MoveOn.org needs to move on

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
In reference to today's ad in the New York Times, I really think it was a cheap shot in which Moveon.org decided to aim it's attack on the the MNF-I Commander.

I have no problem at the political mudslinging that goes on throughout governement, but when you take it to the military, it becomes personal to me.

Many of you know, and have heard this before, the military does NOT dictate policy, we execute it.

So when MoveOn decides to do this, it really pisses me off. Let the civilian politicians duke it out however they want to... but stay OUT of the military and taking aim at US.
 
it is kind of funny to watch them on t.v...... I emailed a friend of mine that works on the hill to see what kind of fun is going on up there....

his response.........What are you talking about? It’s a quiet day on Capitol hill…its almost like its christmas
 
it is kind of funny to watch them on t.v...... I emailed a friend of mine that works on the hill to see what kind of fun is going on up there....

his response.........What are you talking about? It’s a quiet day on Capitol hill…its almost like its christmas


Funny.... again thank you for your service Major TI


:bravo::salute:
 
bad choice of words

This is something i have to say over and over. The military's job is not policy. YOU civilians (and some military) vote for the leader who dictate policy. You got an issue with the policy? Go talk to the government. Send a letter to the President, have a candle hippie :cen: fest for all I care. But the military's job is NOT policy it's just doing what the democratically elected government tells it to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the full page ad in the NYT is public enough thank you.... it had thier logo on the bottom of the ad

Fair enough but if the TV don't run with reporting about it most people will be in the dark. Papers are for people intelligent enough to read... their influence ended and TVs began when Nixon debated Kennedy.
 
I have a couple of thoughts.

First. Perhaps now some of you will realize that calling people "Traitors", "un-American" simply because they disagree with you, really isn't such a nice thing to do. I think MoveOn went too far, but then again some of you all could have shown the same restraint a few years back. I mean when Max Cleland was shown as a bin Laden supporter how many of you complained? -Lets not be too hypocritical shall we ???

Second, the notion of an American General betraying his own country is not exactly unfounded. -Benedict Arnold Anyone?

Thirdly. I respect MoveOn ability to fight for their convictions, even if as I said I think they went too far. At good to see a few Democrats with a backbone rather than the gutless, spineless, wimps that currently make up the DNC and who are too afraid to take on the far right. If the RNC wasn't so repulsive, I'd drop the DNC in a heartbeat. Unfortunately the Dems still haven't figured out that Nobody likes a coward.

And this is my own opinion. Frankly I don't find Patreaus at all convincing, just more of the same BS we have been spoon fed. I got into a disagreement with USMC03 a few weeks ago, unfortunately I was right. Its clear that this whole SURGE business was a political whitewash to save whats left of the Pres reputation. Although I was wrong to say Patreaus would cover Bush's rear end.

In fact Bush covered is own rear end and put Patreaus and Crocker name on it so that it will look authentic. This report was prepared by the White House with only Patreaus and Crocker providing 'commentary', the WH admitted this a few weeks ago. So the WH prepared the report, and we all know about their strict devotion to the truth.

CNN just reported that Both ABC and Gallup Polls show 53% think this is sugar-coating, cherry picked report.

One example of how deceptive this report is. The reports states that the number of attacks as gone down -thats true. But the number of killed\wounded during the surge is actually higher than in previous (non-surge) years. Of course, thats the part they 'forgot' to mention in the report.

And of course there is very little mention of the Iraqi Government which is what the surge was supposed to help. i.e reduce the violence so that the politics can continue. That part, the most important part, is AWOL as well.
 
Last edited:
Oh it was all over the TV this morning.
Good to hear, ya know reception is kinda bad out here.
:lol:

MMarsh there is a big difference between Max Cleland, SENATOR, and Petraeus, ARMY OFFICER. If you do not recognise these please see the previous posts.
 
Last edited:
I have a couple of thoughts.

First. Perhaps now some of you will realize that calling people "Traitors", "un-American" simply because they disagree with you, really isn't such a nice thing to do. I think MoveOn went too far, but then again some of you all could have shown the same restraint a few years back. I mean when Max Cleland was shown as a bin Laden supporter how many of you complained? -Lets not be too hypocritical shall we ???

Do not characterize the individuals here as "you". There are many different views and beliefs from many different countries on this forum, and to claim that we are all the same is a foolhardy remark.

There are distinct differences between Cleland and Patraeus, and come to think of it, I dont ever remember someone posting an article in the NYT calling Cleland a traitor.

mmarsh said:
Second, the notion of an American General betraying his own country is not exactly unfounded. -Benedict Arnold Anyone?

