Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down on the Move On "Betray Us" Ad and the Senate Censure Vote

Two thumbs up for Moveon.Org as an organization. It has done as much as anyone to catalyze opposition to the Iraq war, to build the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and through its prowess in raising tens of millions of dollars for Democratic Congressional campaigns, to help the Democrats retake Congress.

Two thumbs down to the Senate Republicans who filibustered votes on bills supported by the majority of the Congress and the county--bills which would have supported our troops and kept our armed forces whole by giving them a year at home for every year at the front, and which would have restored the constitutional right of habeas corpus--and then had the temerity to put forth a congressional resolution attacking the free speech rights of Move On for running an anti-war political ad. These are the same Republicans who ran ads comparing Sen. Max Cleland, who left three limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam, to Osama Bin Laden, and slandered John Kerry for his military service that won him five medals for bravery.

Two thumbs down to Majority Leader Harry Reid for allowing this outrageous piece of Republican legislation to even reach a vote on the Senate floor.

An even two bigger thumbs down to the 22 cowardly Democratic Senators who voted with the Republicans to censure Move On, one of the most important organizations in helping restore a Democratic majority to Congress, for exercising its free speech rights. (Let me add a particular thumbs down to my own Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, who ought to know better.) As Paul Begala pointed out earlier in Huffpo, Bush and the Republicans just wanted to divide progressives and score political points--These 22 Democrats were enablers for the Republicans. They should have demanded that Bush and the Republicans repudiate the Swift Boat ads and their smears of Sen. Cleland, not helped Republicans smear the Democrats' own base and voted for a bill resolution stating that Gen. Petreaeus "deserves the full support of the Senate". And they should have used this Republican resolution as another opportunity to fight the Republican's continued backing of the war and to challenge Petraeus's conclusions.

I have to give Hillary Clinton two thumbs up for openly registering her vote against the Republican resolution and for artfully refusing to fall for Rudy Giuliani's baits to denounce Move On. I hope Hillary is not the Democratic presidential nominee--she's too corporate, cautious and triangulating for my tastes, and polls repeatedly show that she's the least electable of the leading Democrats. But credit should be given when credit is due. And I have to express disappointment in Barack Obama for trying to have it both ways, failing to show up to vote on the bill, and then issuing a statement that it was not germane. Increasingly, Obama is looking like an ordinary calculating politician and, in my mind, only John Edwards seems to be emerging as a strong, electable, progressive alternative to Hillary.

But...only one thumb up to Move On for running an ad that accurately challenged Gen. Petraeus's assertion that the "surge" is a success and provided plenty of factual documentation why it's not...and one thumb down to Move On for political immaturity in using a silly rhyme, "Petraeus" and "Betray Us", to unnecessarily impugn the integrity of a man who has given most of his life to military service. The military is the most respected American institution which is why Bush chose to hide behind his General and then used the "Betray Us" ad to change the subject away from the surge's failure. There was plenty of basis to challenge Petraeus on the facts without stooping to personal innuendo

I'm a proud member of Move On, so this criticism is just within the family. I'm a believer in bare knuckle politics, where necessary. But in politics, it's not a good idea to hand your opponents a weapon with which to bludgeon you and the Republicans are adept at bludgeoning anyone who dares disagree with them. Both Republicans and DLC-type "centrist" Democrats have been working for years to discredit Move On, and to drive a wedge between Democratic office holders and the progressive Democratic base. "Betray Us" was a tactical mistake that helped them in that effort. It may make it somewhat more difficult for the Move On fundraising machine to help Democratic candidates who, if they accept Move On support, will face Republican attack ads that they dishonor the military. I say this to Move On with love, admiration, and support, but when you're playing in the big leagues, it's not a good idea to hand ammunition to your political opponents.

That said, one tactical misstep doesn't undermine years of invaluable work. To Move On and its staff, volunteers, and members, keep your chin up and keep fighting. Today I added my name to Move On's petition that "I will not be quiet. I will fight back. I will keep speaking out until Congress forces an exit plan for this awful war" and I sent them a contribution to run a new ad attacking the Republican Senators who continue to filibuster a vote on setting a timeline to bring the troops home. I urge every reader of the Huffington Post to go to Moveon.org and do the same.

So, whatever criticism I may have of Move On for what I believe was a tactical mistake in judgment, my final two thumbs up go to Move On for all the invaluable work it's done, and all the invaluable work that remains to be done.

Comments

[jhNY]

'What is it about a man in uniform?' As a kid, I remember that phrase was employed by women, usually with a knowing smile, sarcastic or sincere. Now it seems to be the sentiment embodied by reasonable men of liberal persuasion who want to seem fair-minded about Petraeus, but instead sound like they go all dreamy-eyed and slack-jawed when they see a chest full if campaign ribbons.

