But, the saddest thing for me is that Democrats not only voted for the condemnation, but actually tried to expand its reach and further diminish free speech. It’s unbelievable hypocrisy to criticize MoveOn for attacking Petraeus after the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, but condemning those attacks three years after the fact isn’t going to do anything. Where the fuck was the attack on Republicans then, particularly when Bush was attacking anyone who attacked his “military service.” That’s one the greatest testaments to their patheticness, even when their candidate actually fought in the war, they lose the military cred.
Now, I think running from Kerry’s anti-war record was a huge mistake. The protest movement in Vietnam was one of the proudest moments in our nation’s history, a moment when people tried to fight back and not just accept the will of the government. Kerry was a hero for that, not for his service in Vietnam. The soldiers in Iraq and Vietnam are not heroes, they are victims. Bush does not care about the soldiers, he does not support them and he does not respect them, nor do any of the Republicans who sent them into war for no good reason.
But, that’s just my opinion. Would I condemn someone who thought otherwise? No, and that’s why anyone who voted for the condemnation will never have my support again. I can’t respect someone who says it’s wrong to criticize the military because that is not wrong, sometimes it’s the only way to create change. No institution in this country is above critique because no institution is perfect, and they never will be, we always can be better and we should strive for that.
Inherent in conservative politics by its very definition is the notion that things should remain the same. Because so many conservatives believe our nation is going downhill morally and socially, they respond to politicians who talk about the good old days and traditional values. Guess what, the good old days never existed, the moments they lionize were marred by racial prejudice and suppression of groups based on their gender and religion. We’re still far from perfect, but I’d rather see politicians who imagine a better future, and fight for that.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
So let me get this straight. When the Republicans accuse MoveOn.org of bad taste they're evil, but when MoveOn.org accuses Petraeus of treason that's just fine? You've got your perspective on this just a little bit backwards.
Dave
2 - therealisttruest
Man oh man! I could go on forever with this article. I barely even know where to begin. In trying to remain civil in my dissent, I'll simply say that I disagree with almost everything you have said. Obviously I am a conservative, but definitely not aligned with any political party. I would consider myself an independent, but the one thing I can't stand is Bush bashing. Fine he isn't the greatest leader we've ever had. There's a big mess in Iraq. Everything that is wrong with the world is all Bush's fault and since Patraeus works for Bush, well he is a traitor isn't he?
Look we are at war! Like it or not we are at war in Iraq, we are at war in Afghanistan, we are at war in places that neither you, I, or even the government fully know about as well. The War on Terror is global. We have been at war with Islamists for a quarter century at least, but just started fighting it after 3,000 civilians lost their lives in 2001. Bush didn't figure it out until it was too late, Clinton didn't have a clue, Bush 1, and even Reagan never took a serious look at this quagmire that started years ago. The bottom line is that they all suck!
To win a war, we need some unity though. No running, like the Dems want to do, no calling our generals traitors like MoveOn.org , no spitting on our troops like in the Vietnam war. Dissent is perfectly fine. You can have unity and dissent at the same time, if only you keep it respectful. When our "leaders" act like stupid children, the enemy sees us as weak and they keep fighting us even harder (ie Vietnam and Iraq). Laws won't save us, running from Iraq won't save us, and going at each other's throats won't save us either.
When the surge began I was actually a bit disappointed, because we sent so few soldiers(not victims like you claim) to clean this mess up. I thought we needed to send enough troops into Iraq to lock that country down, finish the job, and then get the hell out of there. Instead we got 30,000 troops(which really isn't enough) sent into a still prolonged, bloody war. We need to finish the job, politics aside, and get our families home, period. Leaving early under any circumstance is a horrible mistake which I believe we will pay for with our nations blood and probably our childrens blood one day.
3 - Baritone
Patrick,
Your article along with Realist's just before it are similar in substance and tone. I heartily agree with both.
I am most disappointed with the Dems slide to the right which was apparent during the Kerry campaign and even moreso prior to the 2006 elections. Many of the newly elected Dems in Congress voiced a general opposition to the Iraq war, but were otherwise careful to identify themselves as being socially conservative - anti-gay, anti-abortion, and so on. In the wake of the Republican tsunami which really began with the '92 mid-term elections, the Dems became more and more weak kneed, unwilling to really take on the growing right wing flood.
