Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:39:26 GMT

Thank you Moveon.org!

Your childish and very demeaning ad did more to keep the war against terrorist going then anything my side could have done.

Very good!
take some money out of petty cash and have a ice cream party on your Uncle George!

Now if they can just do something even more stupid to derail Hillary Clinton, it will be 4 more years of the GOP in the white house.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:46:03 GMT

The thing is these jackasses on the Right are such absolute hypocrites. Don't believe it? Listen to Limbaugh who attacks Edwards with the 'Breck Girl' insult. Or Mark Levin who refers to Hillary Clinton as 'Hillary Rotten Clinton aka Her Thighness'.

Now... I am going to gauge the basic intelligence of all of you here. What exactly is the difference between what MoveOn did and what those two talkers CONTINUE to do?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Bunny, Winston-Salem, NC — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:51:21 GMT

Well now---knock a brick off the chimney--Hillary being consistent, even firm, in her disdain for the military. Accusing a 4 star General of lying to Congress and by voting against the condemnation of the MoveOn (from Lewinsky)"Betray us" ad she has finally found something she is clear on.
And, just in passing, you folks who voted for it---MoveOn's response is an out and out threat. "NO SOUP FOR YOU."
Just what we need: a commander-in-chief who hates the military and answers to a mafia like mob. Great, just great.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Ben, Chicago IL — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:56:01 GMT

Every single senator that voted to 'condemn' or whatever this ad should be voted out of office. What a waste of time, condemning someone's opinions. If people need one more reason to vote most of these bums out of office, they sure got one.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

would anyone be surprised? — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:59:35 GMT

Join MoveOn and the koskids at ground zero where Ahmadinejad will lead them in a "Death to America" chant

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Diane, Grand Blanc, MI — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:02:30 GMT

Why didn't the Democratic leadership propose a non-binding resolution to denounce the Republican campaign when they swiftboated John Kerry from the presidency? Shame on you Democrats who voted against freedom of speech!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:12:08 GMT

bush's ss gestapo, oops I mean blackwater, will probably visit any Americans who tell the truth in the middle of the night and haul them away, after illegally wiretapping their phones, probably to cuba and no one will ever here from them(you and me) again.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

PJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:12:10 GMT

Wake up & smell the fascism.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

O.S. Moore — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:26:48 GMT

THE HAND OF GEORGE SORUS
Moveon.org is not a small band of Democrats stalwarts without even offices. It is the mouthpiece for multi-billionaire George Sorus and his personal agenda. Let's not forget the damage this foreign-born national has done to national ecomies with his ruthless currency speculation.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Grace, NY — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:26:57 GMT

Let see "all move on members didn't approve of the ad".

Go figure....Like Obama and Biden said. This was a game and they weren't playing...good for you guys

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

wayneTx — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:27:13 GMT

I own a Lincoln Navigator and I bet a lot of you liberals screeming about the war for oil own suv's also.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Tareli, Fuquay Varina NC — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:27:55 GMT

Hillary is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. If she had come out with the strong statement against Moveon, I can guarantee that her critics will say that she was still being insincere, being a political opportunist to get involved in the headline news and to rub some Petraeus honor onto her self, pandering to the military, flip-flopping on the Iraq withdrawal issue. Her critics won't appreciate her even if she bothered to stand up for Petraeus, meantime, she risks offending a large group of Moveon supporters. What would she get in return, a very very insignificant number of people who are willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was sincerely supporting Petraeus.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Stevie Nichts, Crabapple Cove, Maine — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:36:22 GMT

The difference, M. Boley, is that Limbaugh and Levin are talking heads, not activists. They don't claim to speak for all Republicans, and certainly don't tell them how to vote.

Compare and contrast: MoveOn brags that it "bought" and "owns" the Democratic Party, and as the NY Times reports, "Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups [including MoveOn.org] gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate" to issue the day's marching orders.

Oh, and Republicans don't libel our military commanders. So much for the left's claim that they 'support the troops.'

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

George — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:41:33 GMT

So republicans and democrats found something they could pass, a non-binding resolution condemning a newspaper ad.

I applaud the brave democratic senators who crossed the aisle to cower before the threat yet again by the party that failed to plan for the post-war occupation, whose only plan for the insurgency was to deny it existed, whose only solution for the ensuing civil war was to deny IT existed, who failed to provide adequate force, adequate armor, adequate rest, (and most damning of all) adequate care to our wounded and maimed heroes, of being against the troops.

A special kudos to senator Obama, who chose to stand on the sidelines, playing politics while using that calculation as his excuse. I predict that He will regret this as much if not more than anything else during this campaign.

To the twenty plus democrats who voted with the monolithic republican bloc, shame on you. You exemplify the lack of resolve and courage of conviction that has marked much of the past 6 1/2 years and why the republicans continue to rule the roost, despite being the minority party.

The party that has done more to weaken our military and put our brave men and women of the armed forces in harm's way, (the majority for multiple combat tours) for a war of choice, begun under false pretenses, without hope of resolution, in a quagmire of a civil war, has again won the only kind of victory they have been able to achieve, a propaganda win in a war of words, over my cowardly party.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:42:51 GMT

GEORGE BUSH HAS BETRAYED US.COM

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

John L, Spokane WA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:44:15 GMT

What a bunch of stupid baby whinning. Its Bush this & Bush that. Bush sat on a tuffit and ate the cat. Every thing wrong in your liberal life is Bush's fault. Talk about needing to "Move on", you liberal whinners need a dose of WWII blood and guts for a reality check.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Garwin Meler — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:44:26 GMT

> What exactly is the difference between what MoveOn
> did and what those two talkers CONTINUE to do?

Moveon owns the Democratic party. The Democrats do not make a move without asking Moveon what to do. Moveon is funding many of the Democrats campaigns, so they are beholden to what Moveon desires. Moveon has said that they "own" the Democratic party. This appears to be true.

Levin and Limbaugh do not own the Republican party. Neither is a donor to any Republican campaigns, at least not at the level that Moveon and Soros sponser the Democrats. No one in the Republican party consults with either of these two as to be told what to do next. Unlike Moveon, both Levin and Limbaugh are critical of the party they support when they feel it has strayed from the values they believe in. Moveon won't be critical of the Democrats because they control the Democrats.

> Now... I am going to gauge the basic intelligence
> of all of you here.

Looks to be much higher then what you are producing.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:46:28 GMT

Enough with the feigned outrage. Maligning service men was perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the Republicans when it was anyone running against them ( John McCain, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Max Cleland)
If I remember correctly, they pretty much mocked every purple heart recipient with band-aids. Where was the outrage then?

The "right" has been wrong on every facet of Iraq, from WMD's to Al Qaeda to flowers to "mission accomplished" to "last throes" to the eternal "six more months" making the difference. General Pataeus' testimony somehow contradicts every other government report concerning Iraq.

UN inspections kept WMD's out of Saddam's hands and cost about 100 million a year. We've been spending 4 BILLION a WEEK on Bush's "solution" to that problem, for years now.

Who is betraying the American people? I think I know.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:48:05 GMT

Stevie Nichts, where on earth do you get your "facts"? Every statement you made is a lie.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Tony Childress Sylva NC — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:50:45 GMT

Ad agency/client ignorance. Message should have read:
"GENERAL PETRAEUS, GENERALS BETRAY US...WHEN THEY FAIL TO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER."
Pound the policy, not those charged with prosecuting it. Wise use of the language allows all of the message with none of the meanness. Doofus decision to run the ad as was...slightly more doofus is the Democrat leadership consistently outmaneuvered in the politics of this stupid war.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Pacheck, Huntington Beach, Ca. — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:53:28 GMT

Everybody should be able to say anything about anything and everybody should be able to hear or read about it. Yes, this means that even the whiners and cry-babies have a forum in which to cry and moan. Is this not what freedom is about?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:54:45 GMT

Well, Stevie, Limbaugh and Levin ARE activists in a sense. They are the ones who implore their listeners to deluge the House and Senate switchboards with phone calls and e-mails. They have more influence than you think. Remember what Trent Lott said about talk radio after the immigration fiasco?

And their comments and name-calling are disgusting too. You say that Republicans don't libel our military commanders. Perhaps that is true. But conservative talkers routinely slander those who disagree with them and yet there are no calls for them to be called out for it. It's AOK for Ann Coulter to call Al Gore a 'total fag' but outrageous for MoveOn to parody a General's name? That is laughable!