Petraeus is a careerist in khaki with presidential ambitions who prsented a faked-up report pre-approved by the criminal band presently occupying the white house. He dishonored the uniform he wears, he endangered the men he commands by helping to protract a war crime. A WAR CRIME. MoveOn merely pointed this out as a possibility, something for the undecideds to mull over. Corporate fascists and their myriad enablers did not thank them for it. There. Was that so hard?

[shaggles]

What polls are you talking about that show Hillary is the least electable Dem? She beats every Rep in every poll I've ever seen.

[BillZBubb]

Three thumbs up for MoveOn! The "silly" rhyme was excellent. It actually uses right wing tactics right back at them. The great thing is that now whenever Bush wants cred by citing Petraeus, most Americans will have "betray us" ringing in the back of their heads.

Ex posto, a majority of Americans believe Petraeus wasn't exactly honest in his assessment--just maybe the MoveOn ad played a part in that. The whining of the right wing shows they know they got hit. For a very small cash investment, MoveOn spoiled Boy George's propaganda fest. Priceless!!!!!!

[DeWayne]

Being no longer a member of Moveon.org, and being apolitical not suckered by either 'Lesser of Two Evils', still I must agree with Moveon adding they should have posted their article before, during, and after this Pentagon General Petraeus testified.

By the way, my only problem with Moveon, is when they joined DEM Nancy Peloise and crew who were Bush glutenous-maximous kissers, upping the Bush war fund twice. These plus GOP I will work at max to have voted out of Office.

We do know Cheney and crew purged all Pentagon Generals that would have been directly involved in the Pre-emptive murder, that also were against the PNAC-plan knowing all the serious error's and dangerous stupidity involved, so anyone that had any brains at all should have known beforehand this testimony would be just another Bush-Admin Purged-Pentagon lie.

Here is what we do know about the Pre-emptive murder, it was so ineptly put together, with no beginning or end except (Good ole-boy) US-Corp takeover for obscene profit, that when our young began beng killed by angry Iraqi, the Bush-Admin/Pentagon began secrecy measures that can (only) be called 'cooking the books'.

So we knew the Bush-Admin/Pentagon have been proven (complete) liars from very beginning and without stop. Did Gen Petraeus cook the books, they have been cooked starting day one, all Petraeus had to do was use hot-pads when accepting these reports.

[bethinCary]

Having him testify on Sept 11-was already setting the stage for a politicized report.
Not having Fallon testify was already setting the stage for cherry-picking Generals.

Gen Petraeus or Gen Betrayus means just that.
Either uphold your Constituional duty to the people of this country to give a truthful report or politicize it for the GOP.
I think we all know which one showed up-just as anyone GW sends up to the Hill is always doing.

Why shouldn't Moveon be allowed to point that out?
Free speech-not free neocon speech.

[snaggster]

It is ridiculous to assume that military men should not be criticized. Two thumbs up to MoveOn for challenging that stupidity. Somebody needed to chip away at that stone. It obviously won't be the politicians. Their tactic got eveyone's attention and exposed the Democrats as the GOP enablers that they are.

[Dunnage]

1. But for the ad, we would no longer be talking about the General's role, President's role.

2. One for Clinton, who did not vote to "chastise" move-on.

3. Now we know what a bunch of pissant Dems we have in the Senate. Why the hell do they do this stuff? Apparently, it's who they really are.

4. The Mistake --- The Ad should have run after the General's first day of testimony. Then it would have been "fair".

5. People need to be able to separate this crap out.

[CriminallySane]

"1. But for the ad, we would no longer be talking about the General's role, President's role."

People are not talking about Petraeus' role, they are talking about the headline. The silly, juvenile, headline.

Mr. Mogulsecu is correct here:

"...and one thumb down to Move On for political immaturity in using a silly rhyme, "Petraeus" and "Betray Us"...

Bush chose to hide behind his General and then used the "Betray Us" ad to change the subject away from the surge's failure. There was plenty of basis to challenge Petraeus on the facts without stooping to personal innuendo."

Indeed. Petraeus is at best a mouthpiece. Highly replaceable, a "good soldier" who takes his orders and goes forward. The problem is not him, it is the scripted pack of lies he was handed to present. He is irrelevant to the real discussion, and focusing on him served only to divert attention from that.

And it is truly disturbing to see the blindness of those who defend the "Betray Us" tactic, even as they watch that same headline being used to accomplish the above-mentioned diversion.