Today, amongst the Dem presidential candidates, only Mike Gravel has really come out vehemently against Bush, the war and the right wing usurpation of moral "values." Sadly, Gravel is borderline psychotic with virtually no chance.
Of course, we are mired in this hellish involvement in Iraq. WE created it. The idea that our incursion into Iraq had any fucking thing to do with the war on terror persists by simple minded conservatives. Saddam, his sons and his regime were dispicable and despotic in the worst sense imaginable. But Iraq under Saddam posed little, if any, real threat to us. Now, though, we are stuck. The mess that exists in Iraq will get dumped into the next administration's lap. Whatever course is taken will be hotly and closely scrutinized, and any failures will rest on their shoulders - meaning that the next president will have Iraq pressing down on at least two areas of their body.
Back in the the '60s and '70s the dissent against our involvement in Vietnam received much the same response by right wing hawks. According to them, oppostion to the war was tantamount to treason. I do believe one large mistake that the anti-war movement of that period made was its attacks against returning soldiers. Most had been drafted into service. The horror of My Lai and other such atrocities fed the flames against the military bringing about the accustations of their being "baby killers" and the like. Similar atrocities have occured both in Iraq and Afghanistan, but by and large, current war dissenters realize that most of the military are, if not always heros, they are conducting themselves responsibly and with honor. Unfortunately, they have been saddled with a task with little hope of success, just as in Vietnam. We also understand that war does things to people's psychies. Bad things happen, even by and to good people.
Bush has earned his detractors. He is an idiot. I agree with many, now even some who once supported him, that Bush may well be the worst president we have ever had. The results of his administration's efforts since taking up residence in the White House in 2001 have been largely disastrous, and with regards to social issues, the environment, abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc. this country has taken several steps backwards. That the president and many in his administration are believers in the coming "rapture" is frightening. The U.S. has become a laughing stock throughout much of the planet. We are looked upon as foolish and as a back-sliding country mired in both war and ludicrous religious dogma. It's hard to believe that coming out of WWII we were the world's heros, the unrivaled leaders in enlightened thought, science and technology. Boy have things changed!
Baritone
4 - Patrick
"When the Republicans accuse MoveOn.org of bad taste they're evil, but when MoveOn.org accuses Petraeus of treason that's just fine?"
I didn't say that. Republicans can accuse MoveOn of treason, just like MoveOn can accuse Petraeus. My issue is with this notion that certain types of speech are worthy of senate condemnation. What MoveOn did was in no way illegal or irresponsible, and they certainly had a right to say it. The message from this action is that anyone who disagrees with us is unAmerican and deserves to be censored, and sadly, many Democrats went along with it.
And note, I did say in the article that Democrats were just as bad as the Republicans for their attempt to broaden the legislation to condemn all attacks on the military.
5 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
It became evident to me around 2002-2003 that there was no difference between either political party in the United States. They both represent the oil and banking interests in the United States, with the difference in the parties centering on which groups within the oil and banking interests own the parties, and hence the politicos in them.
So, for the most part, it doesn't matter which political party one votes for in America. Of course, by that time, I had moved to Israel, and it really didn't make a difference.
But you folks are stuck in the States, for the most part, so for you this does make a difference.
If you hadn't figured it out by 2004, the ascendancy of John Kerry to the Democratic presidential sacrificial lamb status should have driven the point home. Which Skull and Bones Yalie were you going to put in the White House? The idiot who was already there, whose handlers were taking your rights away; or the other Yalie who had other bosses to answer to who would also take your liberties away?
And did it matter?
Patrick's article, along with that of Realist, demonstrate that it didn't - and still doesn't.
The standard Hebrew response to paragraphs like the above is "az ma?" - So what?
So, you need to do what Israelis have been doing for the last two years, since the expulsion from Gush Qatif opened the eyes of lots of Israelis to what a farce their own government was - disengage from the State.
For you this disengagement is a bit more urgent than it is for us. Events in Israel are not fully in the hands of the regime or its controllers. Our enemies can always attack, tearing the fabric of the puppet society into pieces. But for you, the ultimate in control, electronic chips in your bodies, is on the way, already being put in the new passports issued by the State Department. The upgrade - for you all personally, the subdermal variety, is already on the way in the not too distant future.
The issue goes way beyond whether dissent is treason; that question was answered in the early 1800's when the Sedition Acts of the Adam's administration were tossed out. The issue goes to whether your personal liberty will be lost or not in the next few years.
The ultimate right of every American - the right of revolution - is one that will have to be exercised damned soon if you Americans are to remain free at all.
6 - Clavos
The author fails to make one important point:
While dissent is not only permitted in a free society, it is and should be encouraged.
But moveondotorg's "ad" wasn't simply dissent; it was an ad hominem attack on a man who did not deserve it. A scurrilous attack in extremely poor taste, at that. But not unusual, coming from moveon, which is obviously run by rude, no-class, common scoundrels masquerading as patriots.
7 - Patrick
While the headline might have been a bit tabloid and over the top, couldn't you easily argue that in pandering to the Bush administration's agenda, he's betrayed both the nation and the soldiers out in the field.
Now, one could point out the very obvious hypocrisy of condemning this, but not doing the same for the Swift Boat ads, but I don't even think that's the issue. In this case, MoveOn asked a question that I think was valid, and even if he isn't "General Betray-Us," he's certainly not leading us down the right path in the war.
8 - gonzo marx
ok..the Petraeus ad was dumb, stupid shit...
but it was doen by a private organization in the press...Free speech and all...about equivalent to the Swift boat shit...which was NOT condemned
now, add the attacks on Cleland's service and even what was done to McCain in the 2000 primary...those came form candidates for office
none of those were condemned by the Senate now, were they
face it...Sen Reid is a worthless piece of shit, possible the worst Senate Majority Leader i can recall...that motion should have NEVER even reached the floor
just goes to show, that some are expert in playing the double standards, and their opponents are too weak willed to stand up to it
either way, a tempest in a tea cup
the thing to be worried about is the precedent set by the Senate motion to condemn the ad...the Senate taking an official adversarial position to ANY free speech in the Press should worry ALL citizens, imo
we have the Right to say dumb shit, we have the Right to speak our minds, and have it printed...we have the Right to dissent any way we see fit
do NOT fall for the bullshit that anyone hands you that says differently
just say fuck NO to the thought Commisars
nuff said...
Excelsior?
9 - handyguy
I love the title of this article, but after that Patrick loses me. The Congressional resolution is not really 'legislation,' just the usual grandstanding.
The MoveOn ad was in questionable taste but the 'Republican Noise Machine,' as David Brock calls it, has been responsible for an enormous amount of slanderous distortion over the last 15 years, and this ad in that context doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
10 - iCVelX
I completely agree with this article. There is nothign scarier than the fact that there are people in very powerful goverment possitions for the single reason that they are "loyal Bushies". No better example that the conveniently amnesic Alberto Gonzalez. General Petraeus is just that, another brainwashed pawn in the administration's plan to convince us the war is in fact going well.
There is no easier group of people to control than those who think they are free. The administion knows this and that is why it runs on slogans (most about how america's freedom should be spread) with not real meaning. I think MoveOn.org was trying to make point, they probably knew the goverment would condemn it. The condemnation of the ad is the same condemnation the administration gives to anyone with an opinion different to theirs. I don't think this was a horrible attack to general Petraeus, but to what he represents.
11 - Clavos
"I don't think this was a horrible attack to general Petraeus, but to what he represents."
Then why didn't they attack "what he represents" instead?
it was an attack on Petraeus, alright.
12 - iCVelX
"Then why didn't they attack "what he represents" instead?"
Yes the attack was directed at him, for not being truthful to us. He is betraying us and all those in service by being a puppet of the administration.
The only reason they are not directly attacking the administration is because the administration's credibility is already a joke. Meanwhile for some reason the general has a faux credibility that no one seems to dare question.
13 - Clavos
"Yes the attack was directed at him, for not being truthful to us. He is betraying us and all those in service by being a puppet of the administration."
Do you have direct, verifiable evidence of that?
Or are you just accepting shiton.org's word for it?
14 - iCVelX
Every single report from people who have been in Iraq, not associated with the administration, states that there is no progress.
