Moveon.org's NY Times ad. . .

BTW: the term be-trayus was coined by posters at DEAWatch.com, a government watchog site operated and frequented by DEA employees from both sides of the aisle. The term was picked up from there and is catching on. It is cheesy slander, but was not coined by Moveon. It's no less cheesy than billary, B. Hussein, or the commander in theif terms used often here.

 

BTW: the term be-trayus was coined by posters at DEAWatch.com, a government watchog site operated and frequented by DEA employees from both sides of the aisle. The term was picked up from there and is catching on. It is cheesy slander, but was not coined by Moveon. It's no less cheesy than billary, B. Hussein, or the commander in theif terms used often here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 12 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]511312[/snapback]</div>

show me a right wing outlet that accused a commander of US forces of betraying his own people

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 12 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]511327[/snapback]</div>

you sure have a unique set of definitions you operate by

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 12 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]511312[/snapback]</div>

show me a right wing outlet that accused a commander of US forces of betraying his own people

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Sep 12 2007, 12:02 PM) [snapback]511327[/snapback]</div>

you sure have a unique set of definitions you operate by

 

"show me a right wing outlet that accused a commander of US forces of betraying his own people"
Only happens when they aren't in power. At which point liberal organizations will take the same stance as you did above and right wing outlets will be doing the exact same thing you're bitching about (and you'll cheer it on).
BTW, You've done exactly that in pointing blame at Clinton (fair or unfair).

 

"show me a right wing outlet that accused a commander of US forces of betraying his own people"
Only happens when they aren't in power. At which point liberal organizations will take the same stance as you did above and right wing outlets will be doing the exact same thing you're bitching about (and you'll cheer it on).
BTW, You've done exactly that in pointing blame at Clinton (fair or unfair).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 12 2007, 07:16 AM) [snapback]511289[/snapback]</div>

I agree. One does not get to be a 4 star general by pulling one up by one's own bootstraps. The 4* gets there by being a 'yes' man and toeing the line, not via individualistic thinking. You get those stars at least partially by doing what ever it takes to please your superiors. Motivation for government jobs is many times diametrically opposed to motivation needed to 'make it' in the private sector. You cannot use the same frame of reference to address advancement in each sector. To do so and draw conclusions is inviting disagreement. F8L is correct in affording every citizen the same respect regardless of rank.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 12 2007, 07:16 AM) [snapback]511289[/snapback]</div>

I agree. One does not get to be a 4 star general by pulling one up by one's own bootstraps. The 4* gets there by being a 'yes' man and toeing the line, not via individualistic thinking. You get those stars at least partially by doing what ever it takes to please your superiors. Motivation for government jobs is many times diametrically opposed to motivation needed to 'make it' in the private sector. You cannot use the same frame of reference to address advancement in each sector. To do so and draw conclusions is inviting disagreement. F8L is correct in affording every citizen the same respect regardless of rank.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 12 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]511281[/snapback]</div>

I was really hoping for some direction on this? Can somebody direct me to verification that NYT sold the ad to moveon at a discount?

Peace --

Marjorie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 12 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]511281[/snapback]</div>

I was really hoping for some direction on this? Can somebody direct me to verification that NYT sold the ad to moveon at a discount?

Peace --

Marjorie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Sep 12 2007, 03:47 PM) [snapback]511532[/snapback]</div>

Do you need anything more than Dr Bermans word?
Just because in the past he has spewed half truths and no truths.
This time he apparently speaks true.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=n...G=Google+Search

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Sep 12 2007, 03:47 PM) [snapback]511532[/snapback]</div>

Do you need anything more than Dr Bermans word?
Just because in the past he has spewed half truths and no truths.
This time he apparently speaks true.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=n...G=Google+Search

 

What should really raise concern is that the NY Times charged MoveOn.org $65,000.00 for the full page ad. When a typical full page ad in the NY Times goes for $167,000.00.

So the NY Times just donated $102,00.00 to MoveOn.org!

That is the action an objective news organization!

 

What should really raise concern is that the NY Times charged MoveOn.org $65,000.00 for the full page ad. When a typical full page ad in the NY Times goes for $167,000.00.

So the NY Times just donated $102,00.00 to MoveOn.org!

That is the action an objective news organization!

