Moveon.org's NY Times ad. . .

First, no one was "Tricked" into the war. Which is actually over, we one that, the reconstruction afterwards is harder than expected, but the war is essentially won.

Second, the Democrat party had all the info and voted in favor of invasion. They had the intel briefings and new exactly what they said, no matter what the administrations spin was, so either the Dems are fools and easily, well fooled, or they are lying about being fooled. In short they are "idiots" or liars"!

Third, Islam fascism is real. It’s not about their freedom to rape and kill and oppress women in the middle-east. They want to spread that doctrine around the world. You may believe that they would be better than the free democracies we have now, but by no means be fooled into thinking the Islamos only have regional ambitions. this President is the only major leader able to do anything or actually do anything about this spread. Are presence in the middle-east now isn't creating more terrorists, its just stirring them up. They have always been there. Kind of like kicking a beehive. (ps. beehives spread, too)

Fourth, the MoveOn.org ad is really just childish, really. As for as the GOA accounting, that is for the Iraqi government benchmarks not the military benchmarks. I don't think that the U.S. Congress should be pointing any fingers at the Iraqi's not getting enough done. What have the Dems done since they have taken over??? ONE piece of legislation passed, and they don't have people trying to assassinate them!!!

Fifth, the U.S. was authorized to enter Iraq by the U.N. and the U.S. Congress. FACT! Iraq violated the first gulf war armistice, FACT. (at least 17 U.N. resolutions say so!)

Sixth, first the Dems say-You didn't use enough troops, you need to send more troops; so the President says "We are sending more troops". Then the Dems say you can't send more troops why, its a waste the war is lost (scumbag Harry Reid!); Now the President says, "do to progress we can send troops home"; Then dems say "NOT fast enough for us!" They are like children.

Seventh- Even if our enemy wasn't based in Iraq before the war, they sure as heck are their NOW! Let’s kill them there and not here. DUH. Advocating an immediate removal of troops is advocating genocide. (and don't give me that crap about, well we didn't create this mess", it’s there now how are you going to deal with.) The President tells you what he is going to do you just don't like it!

eighth- Why the HELL are we still in Kosovo?? What threat do they pose to us? Why did we go there, what threat did they pose to us?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Sep 14 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]512689[/snapback]</div>

Free/discounted political advertising? 2 words...Fox news. 24/7/365.


Why didn't that fake entertainment/news network air the democratic response to junior's speech?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709140002?f=h_latest

Instead, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, who was hosting Fox's post-speech coverage, stated: "The Democrats will say in the Democratic response later that the larger problems, as General [David] Petraeus put it, are not military but political. The surge, when announced by the president, was designed to give the political leaders in Iraq the time to bring together their strategies to secure the nation and solve their political problems."

In other words, "We already know what they will say so here is our response to their response."

Really, we all know it's Clinton's fault!

We also know that those who have marginalized us are soon to be marginalized for a generation. To quote a well known neocon "Buh Bye!!!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Sep 15 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]513046[/snapback]</div>

Why did the NY Times give moveon.org a discount on this full page ad, and should they extend the same price for other political ads from the other side of the spectrum? The biggest loser in all of this is the NY Times - which used to call itself fair and balanced with "all the news thats fit to print" - now is just a political rag.

The biggest problem i see is that it changes the dynamics of the discussion that is need on the war on terror - i am saddened by the Democrats who did not come out and comment on this ad and the slander and libel that it projected on what seems to be a fine and honest commander of US forces - a commander who was approved by all a short while ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 09:33 AM) [snapback]513673[/snapback]</div>

"Plus, Giuliani got the same "discount" ad rate that MoveOn paid for its "Betray Us" ad on Monday."
"This morning, the Times reports that MoveOn paid what the newspaper says is the "standby" rate for its full page ad: About $65,000, which is considerably less than the nearly $182,000 that a full-priced full-page ad can cost in the newspaper. But, according to the Times, that is a typical price charged to advocacy groups for an ad they want to run on a specific day -- if they're willing to put up with not getting a guarantee that the ad will run on that day."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/...etray-us-a.html

 

http://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htm

"15 Sep 2007, 13:39 1st Edition

Report from the Front, con't:

Several days ago the man in Baghdad wrote: "I got an email from my wife today telling me that a newspaper back there in the world published an editorial of sorts using the nickname I gave to General Petraeus back in April of this year... I am honored that it is now being picked up and used by others..." And DEA Watch followed up by saying: "D/W Note: The above writer is referencing the following publication: 01 Apr 2007, 13:11 PST, 3rd Edition".