So, again, why the double standard? And how about this: what if MoveOn decided to use an actual quote from Petraeus's superior, Admiral Fallon, in the ad instead? Admiral Fallon called Petraeus an 'ass-kissing little chickenshit'. What say you on that? Should the Admiral be trashed too? Why hasn't he been since that quote is on the record?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

jeani o, saint inigoes, md — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:55:22 GMT

Dear Ben from Chicago - Couldn't agree with you more. I was so incensed about this freakin' waste of time that I wrote my congressmen last night to tell them that I was ashamed of them. They should have followed Obama's example.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:57:30 GMT

As usual, Wayne comes in here with a complete non sequitur. No-one here is talking about Lincoln Navigators, SUVs, and oil.

Oh, it's 'screaming' not 'screeming'.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Joe Einloth — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:01:29 GMT

Obviously, Mama Petraeus never cautioned little David about associating with bad companions.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:02:15 GMT

Why is it that conservatives are incapable of discussing the subject at hand? They have to bring up Soros, the Iranian president, and mythical conference calls rather than discuss the very clear subject here.

Is it offensive to suggest a military leader might not act in the best interests of the American people?

Is it offensive then to suggest a man who was a POW is mentally unstable, that a medal-winning wounded vet might have faked his own wounds, or that a man who sacrficed three limbs in Vietnam should be grouped with terrorists?

Be careful, folks, the cracks are showing.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

jerry/corpus christi texas — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:05:24 GMT

No Liberal can say they support the troops with a straight face after that ad.

If you loved my Vietnam/Iraq difference, you'll love my last post on the subject yesterday.

Enjoy your weekend.
Do something with your family instead of protesting and getting tasered this weekend.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

William Rety Spokane WA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:08:38 GMT

Advice to people engaging in discussion with MBoley. Don't waste your keystrokes. Just dug through the posts for the last day or so, and read some of his/her stuff. At best, he/she converses on the level of a high school sophomore.

Here's a little advice MBoley. If you think you are smarter then everyone else, you're not.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Class Warrior, D.C. — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:15:08 GMT

SHAME ON ALL DEMOCRATICS WHO WENT ALONG WITH THIS BOGUS REPUBLICAN PUBLICITY STUNT/DIVERSION FROM THE FAILED WAR IN IRAQ AND VOTED TO CONDEMN MOVE ON. AND, YES, I AGREE, HAD THE DEMS HAD THE BALLS, THEY SHOULD HAVE VOTED A RESOLUTION DONEMNING THE SWIFTBOATING AD AND THE RACIST AD IN THE FORD SENATE CAMPAIGN ("CALL ME, WINK, WINK") PREPUBLICANS ARE SLIMEMEISTERS WHO wILL STOOP AT NOTHING TO RUN THEIR OWN OUTRAGEOUS ADS, AND NOW THEY WANT TO CONDEMN ONE THEY DON'T LIKE, BECAUSE IT "INSULTS" A GENERAL WHO IS NOTHING BUT A CLACK FOR BUSH.
ABAIN, SHAME ON THE DEMS WHO VOTED TO CONDEMN THE AD. TO ME, THEY'VE BETRAYED THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Dennis, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:25:08 GMT

Why is it OK for Republicans to run attack ads like this but the moment some non-republican group does, then it is somehow wrong. Republicans shamelessly did this to war veteran John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, they currently do it by manipulating disfigured war veterans to garner support for their lie based war and they will do it again and again. Give it up Republicans, the people of the USA are no longer buying your cheap attempts to twist perceptions about your war and your further attempts to manipulate the impressionable minds of this nation who like to be told what to think. Your quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand mentality has been exposed and all your attacks against those who oppose you only further expose your personal greed and hypocrisy.

In retrospect, I'm surprised that the common ordinary US citizen would even care about the Moveon.org Petraues ad. We all knew that General Petraues was going to write his own speech, in his own words, saying exactly all the things that he knew the Bush administration wanted to hear in a form that sounded acceptable to all republican politicians. The very fact that these Bush sycophants in the republican party got some of the spineless democrats to side with them in their wasteful republican efforts to condemn the MoveOn.org add clearly shows that these democrats are no different then these dysfunctional republican politicians. They both only value the interests of the rich minority of the nation, the interests of large corporations and votes in swing states as opposed to standing for their oath to the US Constitution, truth, the facts & doing the moral right thing by the people of the USA. McCain and all Republican politicians should be ashamed of themselves for their self-serving conduct all throughout the Bush administration as it is clear that they are not of, for or by the people.

If these spineless rich republican chicken hawks want their war so much, they should start funding it themselves instead of strapping the wasteful war debt on the backs of middle and lower class children for the next several generations. If these spineless republican chicken hawks really think that their illegal unconstitutional war was and is justified, then they should send their young college republican sociopath offspring to go fight their war. They all claim to be for war but always claim to be too busy to join the military and fight in it. Its time that they put their money where their mouths are by enlisting in the military and going to Iraq to be part of the Bush / Cheney / PNAC occupation of Iraq for oil.

MoveOn.org should be commended for their willingness to present the facts and stand up for the truth. Apparently, the Republican Party has not changed for the better and still has the very same unstable mindset of their vicious pseudo-conservative, quasi-Taliban mouthpieces like Ann Coulter who speak at their fund raising efforts. The appealing part about being like these viscous mouthpieces who attack MoveOn.org is the fact that it allows them to think that they are superior to others and further promote hate and war mongering within the masses. The sad reality to being one of these sociopaths is the fact that they usually cannot find anything filthier then their own personal reflection. When they are confronted with that reality, they always resort to the same cheap tactic over and over which is to rally their chicken hawks, hate mongers & vicious mouth pieces to make up lies against those who expose their sins. Very predictable…

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Roy, Charlotte, NC — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:28:22 GMT

It is hard to believe that members of congress could stoop any lower or fall any deeper into the gutter but somehow they find a way everytime. There are issues of life and death still on the table and precious time is wasted voting on a political ad. What a sorry precedent to set for what used to be the world's greatest legislative body. My last word on the subject is that it is not only the 435 members who are to blame but majority of lazy and, often, stupid voters who put them there. What's wrong with America is not the Congress. The Congress is just a mirror. What's wrong with America is Americans.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:28:31 GMT

Jerry, I am a liberal, and I have a straight face.

I come from a military family.
I support the troops.
I do not support this war, or the current Republican Administration.

Does Centcom Chief Admiral Fallon support the troops?

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that.”

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:29:15 GMT

Ah, that's rich, William. You're doing the same thing that those AM radio talkers are doing - when people bring up cogent arguments and FACTS you just shout them down with ad hominems. Your post didn't contribute anything of substance here.

Now... who's the smarter one again...?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:33:05 GMT

Explain this, Garwin, since you seem to be 'on top of things' here. Why did Bush have a meeting with the leading Righty talkers at the White House? What was that all about? Was that 'consultation' or was it another one of those idiotic 'rah-rah' pep rallies?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Amy B Portland, ME — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:34:05 GMT

Republicans have had a lock on the media so long they are unaccustomed to reading something in the MSM they find offensive. Over the last six years I started boycotting ABC after it became apparent their political blog, The Note, had a right wing bias. I got up and turned off CBS News the night I heard Rush Limbaugh's voice on it, and I haven't watched Katie again. I stopped reading Time since their only "liberal" columnist was the Bush bootlickig Joe Klein. Funny, I've never heard of a Congressional vote decrying Ann Coulter's assertion the Vietnam War was lost because the soldiers then were losers. I suggest the Republicans get in their "free market" mode and learn to turn off media they find offensive, rather than expecting thhe government to punish those with whom they disagree. What do you guys want, a nanny state?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:34:13 GMT

Actually, William, MBoley seems to have a pretty good handle on facts.
It would be nice if you could point out his inaccuracies rather than simply insult him. THAT is a high school sophomore debate tactic.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

nuanced — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:34:26 GMT

wayneTx, I drive a 2002 Toyota Prius. What is your point? Are you saying we have Iraqi blood on our hands in proportion to the oil we consume? You may be right.