 

The timing stunk to me. Personally, I think betray-us is a bush mouthpiece, but I feel MoveOn.org discredited themselves by placing htis inflamatory ad in advance of (rather than in response to) his testimony.

 

The timing stunk to me. Personally, I think betray-us is a bush mouthpiece, but I feel MoveOn.org discredited themselves by placing htis inflamatory ad in advance of (rather than in response to) his testimony.

 

I personally find the ad in ill taste and stooping to tactics that are below the good manner level.

I am certainly not endorsing the current administration nor the leader of the pack, however I do feel that this ad has gone to far. I have thought so when I saw it first through forwarded e-mail. I have actually written to Eli and the others on Move On and I am expecting a terse reply in the next few days. I have received them before so we will see what happens.

First of all, I don't find that many encouraging things in what the General had to say in the last two days nor did I expect that much. We are back to square one. We have proven (or are about to) once again, that the US is the leading and dominating military power in the world. We did that in 2003 when the Iraqi army was defeated in record time. We can win and conclude a military dominance over an enemy power, surprise there :mellow: .

What we can't seem to do, and this is really the BIG problem, is figure out how to bring a militarily defeated country to build a cultural, political and religious consensus on how to govern and move forward. This is by far the biggest part of maintaining a victory and maintaining the defeat over the (now former) enemy wrongly attacked or not. The military victory took away the rigid and often brutal structure that held the country together at the cost of what is humane. It left the people, country and the culture in a shambles. Any half witted megalomaniac seized upon this opportunity to carve out their own personal kingdom and impress their own beliefs and opinions upon the immediate populous.

Second, I believe the General's assessment to be true as so much as that they depict a military POV of the situation. Militarily speaking, the surge might be working, or so we are told. I am not there, so I cannot vouch for it nor deny it. What the ad should have pointed out is that a military victory alone is not the end goal, rather it is the beginning of a new stage, a new phase for a new Iraq. The ad could have easily made the point that the issues are not as much military planning, but rather the blind and embarrassing excuses disguised as a foreign policy and a CPA undermining true self determination of a country needing to reinvent itself. The ad could have pointed out that besides having squandered the good will of the whole world in the aftermath of 9/11, the US squandered the military victory over the former leaders of Iraq, by failing to provide a plan and aid to a people facing for a first time self determination and self regulation.

There.. I said it. :blink: Peace & Solar Power & Chocolate! :lol:

..you can guess my vote

 

I personally find the ad in ill taste and stooping to tactics that are below the good manner level.

I am certainly not endorsing the current administration nor the leader of the pack, however I do feel that this ad has gone to far. I have thought so when I saw it first through forwarded e-mail. I have actually written to Eli and the others on Move On and I am expecting a terse reply in the next few days. I have received them before so we will see what happens.

First of all, I don't find that many encouraging things in what the General had to say in the last two days nor did I expect that much. We are back to square one. We have proven (or are about to) once again, that the US is the leading and dominating military power in the world. We did that in 2003 when the Iraqi army was defeated in record time. We can win and conclude a military dominance over an enemy power, surprise there :mellow: .

What we can't seem to do, and this is really the BIG problem, is figure out how to bring a militarily defeated country to build a cultural, political and religious consensus on how to govern and move forward. This is by far the biggest part of maintaining a victory and maintaining the defeat over the (now former) enemy wrongly attacked or not. The military victory took away the rigid and often brutal structure that held the country together at the cost of what is humane. It left the people, country and the culture in a shambles. Any half witted megalomaniac seized upon this opportunity to carve out their own personal kingdom and impress their own beliefs and opinions upon the immediate populous.

Second, I believe the General's assessment to be true as so much as that they depict a military POV of the situation. Militarily speaking, the surge might be working, or so we are told. I am not there, so I cannot vouch for it nor deny it. What the ad should have pointed out is that a military victory alone is not the end goal, rather it is the beginning of a new stage, a new phase for a new Iraq. The ad could have easily made the point that the issues are not as much military planning, but rather the blind and embarrassing excuses disguised as a foreign policy and a CPA undermining true self determination of a country needing to reinvent itself. The ad could have pointed out that besides having squandered the good will of the whole world in the aftermath of 9/11, the US squandered the military victory over the former leaders of Iraq, by failing to provide a plan and aid to a people facing for a first time self determination and self regulation.

There.. I said it. :blink: Peace & Solar Power & Chocolate! :lol:

..you can guess my vote