We all had our third grade history lesson here, we know who Arnold is. Do not compare the two, for there are no grounds for comparison.

mmarsh said:
Thirdly. I respect MoveOn ability to fight for their convictions, even if as I said I think they went too far. At good to see a few Democrats with a backbone rather than the gutless, spineless, wimps that currently make up the DNC and who are too afraid to take on the far right. If the RNC wasn't so repulsive, I'd drop the DNC in a heartbeat. Unfortunately the Dems still haven't figured out that Nobody likes a coward.

And this is my own opinion. Frankly I don't find Patreaus at all convincing, just more of the same BS we have been spoon fed. I got into a disagreement with USMC03 a few weeks ago, unfortunately I was right. Its clear that this whole SURGE business was a political whitewash to save whats left of the Pres reputation. Although I was wrong to say Patreaus would cover Bush's rear end.

In fact Bush covered is own rear end and put Patreaus and Crocker name on it so that it will look authentic. This report was prepared by the White House with only Patreaus and Crocker providing 'commentary', the WH admitted this a few weeks ago. So the WH prepared the report, and we all know about their strict devotion to the truth.

CNN just reported that Both ABC and Gallup Polls show 53% think this is sugar-coating, cherry picked report.

One example of how deceptive this report is. The reports states that the number of attacks as gone down -thats true. But the number of killed\wounded during the surge is actually higher than in previous (non-surge) years. Of course, thats the part they 'forgot' to mention in the report.

And of course there is very little mention of the Iraqi Government which is what the surge was supposed to help. i.e reduce the violence so that the politics can continue. That part, the most important part, is AWOL as well.

So you suggest that all of this is whitewash and that Patraeus is simply a puppet to cover for the Bush administration.

How the **** do you expect people to believe the truth when all they hear is the propaganda garbage out in the media?? Wait... which way does the media lean? LEFT! So, when a left leaning poll conducted by a left leaning agency provides left leaning results, that is the truth and not a product of 'whitewash'. If you actually watched the report, you would have seen a question about the definition of attacks in Iraq, and the media's assertion that the Pentagon only calls an assasination an assassination if the bullet enters the front of the head, and Patraeus said that that was not correct. Obviously the media had an agenda and substituted their beliefs for the truth.

I highly doubt that Patraeus, a man who has dedicated much of his life to to serving his country, would sacrifice himself before the gods of the media for a single man nor would betray his country to provide a retiring President with a good name.

The fact is that the situation in Iraq has changed. Ask the poeple who have actually been there and they will tell you a very different story than what CNN will. I cannot attest to the situation in Iraq, all I can go off of is what I gather from the the individuals who have been there themselves, both good and bad.

Sir, you apperantly did not take the time to watch the report and simply turned on CNN to see the tidbits fed through. I recommend you turn to CSPAN and watch it, maybe you will catch the parts where they talk about the action the governmental body has taken. A paraphrase from the report (by a Representative) "[in reference to the Iraqi government] which has actually been legislativly more effective than the congress of the United States"
 
I am just wondering why clintonites and Obama are not taking a stance against these anti-military code-pink and moveon.org traitors?

and brought up by the congressionals during testimony....

All afternoon radio talk shows were talking about... i.e Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Miller.....etc

Don’t forget to make your voice heard on N.Z. Bear’s petition:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Spartacus

In literature, Its called talking in the 3rd person.

I wasn't referring to all members or any specific one, just to those individuals who have engaged in those same hurtful slights in the past and they know who they are. If you didn't particpate, then my comments were not addressed to you. Would you really prefer I use people's names and start a flamewar? I don't think the mods would like that.

It doesn't matter with he was a senator an ex-senator or not. What difference does that make? My point, is people shouldn't call people traitors and such because they disagree with a political view. That goes for the far left like MoveON as it does the Far Right like the Swift Boat Vets.

My friend, I dont mean this as an insult, but you are very naive. Do you remember Iran-Contra? Colonel Oliver North, fell on his sword in order to protect Reagan. Or more recently was Colin Powell's 2003 anthrax-antics at the UN. Military personnel are just as capable of lying as anybody else. As for Benedict Arnold, you said you couldn't believe that an Officer like Patreaus could ever betray us? Thats funny, I am sure George Washington thought the same thing about Arnold.

I see you are ad-libbing the old left wing media myth. I'll ask you the same question as I have everybody else who persists in this falsehood. If the media is so 'LEFT' then why does it happen to be overwhelming owned by the 'RIGHT'. Rupert Murdoch, CBS, Time Warner, Disney, Clearchannel, are RIGHT-WING. ABC is owned by Disney and is also very rightwing. (Remember they are the ones who tried banning Michael Moore films in America), and Gallup too tends to lean right as well. So your cliams of biasness about both polls are totally without merit. Just because something flies in the face of your political opinion doesn't make it wrong.