Hi jerry, support the troops, bring them home. Enjoy your weekend too. Wear earplugs at those NASCAR events and save your hearing.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Joe Einloth — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:42:28 GMT

World War II blood & guts, John L? Were you there? Have you served at all? Otherwise, I can see you're behind the troops, alright - about 7,000 miles behind them!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Thanks Mark — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:02:11 GMT

"Victory means exit strtegy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what that exit strategy is."==

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."--Gov. G.W. bush(R)-TX

gov. G.W. bush

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Justine Gage, Chicago IL — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:08:41 GMT

M.Boley seems to have an inferiority complex.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Beachdog, Coasting — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:10:28 GMT

MoveOn.org has a right to say anything they want say. I, in turn, have a right to say that the ad they ran in the NY Times was one of the most despicable peices of crap I have ever seen. Without men like Petraeus there would be no freedom of speech, no First read, no United States of America. Perhaps George Souros and his MoveOn morons would prefer to live under Sharia Law? Perhaps they would like to MoveOn to Tehran and run an ad such as this about Ahmenidejad, or the Grand Ayatollah? Perhaps many who support MoveOn are just Bush haters who really don't take the time to totally think through their positions? Like the Dean of Columbia University, who has banned the ROTC and the founder of the Minuteman Project from the Columbia U campus, but has extended a gracious invitation to Ahmenidejad. You guys just won't be happy until this nation is completely socialist, will you?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Ian G, Bellevue, NE — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:12:35 GMT

Guess what folks? All this anger/hate coming from both sides of the argument will be the down fall of this country... Enjoy the ride!

Rather than complain, go and DO something good for your neighbor...

Peace,

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:13:14 GMT

No wonder Congress' ratings are lower than ever. They waste their time condemning free speech in a country who has a Constitution which is based on it; they vote to fund a war the majority of them are either against or have deep reservations toward how it has been run; they hold hearings to find out answers and spend most of their time pontificating rather then asking questions; and, they spend more time raisng money from those who give them money to get elected than they spend with the people who actually vote to elect them. We have the best government money can buy and we just keep paying and paying for mediocrity and incompetence when we should demand more. That we as Americans have not given the reins of this country over to the best and the brightest amazes me. Instead we have been led by the mediocre and the moronic for the past eight years. We have done this to ourselves and while we may blame one politician or another for the mess we're in, we really only have ourselves to blame. Instead of demanding the Republicans or Democrats take responsibilty for their actions, we should put the blame where it really belongs; on us. Time for a change. Everyone seems to aplaud the courage of the troops for doing their duty, why can't we have the courage to do our duty here at home and vote for people who understand the complexities of the problems facing us today instead of voting for people who have one line answers which don't solve a thing.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Laurie, Manasquan, NJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:16:26 GMT

Hey Jerry, Since when is protesting or exercising free speech something that should get you tasered? I thought we lived in a land where free speech and free expression were honored. Isn't that what we're supposed to be fighting for over in Iraq...freedom for the Iraq people? Or is it freedom for only those of us that think like you? You should be applauding those of us who exercise our right to protest not mock it. And Jerry, do you think it's okay to taser a 21 year old kid who is at a political rally excercising his right to question one of our leaders?...you think that's good? If someone doesn't agree with you, you think they should be tasered???? You don't belong in this country, sir. I'll tell you this, you are more disgusting than any ad expressing freedom of thought could ever be.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Laurie, Manasquan, NJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:17:46 GMT

Oh, by the way Jerry, have a nice weekend.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:20:12 GMT

Here's why MoveOn is important.

The mainstream media has no problems showing Bush atop the rubble of the WTC with a bullhorn.

It took Michael Moore to show the footage of Bush reading a children's book for long minutes after being told we were under attack.

The mainstream media has no problems showing Cheney stating emphatically that "I never said that.

It took Jon Stewart to run the clips of Cheney making that statement along with the clip of him saying what he claimed he didn't say.

The mainstream media has no problems labeling anyone who claims the Iraq war was about oil as "far-left" or "extreme"

But they fail to admit their bias when Alan Greenspan says “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

The media has failed in it's job. We need the alternative voices, even when they something we don't like.

Move On's stand have consistently proven to be correct.
The other side of the political spectrum has been consistently wrong about every single issue concerning Iraq.

I know where I stand.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Herm Teuch, Boston — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:25:03 GMT

Laurie in NJ: Hey Jerry, Since when is protesting or exercising free speech something that should get you tasered?

Kerry thought there was nothing wrong with it. If it's good with him, it's good with me. Most exciting thing that has happened to John in 20 years.

Democratic rally cry for their convention - "Don't Taser Me Bro'!" They should have the kid do their keynote speech.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

R Stein, Memphis TN — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:28:01 GMT

MK //I know where I stand.

With the rest of the left-wing moon-bats.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:31:29 GMT

Here's how the Republicans "support the troops" and follow the advice of the military-

Military personel to google:

Anthony Zinni
Eric Shinseki
Karen Kwiatkowski
Charles Pritchard
Major John Carr
Major Robert Preston
Captain Carrie Wolf
Colonel Douglas Macgregor

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:41:25 GMT

Justine, I see facts and opinion in his posts, no sign of an inferiority complex.

In your post, though, I only see an ad hominem attack.

The usual rightwing debate techniques are ad hominems, changing the subject, conflating unrelated issues, and finally, when all else fails, "cutting off the mike."

It's actually kind of fun to watch, once you recognize the pattern.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:57:59 GMT

"The usual rightwing debate techniques are ad hominems, changing the subject, conflating unrelated issues, and finally, when all else fails, "cutting off the mike."

That about sums it up.

The reasons are simple: they do not have any legitimate arguments so they act like the insecure bullies they are. When you bring in logic and facts to the discussion they get flustered and then they resort to the muzzling tactics as a pathetic 'save face' measure.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:01:18 GMT

This is nothing but phony outrage, especially in light of the $26M Freedom's Watch ad campaign saying we must stay in Iraq because "they" attacked us on 9/11 and will do it again if we stop fighting. Since there were no Iranians on the airliners and al Quaeda had no operations in Iraq at that time, who are "they"? Persian rugs? Minarets? We've destroyed plenty of those. At least we're distracted from unimportant matters, such as the hated Blackwater once again pouring their mercenaries into Iraqi streets and that we're on track to lose almost 80 soldiers this month vs 72 last September. Current American death toll 3794.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Amy B Portland, ME — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:08:09 GMT

Right on MK! And thanks for the list of military officers the Republicans have fired, smeared or ignored. Lets not forget the military veterans they have insulted, Senator Webb, Rep.Murtha, General Wesley Clark, and Sen Kerry. Republicans are hypocrites.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Patti L., Springfield, IL — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:08:11 GMT

"Everybody should be able to say anything about anything and everybody should be able to hear or read about it. Yes, this means that even the whiners and cry-babies have a forum in which to cry and moan. Is this not what freedom is about?
Pacheck, Huntington Beach, Ca. (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 10:53 AM)"

This statement is pure, unadulterated common-sense!!
Want proof that most people don't have any? Watch how many disagree with the premise. Remember, it doesn't matter what you say or what you think, someone will be offended...it's the American Way!

p.s. Of course, you can't yell "FIRE" in a public place!! (COMMON SENSE)

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Beachdog, Coasting — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:10:34 GMT

George Souros' stated goal is to "bring down facist America." He wants a one-Worldgovernment, where all decisions are made by the UN. He has said so in no uncertain terms many times. He wants heavy taxation of the "wealthy", a sort of take from the rich, give to the poor menatality. Yet, little of his money is in the US, or even his native country. The vast majority of his assets are in offshore accounts and is untaxable. He is an America-hating hypocrite. This is the man many of you support while claiming to speaking in the best interest of the USA. If Souros has his way there will be no USA. Go ahead then, give him your money. Help him spread his propoganda. help him destroy the United States of America. Who is the Betrayer? Souros, not Petraeus. Souros supporters, not Petraeus. If you give one dime to MoveOn.org it is you who is the betrayer. Very few, if any of you know what the situation on the ground in Iraq is. You have a position, an agenda you want pushed forward. You ignore any evidence that hinders that agenda and continue to spout the propoganda fed to you by liars. You are Kool-aid drinkers. You have zero evidence to back the claims made against General Petraeus. Yet there is evidence to back his report. You are selling out your country to a man who wants to bring it down. Souros is no different than Ahmenidejad or Bin-Laden. They all hate the US and want to see it laid to waste. You are aiding them in their mad quest.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

jorge — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:17:22 GMT

Moveon.org did nothing to apologize for. Democrats are weaklings and republicans, sad to say, are just stupid.

