The Individualist 09.21.07: The Moveon Ad Was A Hit

Posted by Joe Rivett on 09.21.2007

No matter how you feel about Moveon.org's ad, they got their 70,000 dollars worth. Plus why I'm not buying what General Petraeus is saying...

General Petraeus testified last week on capital hill. I thought to myself, what the hell is the big deal anyway? On the war, the administration has lost all credibility with me.

Here are some of the lies and/or gross misjudgments from Donald Rumsfeld:

Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What's the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: "It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Feb. 20 2003: "‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?' Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS' The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,' Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces."

Mar. 30, 2003: "It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Here are some of the lies and/or gross misjudgments from Dick Cheney:

"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators," March 03

"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." March 03

Today in a speech at the National Press Club, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that no one predicted the violent insurgency that has now taken root in Iraq:

MODERATOR: Do you think that you underestimated the insurgency's strength?

CHENEY: I think so. I guess if I look back on it now, I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we have encountered.

"The longer a U.S. occupation of Iraq continues, the more danger exists that elements of the Iraqi population will become impatient and take violent measures to hasten the departure of U.S. forces. … The impact of suicide bombing attacks in Israel goes beyond their numbers, and this fact will also capture the imagination of would-be Iraqi terrorists." [Army War College, Feb. 2003]

"But if we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting, with farmers like Mr. Khal taking potshots at our troops. Is America really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years?" [Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, Sept. 2002]

Even General Casey made some horrible predictions:

Gen. George W. Casey said that despite continued lethal attacks by insurgents, the security situation in Iraq had improved. He reiterated a position he had taken earlier this year on the possible decrease in the U.S. military presence during a one-day visit by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for meetings with Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari. – July 8, 2005

So Gen. Petraeus wants to draw down troops to the pre surge level by next summer, (sounds like a timetable to me). What if all hell breaks loose over the Fall? I just don't care what anyone affiliated with the Bush Administration has to say about Iraq. Our own president told the Aussies that we were kicking ass! Now I know what the pro-war person is thinking: "But Joe, are you calling the general a liar?" No. Petraeus admitted that Iraq politically has a long way to go. Security isn't the issue, politics is the issue.

I also know that Bush likes to appoint people to positions that fulfill his vision. Look at Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers. Do you really think he would have picked Petraeus if Petraeus thought that maybe we should draw down the troops. No, he picked the general that wanted to increase the troops. Do you really think the guy with that plan is going to admit that it didn't work when his boss never admits a mistake? Do you really think after watching Gen. Shinseki retire because he thought we needed a half-a-million troops, he was going to tell Bush what Bush didn't want to hear?

This is why Moveon.org decided to run the General Betray Us ad. We have been betrayed by our President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, etc throughout this entire war. Excuse them for being a little skeptical. In 2004, General Petraeus wrote an op-ed praising the successes in Iraq and the Iraqi military. Wrong. In addition, asking for a troop reduction is political. That is like a coach telling an owner that he can still win with a reduced player payroll.

Violence has fallen but that doesn't count car bombs and people shot in the front of the head according to the Washington Post. The ad was simply stating, let's not just assume what this guy says to be gospel. That's it. Was it the most respectful way of doing it? No, but it got everyone's attention. They got their money's worth and they got their talking points out.

Lastly, the ad never accused the general of betraying the country. The ad did read, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Notice the question mark. All they wanted the American people to do was to question the general's statement.

The Republicans were stupid to attack this ad because they gave Moveon more publicity. The ad planted a seed of doubt in Petraeus. We then found out that some troops had to come home anyway by next year. So what Petraeus proposed was nothing groundbreaking.

Hillary Clinton was wise to not condemn the ad. By condemning it, she would have risked alienating the anti-war movement of the country and 3.3 million Moveon members. If she doesn't please them, they may do something really stupid like vote for Ralph Nader again and hand the election to the Republicans. Number one rule in politics is that you don't eat your own. Hillary is smart enough to realize that it doesn't make political sense to agree with Sean Hannity.

The sad part about all of this war debate is that Bush ignores politics when fighting a war. By staying the course another year and claiming that the Iraq War will be like Korea where we have 30,000 troops fifty years later will do nothing but hand the election to Hillary. Hillary has promised to end the war. Therefore, any gains made now will be wiped out in 2009. If Bush began a significant troop withdraw, he could have taken the Iraq War off the table in the 2008 election and the Republicans might have a chance.

Iraq is going to be the number one issue come 2008 and with 70% of the country against it, I predict Democrats across the board will dominate the Republicans. Bush loves to claim that politics shouldn't influence war, but without political support, you can't win a war. Bush has tried hiding behind other generals and figureheads in his administration. But it doesn't matter what Petraeus thinks or if he was being honest, it only matters what the Commander in Chief thinks.

The Republicans want you to blame Moveon for being distasteful only to cover up the fact that there were no WMDs, no serious occupation planning, no exit strategy, no being greeted as liberators, 22 year olds running the Iraqi stock exchange, no sign of an Iraqi army, no reconciliation, no capture of Bin Laden, etc, etc, etc. Instead of blaming Moveon, we need to hold Bush and the people that refuse to challenge him accountable. To get any change in Iraq, we must wait until 08.

After typing this column, I noticed that the Senate voted to condemn the Moveon ad. I'm glad my tax dollars are paying the salaries of the Senators to comment on advertisements. The government in this country is broken.

Before I leave, I must point out that the ACLU now agrees with me that Larry Craig didn't do anything legally wrong and that you can't arrest someone for tapping their foot and going into a "wide stance."