MoveOn.org needs to move on

phoenix80 said:
You'll get cash rewards if u move to Alaska :D
Click to expand...

It's only a few hundred bucks. I guess I can think of it as state sponsored ammunition subsidies. :9mm:

Guys, various groups like the press has always been a natural enemy of the military so I'm not too surprised that there was some kind of cooperation between NY Times and Moveon.org. Fox News is the weird one, being all right wing and all... not fair and balanced (HAHAHAHAHHAHA) but it is different from the other guys.
Truth is, I'm really tired about talking about this stuff.
So they bad mouthed General Petraeus. What do you expect from a group of people who give away America's military secrets and have no respect for other people's private lives?
Personally, I feel that the press in turn needs something to check and balance it. Absolute free press seems to be doing a better job dismantling the country than any enemy intelligence agency could ever possibly imagine.
This doesn't just happen in the US either.
South Korea is also extreme. The press have rendered the President (though an idiot in his own right) completely ineffective, has turned the South Korean public almost completely sympathetic towards North Korea, has driven Anti-Americanism to the stratosphere when cooperation between the two countries is STILL vital to South Korea's future.
Go figure. If South Korea goes down to China (it's a VERY real scenario) the South Korean press would have played one of the biggest roles in that defeat.
The same applies to America.
 
The problem isn't freedom of the press it is the fact that most press you can easily get is produced by enormous media corporations that care more about making a buck then delivering the news.
 
Petraeus - impartial or NOT?

Another aspect/way of looking at this situation .....

I have a problem with "pinko" organizations ... BUT ... Moveon IS a political activist organization whether we like it or not and they have a right under the Constitution to make their views known. In this case, Petraeus IS a hand picked "GOFER" selected by GW Bush and there are those (not all of them are Democrats), who question Petraeus' impartiality where the Iraq Report is concerned. On the face of it, these "questioners" have a point ... it wasn't the points Petraeus covered, it was how they were presented that has caused the greatest concern. Some of the points were presented in a way that the picture that was painted was very clear ... and ... some of the most worrisome points were "glossed" over, which leaves many unanswered questions.

Has Petraeus intentionally slanted the report to please GW Bush? ... I don't really know. Petraeus IS an honorable man whose reputation in military circles is unquestioned ... I am just NOT sure whether he would sell out to the politicians ... which he would have done IF the intent was to shine a favorable light on GW's Iraqi Policy.

Let's face it, the surge was implemented to give the Provisional government time to begin the process of resolving the sectarion differences ... a process that is necessary for a peaceful Iraq and a government that has a chance of surviving. Without a peaceful Iraq and a viable government, the US can NOT begin any kind of safe withdrawal of troops. The report mentioned this fact in a passing way and then glossed over the fact that so far, the Provisional government hasn't even begun the process ... that means, the surge HAS failed in it's main objective. In essence, that means the surge IS a major failure ... a fact that was NOT articulated in the report.

Sooo ... is it really surprising that questions have arisen questioning Petraeus' impartiality? The BETRAY US is way over the top though.
 
Last edited:
And it's the over the top stuff that ticks me off.
And another thing... why is it that people will not trust corporations, yet seem to put their faith on news corporations? These people make money off making small stuff look big. Also they realize that the only good news is bad news. Boosts ratings.
I really think they need to be reclassified from "Press" to "Entertainment." It would be a far more accurate label of what their industry is about.
 
Chief Bones said:
Another aspect/way of looking at this situation ....

Sooo ... is it really surprising that questions have arisen questioning Petraeus' impartiality? The BETRAY US is way over the top though.
Click to expand...

At last, the voice of reason. Thank you.

I'd give you a Rep point Chief, maybe even two, but I have spread some goodwill before I am allowed. Pity...
 
MoveOn.org is a LEGITIMATE (that means legal), activist political organisation

It astounds me ... this IS a military forum where most of our members are military or former military. We have served and fought through a thousand battles to assure our way of life and yet, there are still members that just don't get it.

MoveOn.org is a LEGITIMATE (that means legal), activist political organisation that has the legal right to take out ANY ad it feels like (as long as they don't violate the 'defamation' of character laws). Their ad questioned statements that Petraeus made that most people "in the know" said were false.

I question whether most of you have even actually read the advertisement or whether you are just responding to those people that have attacked MoveOn because you don't like the thought that a General would speak a falsehood.

Well I took the oportunity to actually download a PDF copy of the ad, and I QUESTION WHETHER PETRAEUS' QUOTES WERE TRUE.

People, remember - we serve for and answer to civilians when it comes to honesty when there are questions asked of our Military Leaders ... when they don't tell all of the truth (or they lie), then civilians (and activist organisations), have every right under our constitution to ask questions (or to respond to what they believe are lies).

You and I may not care for the fact that they are questioning the honesty of one of our military leaders (or the way the way the ad was worded) ... however, MoveOn.org has every right to do so. It's one of the mainstays of our constitution ... civilian's freedom to question our leaders (even when the leaders are military and not civilian).
 
Last edited:
You know what? I agree that these organizations have the right to exist, but I think the 50% discount to run it on NY Times was wrong. By doing so, they are not being a news organization, rather they are becoming an opinion source.
And personally, sometimes I don't think the public can handle certain facts about things especially when they are taken out of context. This is what I have problems with. The press takes things out of context and these cases in fact present the worst of lies: half truths. Then they package it and send it to the public as "raw, hard facts."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top