Petraeus has no integrity. He's a disgrace to the uniform he has the nerve to wear. He's about as close to a traitor as you can get without being charged for it.

General B., sir, you are supposed to be a military man. You are supposed to be nonpartisan. You are supposed to care about the welfare of your troops and the security of your country. Instead, you have shamelessly thrown all that out the window to become not a only a politician but a mouthpiece for a man whose policies you don't actually respect or agree with.

You're insisting we stay in Iraq. You don't care how many soldiers die. You just want to be famous. You want to be the "war general" to Bush's "war president" stupidity. You know the military is out of soldiers and that this surge cannot be maintained but instead of admitting this and alerting the people of the coutnry you claim to serve, you have swept it under the rug on Bush's orders. You state that some troops should come home but it amounts to nothing other than for Bush to cry crocodile tears that this is happening because of liberals opposing the war nopt because of his profound incompetence and lack of anything resembling intelligence.

Your assessment of the situation in Iraq is as shamelessly phony as your pretense of being some kind of military genius. You look, talk and act pretty stupid to be honest.

That you would willingly allow Bush to use you as his hand puppet so that he can make himself look like the military are his buddies and colleagues is not only disgraceful on your part but there is going to come a time in the future, sir, after we have been chased out of Iraq that the public will scream for your blood. When that happens, just remember that you brought it on yourself with your outrageous behavior.

You, sir, have betrayed the American people, you have betrayed the military and you have betrayed your own principles--assuming you ever had any, which I strongly doubt. You are indeed General Betrayus.

Bush makes a bunch of nonsensical noise about "conditions of the ground dictating the policy instead of Washington politics" as if all antiwar people are screaming for withdrawal just because they want to see us lose--as though we stand on the brink of victory but the damned liberals are keeping us from claiming it. The reason we want a withdrawal IS because of conditions on the ground--WHICH ARE TERRIBLE!!

What have you done about it, general? Nothing other than carrying out a policy that a military like yourself should recognize is...uhh...fatally flawed, shall we say? In a year or so, nobody on this planet will ever again call you a genius. I could call you a few things but genius is definitely not one of them.

And remember, if you continue to lie to the American people, there will be no crawling back under that rock that Bush found you cowering beneath before he made you his favorite sock puppet. In a few more months you will be giving the American people a new long-awaited speech--the "It Wasn't My Fault" speech. But here's the lowdown, general: it is.

Now, get out of my face. I think I hear Bush yelling about his shoes not being polished enough. I believe that's your cue.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Doug Clarke, Chicago, Il — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:27:50 GMT

If you hide behind a general, as Bush is doing with Petraeus, you bring him into the political arena. All this outrage by the right, while they stymie a bill that would allow the decent men and women of our armed forces a break from battle equal in length to the time they were fighting for OUR COUNTRY in Iraq and Afganistan. This argument by the Republicans, is just another stupid smokescreen to hide their total disregard for the brave troops fighting a senseless war as best they can against overwhelming odds!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Justine Gage, Chicago IL — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:29:35 GMT

---> I see facts and opinion in his posts

Typical left wing, spoon feed, moveon, regurgitated spew.

Let me guess, you also see dead people.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

George Washington — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:30:55 GMT

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Thomas Jefferson — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:31:28 GMT

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Abraham Lincoln — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:31:56 GMT

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Eleanor Roosevelt — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:32:22 GMT

We do not move forward by curtailing people’s liberty because we are afraid of what they may do or say.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Dwight D. Eisenhower — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:33:06 GMT

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Houston — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:34:04 GMT

According to our Fearless Decide, G.W. Bush, Saddam killed Nelson Mandela! But Mandela apparently hasn't been informed of his demise as of yet. And people used to wonder if Reagan was senile during his presidency. He was a genius compared to Duhbya. Is it any wonder that Iraq is such an unmitigated disaster with an ignorant jerk like Bush running it?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Laurie, Manasquan, NJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:44:05 GMT

Herm - I'm not condoning Kerry's lack of a spine. He should have told the police to leave the kid alone. But he said nothing and for that I have lost all respect for him as both a Democrat and a leader. But everyone here should condem the action of the police on that kid. Everyone of us here should stand up for our right to free speech and the right to dissent. It's the bedrock of our country and the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. Unless you and Jerry want to amend the Constitution to say only certain speech is acceptable. Is that what I'm hearing you say?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Ricardo in California — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:47:29 GMT

RIGHT ON! MOVE ON!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Laurie, Manaquan, NJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:49:20 GMT

R Stein - Memphis...The only moon bats around here are the intellectually small, narrow minded, bigoted, hateful ones who don't believe in rights for anyone but themselves.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Joe Einloth — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:53:39 GMT

Nah, Justine. But we sure see BRAIN dead wingnuts!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK, Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:11:01 GMT

>>Typical left wing, spoon feed, moveon, regurgitated spew.

Ad Hominem attack.

>>Let me guess, you also see dead people.

Changing the subject/conflating unrelated issues.

Is this all you've got Justine?
(Next up: "Shut up! Shut up! Cut off his mike!")

You have yet to counter any fact or opinion with any form of reasoning. I really wish the educational system in this country was better.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Benjamin Franklin — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:11:02 GMT

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

The Lone Star State — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:12:01 GMT

Iraq.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:14:51 GMT

Justine, why can't you contribute anything of substance here? Is that the best you can do... hurl more nonsensical trash and personal attacks? You can do better than that... or can you?

Once again I see that the basic Rightwing method of discourse is seriously lacking in the 'substance' area. When people (such as our friend Justine) resort to cheap shots and unfunny mockery then the intelligent among us can easily see that they are lost confused souls who are foundering at sea with no dry land in sight.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK, Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:18:50 GMT

>>The only moon bats around here are the intellectually small, narrow minded, bigoted, hateful ones who don't believe in rights for anyone but themselves.

Ad Hominem attack.

Laurie, I disagree with your conclusions. We'll leave the analysis of my intellectual size aside for the moment.

I see a large group of people quoting facts and statistics and defending people's freedom of speech,mostly politely.

I also see a small group of people insulting them.

If you have something to contribute to the conversation besides insults, I'd be happy to hear it.
I do have a question for you, though.
Does your patriotism extend to all of America, or does it stop at the borders of the Republican Party?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:19:07 GMT

Perhaps the 'cheap shot hurlers' here can pause and closely examine the Presidential quotes that have been posted. Of course, take your time as they can be a challenge to comprehend if your brain has been contaminated with the rhetoric from the likes of lousy AM Righty talkers.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Laurie, Manasquan, NJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:19:46 GMT

I understand that MoveOn has been swamped with e-mails thanking them for speaking out and asserting their right to free speech. In fact since the vote in Congress the donations have been pouring in. They have raised $500,000 from Americans who agree that we've been lied to again and again about this war and the reasons we are really there. Looks like the Republican's sleezy little tactic is about to backfire. So much for the attempt at censurship.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Laurie, Manasquan, NJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:21:46 GMT

M. Boley - I couldn't have said it any better....no substance whatsoever.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Mike Johnson — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:25:38 GMT

I’ve certainly found most of the comments entertaining but scary too. When you stop exerting the enormous amounts of time and energy fighting about whose left wing or right wing, liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, rich or poor, you might start thinking about what’s really important. Life… While we argue about nonsense, no matter what your political position is, our friends and family are dying. Dead is dead and death is final. Whose friend or family will die next? If we don’t do something to stop the killing, we are just as guilty as if we pulled the trigger ourselves. I don’t pretend to speak for anyone but myself and I believe GOD is watching… Ian G, you’re on to something.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Houston — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:26:05 GMT

I wonder why Congress hasn't passed a bill condemning Petraeus' boss, Admiral Fallon, who reportedly called Petraeus an a**-kissing chicken-s*** sycophant.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

At least when MoveOn Called Petraeus "General Betrayus," it was not using language unsuitable for younger or more sensitive viewers.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK, Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:26:27 GMT

And Beachdog, it's Soros, not Souros. He's conributed 5 million to MoveOn, but does not own it or run it.

