise the military, but I sure as hell do. I was in it for three years. I KNOW what it's composed of.

They're a bunch of cannon fodder morons in the lower ranks, and a bunch of lying sacks of shit in the upper ranks who don't care how many of the lower ranks die as long as they get their promotions.

And Petraeus is a classic example.

Fuck the military and its people. Their job is to defend this country from attack - period. Their job is not to go to other countries and murder civilians because they're too goddamn dumb to do their proper job correctly.

This country needs to "de-Baathize" its military.

The entire US officer corps should be sacked, and most of the lower ranks dumped back into the general employment market to sweep floors and flip burgers.

Replace the US military with a bunch of angry penguins (to quote Linus Torvalds, "You've never seen an angry penguin coming at you at 100 miles per hour!) - they'd be more effective, less expensive, and less likely to cause trouble in the rest of the world because they're "cute".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 11, 2007 11:07 PM

Should have read "General Petraeus, Don't Betray us"

Keeps the point and the pun, but drops the insult.

Posted by MikeN | September 12, 2007 1:25 AM

I LOVE a good insult (whew, that'll get me in trouble,..., don't be too mean...)

Maybe a little "yo momma" rather than "excuse me, my dear sir, I hate to bother you, and by all means, please feel shoosh me if I say anything that might interupt you while you send young men and women to their deaths based on questionable reasoning and cherry-picked data, but I repectfully beg to differ in just the slightest manner with your questionable reasoning and cherry-picked data" would wake everyone up from their coma. The MSM and the Democrats aren't listening yet, perhaps a little shouting might catch their attention, which, as I said earlier, the Move-on ad appears to have done.

Posted by Rihilism | September 12, 2007 9:20 AM

Moving On

Comments (58)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories