We are approaching the point in time where "lefties" will begin calling our soldiers "baby killers" all over again. And I say that because of the following. "Move on. org" has until recently been regarded as a far out in left field Bush/America hating lot, not taken serious and not mainstream. However, not only is there blog talking points being recited verbatim via MSNBC (read: Keith Olberhman), but now the NY Times, supposedly America's preeminent paper "of record" has allowed the website to purchase a full page ad in which the group calls General Patrauis, our commander in theater, a traitor. "General Betrayus" as they call him. A full page article assassinating the character and patriotism of this man. "So what?", you might say. "It's an ad buy, not the editorial board." Well, the going "rate card" on a full page ad in the Times is $167,000. They gave it to Move On for $65k. This is tantamount to an endorsement in my opinion. If THE preeminent paper in the nation is willing to go so far as endorse this deplorable and mindless behavior, then "baby killers" shouted in the streets can't be far off. The Times is legitimzing and and endorsing this into the mainstream of media and debate.
And you know what, the elected Democrats in this country better be VERY careful about the direction this left wing rhetoric is headed in. They could find themselves on the bad side of it if they're not careful - which says mountains about their party to begin with.
Oh, and Giuliani has now made a formal request for the same rate in order to put out a political ad ... we'll see if he gets it.
FR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Here’s the skinny…
I get home from a particularly trying day at work, and settle into trying to make something for dinner. That mission accomplished, I read the latest from the Bund. Ryan’s post, “Dangerously Close”, was about to be written off as simply another biased attack on liberals everywhere (you have to know Ryan like WE know Ryan)… but I was just curious enough to try and see the “ad” he was making such a fuss over.
So I type in “moveon.org” into the old browser, and what do I find?
Yes, the ad… of course… but more importantly, I READ the ad, and find it is patently FALSE. Within only a few words read, I find that the authors have simply LIED. I haven’t seen a better example of plain and simple lying since Ryan had me read Ann Coulter’s exceptional piece of fiction, Treason, in 2003.
Before I go on, let’s make one thing perfectly clear to those that might not know us as well as we’d like… I am a Democrat, and have been since I was old enough to vote (earlier, actually… I ran a “Re-Elect Carter” campaign when I was still in grade school!), but that does not mean I am a “liberal” as the word is understood now. My reasons for disliking the Bush administration are many and varied, but it is not due to a rampant hatred of anything GOP. I prefer to keep my real rancor and indignation for specifics, thank you.
Specifically speaking now… let’s look at this ad the folks at moveon.org put together for us, shall we?
In the second paragraph’s first sentence we read… “Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.” The reports they are citing are the GAO report of Sept 9, the NIE of Aug 23, and the “Jones” report for the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq. They even gave us a link to each report… very considerate of them, no?
I spent the better part of last night reading all three of these reports. That’s well over two hundred pages of dry, governmental dribble to give about 4 pages of meat-and-potatoes information. None the less, I got to the meat-and-potatoes… and nothing there supported what the liberals had put in the ad.
To quote the GAO report:
“As the Congress considers the way forward in Iraq, it should balance the achievement of the 18 Iraqi benchmarks with military progress and homeland security, foreign policy, and other goals of the United States. Future administration reports on the benchmarks would be more useful to the Congress if they clearly depicted the status of each legislative benchmark, provided additional quantitative and qualitative information on violence from all relevant U.S. agencies, and specified the performance and loyalties of Iraqi security forces supporting coalition operations.”
Where in that conclusion does it state that the “surge” policy has failed? The onus through out this report is on the Iraqi government for failing to meet its executive and legislative promises to the US and the UN, NOT on the US military for failing to stop any and all violence in Iraq. No mention of the amount of troops in Iraq is given at all, in fact… none.
The NIE report was a lot easier to read, and more substantial in depth… but again made no open criticism or rebuttal of the “surge” policy. The closest thing to it was the final conclusion of the report,
“We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safe haven would erode security gains achieved thus far.”
I have looked at General Petraeus’ speech and his initial reports, and can’t see where he suggested a “primary combat support role” for US troops in Iraq… only that additional troops would ease the process of de-Ba’athification of the most problematical regions of the country while the ISF took over more and more of it’s eventual duties within the larger urban areas, as well as continuing the counter insurgency role they have played for the last two years. In short, nothing here to support the ad either.
Finally, the CSIS report…
“The Commission finds that in general, the Iraqi Security Forces, military and police, have made uneven progress, but that there should be increasing improvement in both readiness and their capability to provide for the internal security of Iraq.” Once again, I fail to see the ringing indictment of the “surge” policy in these findings.
All three reports state clearly that progress has been slow, but that it has accelerated since the surge went into effect, and that more dramatic and measurable improvements could be expected if the situation is maintained to any degree. This, as anyone can see, categorically supports the policy, rather than refutes it.
Moveon.org then says in its website: “… according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence.” This “formula” states that only certain kinds of violence count toward the measured incidents of sectarian and terrorist attacks in Iraq, and it is this “formula” that allows Petraeus to say that the number of violent incidents in Iraq has fallen over the last 6 months. The site argues that it is the Pentagon that has manufactured this formula, to cover the mistakes and failings of the General’s policy.
Again, patently false.
The GAO report says: “It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased—a key security benchmark—since it is difficult to measure whether the perpetrators’ intents were sectarian in nature, and other measures of population security show differing trends.”
The NIE: “There have been measurable but uneven improvements in Iraq’s security situation since our last National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in January 2007. The steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now, and overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks. Coalition forces, working with Iraqi forces, tribal elements, and some Sunni insurgents, have reduced al-Qa’ida in Iraq’s (AQI) capabilities, restricted its freedom of movement, and denied it grassroots support in some areas.”
The CSIS: “… the most significant threats currently facing Iraq are generally agreed to be AQI, Sunni insurgent groups, Shi’a militias, and the largely negative involvement of neighboring countries in Iraq’s internal affairs-- especially Iranian support of Jaysh al Mahdi (JAM) and the Badr Brigade.”
All three reports make a case that the type of groups or organization that are conducting the attacks make a difference in how to assess the level of “sectarian” violence in Iraq. Iranian-supported militias blowing up car-bombs in urban areas, or al Qa’ida mass-murdering new police recruits in Baghdad do not constitute a new level of sectarian violence in an Iraqi civil war… they would indicate foreign attacks on Iraqi sovereignty more than anything else.
So, in short… this ad and it’s premise is a load of shit from the start.
That is coming from a registered Democrat, too…
Post a Comment