He also contributed 3 million annually to the Solidarity movement in Poland since 1979, helping bring down Soviet rule there.

Your "quote" seems to be about about bringing down fascism, not America. I'd love a link to where he said that, I can't find it. He also has been involved in some questionable trading practices.

I'd suggest doing research before ranting. It's easy these days - if you can post, you can do a google search.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Roger, Oakland CA — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:28:50 GMT

Guys: MK and M. have it correctly: when these guys bring up tasers and SUV's...steer the debate back to Iraq. Ignore the ad hominem attacks, post evidence, and expose their fallacies.

This will never be an even argument. Like Bush's idea of compromise (gimme a bill I can sign), wingnuts are not interested in debate or enlightenment. You're challenging their world-view, and they don't like it.

Ignore these guys...your target should always be the centrists...those who don't drink the Kool Aid and are capable of listening.

As Justine notes above: seeing facts and opinion is "spew." How can you have an intelligent debate with reasoning like that?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Nancy Craft, Crossville TN — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:30:15 GMT

I joined MoveOn early in the skirmish to save our constitution. They're young and they're feisty. If our country is to survive torture, timeless prison camps and endless war for oil for the wealthy, we need to back MoveOn and others of similar courage.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:31:29 GMT

"Is this all you've got Justine?
(Next up: "Shut up! Shut up! Cut off his mike!")"

LOL!

Yeah. And then after that... "Just give him the Taser! That's right, just give it to him, give it to him, give it to him, make him compliant, make him a sheep, make him an unthinking robot, make him smooch Bush's ass, make him stupid, just give it to him! Now!" BZZZZZ!!!

LMAO...

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:34:14 GMT

Why is it that all the intelligent sayings and snippets of wisdom come from our leaders of the past? Hmmmmmmm

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK, Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:36:50 GMT

Hi Laurie, I'm sorry, I misinterpreted on of your posts. Reading too fast, I guess.
We're on the same side!

And a tip of the hat to M. Boley.

All they have are lies and intimidation. We just use the truth.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK, Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:40:28 GMT

I wish these posted faster.
Again, I apologize to Laurie.
My bad.

I think we've effectively spanked the conservatives.
They've fallen silent.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Laurie, Manasquan, NJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:51:19 GMT

MK Los Angeles, I have contributed to the debate here. You just haven't been listening....must be that small, closed mind I've been speaking about. Again, I'm not attacking your patriotism, I'm attacking your denial of the patriotism that others have that just don't agree with you.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Laurie, Manasquan, NJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:54:40 GMT

MK - Sorry, but I thought you were one of those small minded people that post here. Glad we're on the same side. You know it's all that passion..LOL!!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:58:32 GMT

"All they have are lies and intimidation. We just use the truth."

This purty much sums up the thread.

Now... I would like to see a challenge from 'the other side' on this but I fear it would just be more of the usual tired "you HATE America" tripe.

Facts, logic, intelligence, rational discourse, respect, compromise... THOSE are what's needed to pull this country out of this nightmare. I'm sick and tired of all the fearmongering and paranoia, the 'gotta look behind your back' mentality, and the official lies from the Administration. Looking back, I really believe that all those 'terror alerts' that put the 'spectrum' into our living rooms each night were just political stunts designed to intimidate people into voting for more of the same. How many of those 'alerts' had any real substance to them? Seems to me that it was the worst sort of political manipulation.

Hate to break it to ya, Righties, but I am more intelligent than that. I can see right through that charade for the scam that it really is. Just because Dick Cheney can commandeer a podium and parrot the "terrorists are out there to get us" line time and time again does not make it factually accurate. They will get us if they are determined enough... you cannot stop every single threat. And after all, this is coming from the guy who said that Iraq would basically be a cakewalk. We know the rest of the story.

Another thing - I find it interesting that the word 'hate' is used so much by people on the Right. Perhaps, just perhaps, they are simply projecting their own weaknesses upon us.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Mark Thieme — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:59:31 GMT

Welcome back Darren!! Afraid to use your old wrinkled name?

How goes the yard irrigation industry?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK, Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:02:29 GMT

Thanks for replying, I was feeling really bad about my mistake!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Class Warrior, D.C. — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:22:10 GMT

The Repugnants support the troops by voting down a measure to give them a year's rest between their endless and innumerable deployments. They support the troops by giving them substandard care at Walter Reed. They support the troops by telling the people responsible for giving disability benefits at the VA to give as few and little as possible. They support the troops and their families by lying about Tillman as long as they could get away with it. If this is support, I'd hate to see what neglect looks like!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:48:34 GMT

Dark clouds will pass shadows over tinted eyes.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Jethro Black Gold — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:22:08 GMT

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Friday, September 21, 2007 11:05 AM)

Rather a silly statement...but ENJOY! While the sun is shining and the Saudis arrive to save Texas oil.
Is this "Beverly Hillbilly" time, again?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

nuanced — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:49:17 GMT

Hey Mark Thieme, which one is Darren? Do you mean from MB,SC?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Derek Fort Smith, AR — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:56:43 GMT

What's the difference between Mark Levin, or Rush, and Moveon.org asks M Boley? Simple. The first two are entertainers... granted they are entertainers who say what a lot of conservatives (yes, Hillarious, there really IS a vast right wing conspiracy your Thighness) are thinking. Do I vote based on Rush's recommendations? No. Occasionally, he flames somebody I agree with, or takes the opposite side of an issue from me. Am I personally insulted? No. However Moveon.org is not entertainment, they hold themselves out as a serious voice in the political process. Since I'm also a veteran, even though I don't like Army officers, I'll be d*mned if I'll let some liberal organization take potshots at them.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

fiji — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:57:10 GMT

pride comes before a fall. never seen so much arrogance in one place before.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

tahiti — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:25:09 GMT

ignorance is bliss

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Mark Thieme — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:27:00 GMT

Fiji:
I always thought a summer came before a fall... you know the leaves turning and all?

And I thought Pride was some kind of wood polish... what d'ya know?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

M. Boley — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:34:57 GMT

Well, Derek, you can bet your ass that the listeners of those shows take everything the talkers say seriously. And THAT is the issue: these talkers spout opinions but frame them as facts which is incorrect. Opinions are not facts.

And the name-calling (Her Thighness) is just flat-out ridiculous. These radio hacks act as if they haven't graduated from elementary school. Same thing can be said about their devoted listeners and believers too. About as sophisticated as uneducated dimwits who gets off on pranking people with Whoopie Cushions.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

PJ — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:47:04 GMT

It was absolutely wrong for the General to be put in the position he was. Unprecedented, a line between military and partisan gov't was crossed that simply is NOT to be crossed. It was a given that someone would take a "pot shot". Shoot low sherrif he's ridin a shetland.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

lets think — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:03:47 GMT

Roy wake up it was the senate, not the house. The Senetors were doing what you guys tell them to every day. Listening to the people they represent.Evidently they recieved more phone calls on this than they do from the "vast" majority of Americans that want to surrender now. Attacking a life long soldier is different than attacking a politician. Every man or women wearing the uniform deserves a certain amount of respect. If they betray the honor of the uniform then they should be delt with harshly. The ad ran before the General said anything. It was written and ran to tarnish this mans service and honor. Im sure the people at move on have no idea what honor is. If in fact they could prove that he lied then ran the ad with those facts it would have been recieved differently. They hate the military. They hate anything to do with American pride. They have taken over the Dem party. This will not sit well with blue dog Dems. Not all Dems are way way left. We have a Dem congressman from Oklahoma that can not get elected on a move-on platform. There are several from other states as well. This is why the Dem controlled congress cant get anything done.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Derek Fort Smith AR — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:03:48 GMT

I disagree... not everybody who listens to Rush or Hannity, or any of the other right-wingers marches in lock-step. Example, I love Dubya, but in 2000 I supported Alan Keyes, and I still believe he was the better candidate. As for calling HillBilly names, I'm from Arkansas, I'll do as I please... those two have caused us a lot of misery here. And lest you think I'm just another "dittohead" I'll give props to our current Dem Gov Beebe. The guy is a great one, he's almost reversed all of the damage former RINO governor and now GOP nominee wannabe Hucksterbee (there I go with the namecalling again) in just a few months. You see, it's not about hating the Clintons, it's about understanding the damage they did here in Arkansas and nationally, and saying "NO MORE". Incidentally, I'll probably vote in the primary for Obama, because he reminds me of Reagan. Darn it, better go get my vest after that comment... oh, and my whoopie cushion - it's Friday night and I'm feeling impish!