I went back through my old copies of DEA Watch and found the piece written by the man in Baghdad. It was published by DEA Watch on the date given. Unquestionably, the military writer in Baghdad was the first to coin the name: "General Betray-us", and I recall reading his use of that name several times in his 'Report(s) from the Front' since.

Based on these facts, I have come to think that it is a very big mistake for the WH and FOB's (friends of Bush) to continue condemning the MoveOn.Org folks for using 'Betray-us' because if MoveOn discloses that it borrowed the name from a U.S. military officer stationed in Baghdad this could be a major, major embarrassment to the chickenhawks who like to lay blame for all of Bush's innumerable failures on the Demoncrats and Liberals.
Such a disclosure would also confirm the fact that there are a lot of military people who dislike Bush and equally dislike Petraeus... which may be why he has to wear an armored vest even while walking amongst his own troops. When a general has to wear protection around his own troops that is evidence he has well established reason to fear one or some of them who hate his guts enough to blow him away."

 

More discussion from DEAWatch:

"Dear DEA Watch,

We are hearing that CINC Bush has gotten into the act by making mention of our General "Betray-us" nickname we named him last April. We are very pleased we did something that got CINC Bush's attention. And we have full confidence that you all at DEA Watch will never let on our names."
"We are very proud of the nickname we gave him in April. We really appreciate DEA Watch for publishing it back then. And as I said before, maybe there will come a day when we can come forward with our names to let the good folks at MoveOn.org off the hook by telling the world that it wasn't "liberals" or "Democrats" who christened Petraeus, "Betray-us". But that it was his own officers and men right here in Baghdad who created his true name."

 

Listen to Keith Olbermann's response to junior's whining about move-on:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/20/c...t-of-hypocrisy/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Sep 21 2007, 09:31 AM) [snapback]515829[/snapback]</div>

Dang, MJ...I was gonna use that one too. But Olbermann is just another tool of us left wing members of the vast lefty media conspiracy, isn't he? We all KNOW Fix News has it right. Or RIGHT.

Yeah, I been away-ish for a while. Just now going through some of the older PC stuff. David is just a troll at best. I'm not allowed to say here what he is at worst. Yeah, he'll find some reason to blow off Olbermann's reasoning. Just like he finds reasons to blow off any facts that prove him wrong. Write him off. He obviously does this crap to stir up s**t. Look at his topics, and watch how he waits until he finds an opinion/fact he can jump on and whack.

"Speak roughly to your little boy, and beat him when he sneezes: he only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 25 2007, 05:44 AM) [snapback]517324[/snapback]</div>

am i missing something here - the NY Times admitted it was wrong this past sunday in an op-ed piece concerning the moveon.org ad. it was wrong with what it allowed it to say concerning a US soldier and it was wrong on the price it charged to place that ad. I believe moveon.org has since sent another check to make up the difference - although only because it was caught.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 25 2007, 03:48 AM) [snapback]517333[/snapback]</div>

It was not a Times editorial which you were paraphrasing, but an op-ed piece by Clark Hoyt, the public editor. Had you bothered to read his opinion piece, Betraying Its Own Best Interests, to the end, you would have seen the following disclaimer:

The Times did admit that it should not have guaranteed the ad's Monday placement for the standby rate, but no other wrongdoings. By the way, according to that op-ed piece, Rudy Giuliani demanded and received the same $64,575 standby rate for a response ad which ran on the following Friday.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 25 2007, 05:46 AM) [snapback]517365[/snapback]</div>

BTW MoveOn paid the difference, but Rudy refuses to. Typical necon. Whine that for once in history someone got a better deal than a republican, demand equal treatment, then don't step up to the plate, thereby getting a better deal than anyone else.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 25 2007, 09:46 AM) [snapback]517365[/snapback]</div>

It went beyond the financial shenanagans - comment was made about personally attacking a US soldier, and a highly decorated one too. I fail to see how you can defend the advertisement that defines what should not be printed and how it should not be paid for. the NY Times has too well documented an agenda against this President and this administration - just another link in the chain. thankfully Pinch continues to run this bad boy into the ground. another few years under his expert leadership and Murdoch will buy it too