Did you read who actually wrote the report? It was neither Patreeaus nor Crocker. It was the White House itself. So when the White House says that the Iraqi Government works better than the Congress (which just happens to be run by the Democrats), exactly how partisan and credible do you think that is?

And why would I trust the WH? They have lied about everything else so far.
 
Last edited:
The military may fall on its sword to protect a president but it doesn't go around destroying a policy so that a certain political party can take the presidency. That's what the left is doing right now. It's not looking for any kind of progress, it's policy seems to be destroying what the current administration wants to do in order to devalue all their operations since they're having trouble raising the value of whatever their plan is.
Having courage and balls is good as long as you got a viable direction and plan. Other wise what you have is a bunch if fretting and lashing out.
Again Mmarsh, you forget, it doesn't matter who the president is and what political party he belongs to. The military supports the goal of the US president. That is its job. The people pick the president, the president then decides, with the congress, on how to conduct policy.
So contrary to what you're saying, if there's a military operation sanctioned by the Democratic party, then the general is fine and in this case he's working for Bush so he's open for political attack, the purpose of why American troops are over there etc? He's doing his part serving his country. If you, and enough of America don't like it, then the public can vote for another president with a different strategy, who will then order to General Petraeus or whoever else is in charge then on what the new policy and goals are and he will execute them to the best of his ability. If the next president says, "General, we're pulling everyone out by the end of the year," that is what will happen.
 
Last edited:
People forget. We're Marines. We're not politicians. Don't like the war in Iraq? Don't come to me about it. No one ever paid me to make decisions regarding any war.
And don't ask the guy over there either, he's a soldier.

That sums it all up in a shorter paragraph.
 
The military may fall on its sword to protect a president but it doesn't go around destroying a policy so that a certain political party can take the presidency. That's what the left is doing right now. It's not looking for any kind of progress, it's policy seems to be destroying what the current administration wants to do in order to devalue all their operations since they're having trouble raising the value of whatever their plan is.
Having courage and balls is good as long as you got a viable direction and plan. Other wise what you have is a bunch if fretting and lashing out.
Again Mmarsh, you forget, it doesn't matter who the president is and what political party he belongs to. The military supports the goal of the US president. That is its job. The people pick the president, the president then decides, with the congress, on how to conduct policy.
So contrary to what you're saying, if there's a military operation sanctioned by the Democratic party, then the general is fine and in this case he's working for Bush so he's open for political attack, the purpose of why American troops are over there etc? He's doing his part serving his country. If you, and enough of America don't like it, then the public can vote for another president with a different strategy, who will then order to General Petraeus or whoever else is in charge then on what the new policy and goals are and he will execute them to the best of his ability. If the next president says, "General, we're pulling everyone out by the end of the year," that is what will happen.

But Patreaus isn't really a soldier anymore. A soldier is supposed to be politically neutral who obeys his orders without question. But Patreaus was APPOINTED directly by Bush in order to push the Bush POLITICAL agenda. He didnt have to accept this job, in fact I heard Bush was turned down several times by other candidates. The point is he is no longer impartial, but is now no different then any other member of the Bush cabinet and it makes no difference that he wears a uniform.

The whole point of the MOVEON ad is to criticize Patreaus as a political hack in a uniform. Which he is, unless you really believe Patreaus is totally impartial, and frankly I think its ludicrous to think that, especially when you have a president who values loyalty to himself over everything else. The truth is Patreaus is a politican who wears an Army uniform and who is arguing for a Foreign political policy on behalf of the people who appointed him. If my boss told me to present information I knew to be false to our shareholders, I would tell him to go to hell. Many Generals have done precisely that when it came to the Bush agenda, Patreaus didn't make that choice. On his head be the consequences.

And MoveOn is right, it is a betrayal to America if Patreaus knows the information he is giving is wrong, cherry picked, or based on lies. In my own opinion, had the General wanted to keep is honor intact should not have accepted the job, or should have resigned if he been ordered to do it. But if he is knowingly stating propaganda, then he should accept public scorn. This war was founded and run on lies. I have no problem calling people liars who knowing participate in them. My own criticism toward MoveOn is that those hurtful types of comments are better directed at the puppet masters and not the puppets themselves.

It would have been an entirely different had Patreaus been appointed by the Senate (where the Dems only have a 1 seat lead) and been allowed to write HIS report in HIS words not regurgitate the White House talking points. I am not making this up, the White House has admitted to writing the report for Patreaus. If we had an honest White House it would be the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top