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Stevie Nichts — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:26:28 GMT

> Stevie Nichts, where on earth do you get your "facts"?
> Every statement you made is a lie.
> MK Los Angeles

Google says you're the liar.

The AP reported on 12/09/2004: Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

The NY Times quote is here: www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/washington/06left.html

Connect the dots, MK. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Stevie Nichts — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:30:43 GMT

No, M. Boley, Limbaugh and Levin don't conference-call with the GOP leadership (you did read the NY Times article?) and tell them what to do. And while I don't condone name-calling, your MoveOn ad rises to the level of libel... which you also seem to condone.

You seem to have a problem with conservatives express their opinions - which you defend when MoveOn does it. Why the double standard?

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MK, Los Angeles — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:39:40 GMT

Let's Think - I wish you would.

You are sadly mistaken in both your conclusions and your impressions of the motivations of the left. The Neo-cons have done considerable damage to America. We are trying to salvage it.

Let's review, shall we? There were no WMD's, Iraq had no involvement in September 11th, Iraq was no threat, they did not welcome us with flowers, it was not a cake-walk, the mission was not accomplished, we have not turned a corner, they are not in the final throes, six months has NOT made the difference and the benchmarks were set by the administration, not Congress, to justify the surge.

Whether they met 3 (according to the non-partisan GAO) or 8 (according to Gen. Patreaus) doesn't matter, they FAILED to meet the very benchmarks Bush
set.

Bin Ladin is still free, the Anthrax killer is free, not a single terrorist case has been broken by torture, wiretapping, or any of the added powers in any of the laws Bush has passed. FEMA has become a joke.

Now, just recently, Alan Greenspan "reveals" what "everybody knows" to be true - the Iraq war was mainly about oil.

Now, the Neo-con plan was breath-taking and audacious - and if they had actually succeeded, it might have been almost worth it - assuming you don't mind killing a few hundred thousand people in order to re-align the world balance of power.

Unfortunately, the Neo-cons are shallow, short-sighted, and drastically incompetent. They are good at propaganda, but actually sort of suck at governing.

The Left wants out of this war because it has nothing to do with our security, and with Saddam gone, what tiny threat Iraq may have posed is long gone.

(Poverty stricken, devastated Iraqis following us home? How? By camel? Attacking us with what, the weapons we're currently selling them?)

The Left loves America, but even better, it UNDERSTANDS America, and knows that it's an idea, a set of laws - not a flag, a geographic boundary, and eternal commitment to the Republican Party. We respect our soldiers - we just don't respect lying, corrupt politicians who use our soldiers as pawns in a game of global energy brokering.

America does not stand for torture, or violating treaties, or pre-emptive war. perhaps if the education system were better in America, you would know that.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Stevie Nichts, Crabapple Cove, Maine — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:51:22 GMT

Here's today's Washington Post on why MoveOn will be the left's downfall:

"Many Democratic strategists were privately furious at the group for launching an attack on a member of the military rather than Bush, arguing that it gave Republicans a point on which to attack the Democrats and to rally around the administration's war policy. The displeasure underscores the uneasy alliance between MoveOn and the party."

BTW, MoveOn admits to conference calls with the Democrats, but feel free to look foolish denying it further.

Tell us again how the left supports the military while slandering it - let's not forget John Murtha's refusal to apologize for claiming they murdered civilians in cold blood.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Lee Holmes — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:05:09 GMT

I have been observing the Fallon/''ass-kissing chickenshit'' quotes making the rounds and decided that it was time to check this out. Sure enough,it did not take long to find:

That the original quotes attributed to Fallon were spawned by the leftwinged IPS,and THINKPROGRESS,which circulated the lying ''The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper'' quotes falsely attributed to President Bush back in 2004 which itself was concocted by a reporter for the leftwinged CAPITOL BLUE newspaper. To this hour,WIKIPEDIA,The Pew Charitable Trusts ''Factcheck'',and The Urban Legend Referance Pages refuse to attach authenticity to the quote. The Fallon quotes went to DAILY KOS,MOVEON.ORG,HUFFINGTON POST,and reams of other smaller-fry websites,every one of them,leftwinged in construct using the IPS and THINKPROGRESS''reports''as sole source. It allows us a glimpse into,however,how the Left,abetted by these Soros hubs,routes its propaganda into the media machine.
Unfortunately,the one person not supporting the leftwinged-borne urban legend of Gen.Petraeus as ''asskisser''is one Adm. William J. Fallon,who on Tuesday,seeing the amount of coverage it was getting,decided to go before The Military Times and sort this all out:

Remarks:Adm.William J Fallon These characterizations are ''scurrilous''and ''are just absurd''.Sept.18,2007.

Also see: www.factcheck.org-The Pew Center for People and Politics
www.snopes.com-The Urban Legend Referance Pages

www.militarytimes.com -The Military Times Sept.18,2007-''Admiral Fallon Denies Animosity With Petraeus''

Careful. ''Faux''news is still ''faux''news regardless of its ideological source. I suggest Websters Dictionary or the more detailed Oxford for the definition of ''scurrilous''. My own humble insertion would be:

''Lying about an American admiral in order to lie about an American general''. Add your ''coldblooded murder''Marines to the mix and the lefties now have their Trifecta of Dishonesty In Their Support Of Our Troops. Back to you Keith.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

leon houston — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:20:27 GMT

Why do republicans hate America?????

they smear real war heroes and praise draft dodgers.

Sure sounds like hypocrosy to me.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Ken Crestle, Crawford, TX — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:21:55 GMT

It is so wrong to call Hillary Clinton "Her Thighness". That is just so wrong.

She actually has "cankles".

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

IMPEACH — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:55:09 GMT

BETRAY US LIED! LIARS GET NO RESPECT!
BUSHS LIES, HE LIES EVEN WHEN HE IS SOBER.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Lee Holmes — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:43:45 GMT

After further contemplation in the wake of my [apparently the first on these blogs] exposure of the phony Fallon remarks,I find that this is the very ''swiftboating''of a highly decorated soldier that liberal detractors wailed over and gnashed teeth regarding Kerry. Going back to this time, I joined with McCain in condemning both the SBVT ads and the tandem release of the forged Guard documents as ''despicable'',and ''dishonest''. Having now exposed Adm.Fallons comments as dishonest forms of verbal forgeries themselves [as we speak the leftwinged THINKPROGRESS is quickly backpedling away from their release of the ''chickenshit''comments.You may view the revised comments on their website],I call upon those who are engaging in these slanders aimed at General Petraeus to hew to the truth regarding this man,and dispense with the fairy tales as formented,invented and dispensed by the leftwing. Else you stand as purveyors of ''Faux''news,and are ''swiftboaters''in your own right,first having impunged his patriotism,then having attacked his personal character based upon a circulated lie. In swallowing the propaganda,accepting it as instant gospel without seeking independant source,and then smugly standing by its ''truthfulness'' despite its being based in absolutely no cooberation,you will find that you are much closer to becoming ''dittoheads'',and O'Reilly ''slaves''than you can possibly imagine.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

jerry/corpus christi texa — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:10:02 GMT

Laurie in that overtaxes,overcrimed,underpaid state of new jersey....

Just to let you know, that poor poor college student that got himself tasered......

It was a setup job, he does things like this for his website....

In fact, he stole it from a guy who got tasered at UCLA last year who was forced out of the library because he did not have a student ID card. he got a lot of cash for that episode also.

This sounds like something a liberal would do, get himself tasered for money.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

REG; Chandler, AZ — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:24:26 GMT

President Bush and his supporters find fault with 'MoveOn.org's' ad yet they tolerate Iraqi president Jalal Talabani's insulting insistence that coalition forces release the recently detained Iranian accused of providing material assistance and training to those fighting against the Iraqi government and killing American troops. He didn't just ask for an explanation and clarification but rather indignantly demanded the Iranian's release and chastised American commanders. That is totally ridiculous and indicates the complete futility of having our troops there and the obnoxious irresponsibility of the Bush administration's continual self-serving justification for this conflict. Talabani is suppose to be Bush's ally, should be totally appreciative of all America is doing for his government and country and instead he is aggressively loyal to Iran. If that doesn't tell the true story, I don't know what does.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

leon houston — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:23:02 GMT

Why do republicans hate AMERICA.... and middle class children?????????????

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

REG; East Valley Phx. AZ — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:13:33 GMT

I can’t imagine anyone really being upset with the ‘moveon.org’s’ “general Betray-us” ad considering it is all politics and all the mud slinging that goes on from both sides, besides it has a real basis of truth in it in that undoubtedly he slanted it to be favorable in support of Bush (he would have been crazy not to). What amazes me is how easily the Democrats are intimidated and ready to cave in. I mean you would think they would recognize by now the Republican often used tactic, probably a Karl Rove strategy, to ‘not answer the criticism but rather attack the critic’. Personally I would have more respect for the Democrats if they would have told the Republicans to quit whining and to just explain why several other reports and the facts totally contradict General Petraeus’ report. How can we ever expect to see some honesty and a checking of the flagrant arrogance from the Republicans if the Democrats always just ‘put their tail between their legs and run’? It would all be laughable if our troops weren’t getting killed in the process while our politicians are playing these silly games.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Mark Thieme — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:56:23 GMT

Read this at your own risk...

An article published in October Harper's, written by Garret Keizer (what else can be said now?)

"

Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust.
—Isaiah 26:19

1.

Of all the various depredations of the Bush regime, none has been so thorough as its plundering of hope. Iraq will recover sooner. What was supposed to have been the crux of our foreign policy—a shock-and-awe tutorial on the utter futility of any opposition to the whims of American power—has achieved its greatest and perhaps its only lasting success in the American soul. You will want to cite the exceptions, the lunch-hour protests against the war, the dinner-party ejaculations of dissent, though you might also want to ask what substantive difference they bear to grousing about the weather or even to raging against the dying of the light—that is, to any ritualized complaint against forces universally acknowledged as unalterable. Bush is no longer the name of a president so much as the abbreviation of a proverb, something between Murphy’s Law and tomorrow’s fatal inducement to drink and be merry today.

If someone were to suggest, for example, that we begin a general strike on Election Day, November 6, 2007, for the sole purpose of removing this regime from power, how readily and with what well-practiced assurance would you find yourself producing the words “It won’t do any good”? Plausible and even courageous in the mouth of a patient who knows he’s going to die, the sentiment fits equally well in the heart of a citizen-ry that believes it is already dead.
2.

Any strike, whether it happens in a factory, a nation, or a marriage, amounts to a reaffirmation of consent. The strikers remind their overlords—and, equally important, themselves—that the seemingly perpetual machinery of daily life has an off switch as well as an on. Camus said that the one serious question of philosophy is whether or not to commit suicide; the one serious question of political philosophy is whether or not to get out of bed. Silly as it may have seemed at the time, John and Yoko’s famous stunt was based on a profound observation. Instant karma is not so instant—we ratify it day by day.

The stream of commuters heading into the city, the caravan of tractor-trailers pulling out of the rest stop into the dawn’s early light, speak a deep-throated Yes to the sum total of what’s going on in our collective life. The poet Richard Wilbur writes of the “ripped mouse” that “cries Concordance” in the talons of the owl; we too cry our daily assent in the grip of the prevailing order— except in those notable instances when, like a donkey or a Buddha, we refuse to budge.

The question we need to ask ourselves at this moment is what further provocations we require to justify digging in our heels. To put the question more pointedly: Are we willing to wait until the next presidential election, or for some interim congressional conversion experience, knowing that if we do wait, hundreds of our sons and daughters will be needlessly destroyed? Another poet, César Vallejo, framed the question like this:

A man shivers with cold, coughs, spits up blood.
Will it ever be fitting to allude to my inner soul? . . .
A cripple sleeps with one foot on his shoulder.
Shall I later on talk about Picasso, of all people?

A young man goes to Walter Reed without a face. Shall I make an appointment with my barber? A female prisoner is sodomized at Abu Ghraib. Shall I send a check to the Clinton campaign?
3.

You will recall that a major theme of the Bush Administration’s response to September 11 was that life should go on as usual. We should keep saying that broad consensual Yes as loudly as we dared. We could best express our patriotism by hitting the malls, by booking a flight to Disney World. At the time, the advice seemed prudent enough: avoid hysteria; defy the intimidations of murderers and fanatics.

In hindsight it’s hard not to see the roots of our predicament in the readiness with which we took that advice to heart. We did exactly as we were told, with a net result that is less an implicit defiance of terrorism than a tacit amen to the “war on terror,” including the war in Iraq. Granted, many of us have come to find both those wars unacceptable. But do we find them intolerable? Can you sleep? Yes, doctor, I can sleep. Can you work? Yes, doctor, I can work. Do you get out to the movies, enjoy a good restaurant? Actually, I have a reservation for tonight. Then I’d say you were doing okay, wouldn’t you? I’d say you were tolerating the treatment fairly well.

It is one thing to endure abuses and to carry on in spite of them. It is quite another thing to carry on to the point of abetting the abuse. We need to move the discussion of our nation’s health to the emergency room. We need to tell the doctors of the body politic that the treatment isn’t working—and that until it changes radically for the better, neither are we.
4.

No one person, least of all a freelance writer, has the prerogative to call or set the date for a general strike. What do you guys do for a strike, sit on your overdue library books? Still, what day more fitting for a strike than the first Tuesday of November, the Feast of the Hanging Chads? What other day on the national calendar cries so loudly for rededication?

The only date that comes close is September 11. You have to do a bit of soul-searching to see it, but one result of the Bush presidency has been a loss of connection to those who perished that day. Unless they were members of our families, unless we were involved in their rescue, do we think of them? It’s too easy to say that time eases the grief—there’s more to it than that, more even than the natural tendency to shy away from brooding on disasters that might happen again. We avoid thinking of the September 11 victims because to think of them we have to think also of what we have allowed to happen in their names. Or, if we object openly to what has happened, we have to parry the insinuation that we’re unmoved by their loss.

It is time for us to make a public profession of faith that the people who went to work that morning, who caught the cabs and rode the elevators and later jumped to their deaths, were not on the whole people who would sanction extraordinary rendition, preemptive war, and the suspension of habeas corpus; that in their heels and suits they were at least as decent as any sneaker-shod person standing vigil outside a post office with a stop the war sign. That the government workers who died in the Pentagon were not by some strange congenital fluke more obtuse than the high-ranking officers who thought the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea from the get-go. That the passengers who rushed the hijackers on Flight 93 were not repeating the mantra “It won’t do any good” while scratching their heads and their asses in a happy-hour funk.

An Election Day general strike would set our remembrance of those people free from the sarcophagi of rhetoric and rationalization. It would be the political equivalent of raising them from the dead. It would be a clear if sadly delayed message of solidarity to those voters in Ohio and Florida who were pretty much told they could drop dead.
5.

But how would it work? A curious question to ask given that not working is most of what it would entail. Not working until the president and the shadow president resigned or were impeached. Never mind what happens next. Rather, let our mandarins ask how this came to happen in the first place. Let them ask in shock and awe.

People who could not, for whatever reason, cease work could at least curtail consumption. In fact, that might prove the more effective action of the two. They could vacate the shopping malls. They could cancel their flights. With the aid of their Higher Power, they could turn off their cell phones. They could unplug their TVs.

The most successful general strike imaginable would require extraordinary measures simply to announce its success. It would require sound trucks going up and down the streets, Rupert Murdoch reduced to croaking through a bullhorn. Bonfires blazing on the hills. Bells tolling till they cracked. (Don’t we have one of those on display somewhere?)

Ironically, the segment of the population most unable to participate would be the troops stationed in the Middle East. Striking in their circumstances would amount to suicide. That distinction alone ought to suffice as a reason to strike, as a reminder of the unconscionable underside of our “normal” existence. We get on with our lives, they get on with their deaths.

As for how the strike would be publicized and organized, these would depend on the willingness to strike itself. The greater the willingness, the fewer the logistical requirements. How many Americans does it take to change a lightbulb? How many Web postings, how many emblazoned bedsheets hung from the upper-story windows? Think of it this way: How many hours does it take to learn the results of last night’s American Idol, even when you don’t want to know?

In 1943 the Danes managed to save 7,200 of their 7,800 Jewish neighbors from the Gestapo. They had no blogs, no television, no text messaging—and very little time to prepare. They passed their apartment keys to the hunted on the streets. They formed convoys to the coast. An ambulance driver set out with a phone book, stopping at any address with a Jewish-sounding name. No GPS for directions. No excuse not to try.

But what if it failed? What if the general strike proved to be anything but general? I thought Bush was supposed to be the one afraid of science. Hypothesis, experiment, analysis, conclusion—are they his hobgoblins or ours? What do we have to fear, except additional evidence that George W. Bush is exactly what he appears to be: the president few of us like and most of us deserve. But science dares to test the obvious. So let us dare.
6.

We could hardly be accused of innovation. General strikes have a long and venerable history. They’re as retro as the Bill of Rights. There was one in Great Britain in 1926, in France in 1968, in Ukraine in 2004, in Guinea just this year. Finns do it, Nepalis do it, even people without email do it . . .

But we don’t have to do it, you will say, because “we have a process.” Have or had, the verb remains tentative. In regard to verbs, Dick Cheney showed his superlative talent for le mot juste when in the halls of the U.S. Congress he told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself. He has since told congressional investigators to do the same thing. There’s your process. Dick Cheney could lie every day of his life for all the years of Methuselah, and for the sake of that one remark history would still need to remember him as an honest man. In the next world, Diogenes will kneel down before him. In this world, though, and in spite of the invitation tendered to me through my senator, I choose to remain on my feet.

“United we stand,” isn’t that how it goes? But we are not united, not by a long shot. At this juncture we may be able to unite only in what we will not stand for. The justification of torture, the violation of our privacy, the betrayal of our intelligence operatives, the bankrupting of our commonwealth, the besmirching of our country’s name, the feckless response to natural disaster, the dictatorial inflation of executive power, the senseless butchery of our youth—if these do not constitute a common ground for intolerance, what does?

People were indignant at the findings of the 9/11 Commission—it seems there were compelling reasons to believe an attack was imminent!—yet for the attack on our Constitution we have evidence even more compelling. How can we criticize an administration for failing to act in the face of a probable threat given our own refusal to act in the face of a threat already fulfilled? As long as we’re willing to go on with our business, Bush and Cheney will feel free to go on with their coup. As long as we’re willing to continue fucking ourselves, why should they have any scruples about telling us to smile during the act?
7.

Between undertaking the strike and achieving its objective, the latter requires the greater courage. It requires courage simply to admit that this is so. For too many of us, Bush has become a secret craving, an addiction. We loathe Bush the way that Peter Pan loathed Captain Hook; he’s a villain, to be sure, but he’s half the fun of living in Never-Never Land. He has provided us with an inexhaustible supply of editorial copy, partisan rectitude, and every sort of lame excuse for not engaging the system he represents. In that sense, asking “What if the strike were to fail?” is not even honest. On some level we would want it to fail.

Certainly this would be true of those who’ve declared themselves as presidential candidates and for whom the Bush legacy represents an unprecedented windfall of political capital. One need only speak a coherent sentence—one need only breathe from a differently shaped smirk—to seem like a savior. Ding-dong, the Witch is dead. Already I can see the winged monkeys who signed off on the Patriot Act and the Iraq invasion jumping up and down for joy. Already I can hear the nauseating gush: “Such a welcome relief after Bush!” Relief, yes. But relief is not hope.

How much better if we could say to our next administration: Don’t talk about Bush. We dealt with Bush. We dealt with Bush and in so doing we demonstrated our ability to deal with you. You have a mandate more rigorous than looking good beside Bush. You need a program more ambitious than “uniting the country.” We are united—at least we were, if only for a while, if only in our disgust. If only I believed all this would happen.

I wrote this appeal during the days leading up to the Fourth of July. I wrote it because for the past six and a half years I have heard the people I love best—family members, friends, former students and parishioners—saying, “I’m sick over what’s happening to our country, but I just don’t know what to do.” Might I be pardoned if, fearing civil disorder less than I fear civil despair, I said, “Well, we could do this.” It has been done before and we could do this. And I do believe we could. If anyone has a better idea, I’m keen to hear it. Only don’t tell me what some presidential hopeful ought to do someday. Tell me what the people who have nearly lost their hope can do right now. "

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Hal Sutton, Elizabeth NJ — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:05:04 GMT

More lies from the lefties exposed. NY TImes did give a huge discount rate to moron.org. Partners in crime I guess. Both the Times and moron.org should be regarded as traitors to this country. The Democrat wusses in the Senate that couldn't condemn the ad should be expelled because they are on the payroll. Obama is the biggest weasel of the bunch of them. And to think many lefties approve that Obama didn't vote. Nice leadership qualities Obama.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

H P Boston — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:18:47 GMT

Mark Thieme I suggested a strike from work and "SHOPPING." I think we must stop going about our lives as if nothing evil is breathing down our necks.
How to get a message out to start the ball rolling and not get shot? I am afraid of the taser gun and our so called "protectors." I have lost hope and I gave up "shopping."

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MB — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:37:39 GMT

Never blame the rainbows for the rain.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MKoch. Los Angeles — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:43:14 GMT

Stevie Nicht -

Ah the web page finally updated.
No Stevie, the truth doesn't hurt at all.

The article is from 2004. It describes a "cluster" of anti-war groups meeting with the Democratic leadership while they were still a minority.

The references to MoveOn are a seperate subject, concerning their messages to the Democratic leadership.

Now, for starters, could you find the entire quote in context? Not just the right-wing parsing of it. Since it was a MoveOn email to members, I expect your quote is, as usual, taken out of context and misinterpreted.

For example - if "it" was bought and owned, why would it need to be taken back?

What is the "it" they're referring to?
Who is the "we"?
Could it be "the people?"

You're a confuused person who gets their information from sources that are using you for their own agenda.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MKoch. Los Angeles — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:58:29 GMT

Lee -

If you are correct, then you would be right that the quote shouldn't be used. One of the problems with reporting hearsay or overheard conversations is that they are easily misinterpreted, or, if true, easily denied after the fact. No one can prove or disprove what was said, and you have to choose what you prefer to believe.

Given that so many people in the military who have opposed the administrations current policy have been replaced or retired, and viewing Jon Stewarts' brilliant juxtaposition of Bush's recent speeches and Patraeus' testimony, I suspect there's some merit to the accusation of Patraeus simply spouting the party line.

Since the 2006 election, it's all still been "Stay the course," just with a different name.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

MKoch. Los Angeles — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:09:23 GMT

The subject matter was about the MoveOn ad and whether or not this ad is fair game. In an attempt to smear MoveOn, the right tries to make it about whether MoveOn got one rate rather than another, or that Gen. Fallon did not make a certain comment.

This is like investigating a land deal but prosecuting for a blow job.

The ad ASKED if General Petraeus would betray the American people.

Whether he did or not is up to individuals to decide.

Did MoveOn have the right to bring up the question? Absolutely.

Does the Times have the right to charge what they want for an ad? Absolutely.

Has the right engaged in at least as bad propaganda disrespecting members of our armed forces? Unquestionably.

Is all this a distraction from the fact that the Surge failed to meet its goals and that Bush plans on making staying in Iraq our national policy for decades?

Oh yes.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Lech Walesa — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:12:12 GMT

Solidamosc.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:35:29 GMT

Mark - That hit the nail on the head. One of the reasons people don't do anything is because they don't think it will do any good. (Well, that and the fact that many people are too damn lazy to stand up for anything.)

People ask themselves what the point is in protesting or in trying to change the path we now find ourselves on. People figure their voices, standing alone, mean nothing. But what they don't realize is that it only takes one voice to start the ball rolling.

Maybe the problem with us now is that we don't have that one voice. We have a lot of people saying they should be the voice (of experience, of change, of hope, etc.) but are they actually following through on that? And is that what we need? Or do we need someone to be the voice of "get this country back to good"...whether that person is experienced or not, advocates change or not, promotes hope or not.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

Ghandi — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:24:29 GMT

Myanmar.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

WG — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:00:44 GMT

See what your greed for money has done.

Iraq: Can't we 'Move On'?

UAW — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:42:08 GMT

As GM goes, so goes the country.