Generals are not supposed to be independent thinkers, they follow plans, plans given to them by the government they fight for. That is exactly what he does, he gives us the facts they tell him. The government has a completely ridiculous way of tallying violence. For example they count if somebody is shot in the back of the head as violence, but not if they are shot in the front. Also car bombs do not count either. This information is in every newspaper, not only in national newspapers but also in those of other countries.
15 - Dave Nalle
Excellent point, Clavos. What reason to any of you have to believe that Petraeus' mildly positive and hardly 'rah rah' report was in any way untruthful. If he was going to make stuff up wouldn't he have made the report more positive? I can dig up far more positive reports on what's going on in Iraq just by going to the MilBlogs and reading a few links. But I guess they're all lying too.
This is another case of Moveon.org expressing their open hostility towards and suspicion of the military.
Dave
16 - bliffle
The administrations own judgement stands against him: he wasn't put in charge of the Iraq campaign 3 years ago when, if he were any good, he could have made a difference. Bush only brought him forward after trying a bunch of others.
I haven't seen that he's done anything special. He just moves troops from one place to another for a temporary good showing. Someone likened it to that old boardwalk game "Whack-a-mole", which seems appropriate.
He seems to be supporting Bush, so I guess he's demonstrated loyalty to someone. But the question is, does his loyalty to Bush preclude his loyalty to the USA? Is he honestly allocating his loyalty?
A real Hero would proclaim that he won't leave the battlefield until his men come home. Does anyone think Petraeus is that hero?
17 - Baritone
The so called "surge" and its supposed successes are very like dropping a rock in a tub of water. The water gets displaced and splashes about, but the moment you remove the rock, the water rushes back in its place.
The relative quiet may well be shortlived.
B-tone
18 - moonraven
A New World Order: Re-reading Stephen Hawking
It is time to clear
away the nostalgia,
now, face our future
as destiny manifest
in the light of past failures.
This cherry-picking
of facts and information
as a religion
has outsmoked its utility,
and even Aristotle
was never exempt:
that the earth is the center
of the universe
has been proven false over
and over, but we keep right
on believing it.
One atomic particle
fighting another
has become the new moral
imperative, our new law.
Making warâ€"as if
we were importantâ€"as if
the outcome matteredâ€"
fails to understand
that our entire galaxy
is tinier than
the head of Blake’s pinâ€"on which
an infinity
of angels can fiddle while
Rome and Baghdad explode, while
Alpha Centauri
disappears into the black.
A dust mote appears
on one retina, and a
whole new universe is born.
19 - Clavos
"The so called "surge" and its supposed successes are very like dropping a rock in a tub of water. The water gets displaced and splashes about, but the moment you remove the rock, the water rushes back in its place."
Except that, in this case, the rock won't be removed for quite some time to come, as even the Democratic frontrunners admitted during their debate at Dartmouth last week that they will leave the troops in Iraq at least until 2013.
20 - Martin Lav
What Moveon.org and most liberals fail to realize is that the reason Bill Clinton was even elected was because he was practically a Republican in that his liberals views were tempered at best. The "right" in this country is brilliant on knowing what matters to most ordinary Americans and they play upon the fears of them.
Homosexuality
Terrorism
Tax and Spend
Most Americans are afraid of the so-called "liberal-left". The dismissive attitudes predominate in the arrogant intellectuals airs of the Movie Stars and Talk Show Hosts of the day, SCARES the average American.
Just like this author, calling for MORE protest and MORE liberalism is NOT what the American people vote for.
I mean look at the last Presidential Election, MY PET GOAT could have/should have been able to beat GWBUSH, yet Kerry couldn't. That to me should have been a lesson.
Go mainstream people, you will get further in pushing your agenda. That may be just how you may find another Clinton in the White House.....
21 - Baritone
Clav,
Perhaps, but not at "surge" numbers. Just from the political standpoint alone, there must be a significant draw down of American troop strength in Iraq to appease voters. When anyone is throwing out numbers as regards the length of our Iraqi tenure, it can only be a WAG (wild-ass guess.) Given the situation and its uncertain future. we could have a significant military presence in Iraq for decades. Look at Korea. Bush & Co managed to get us stuck in Iraqi mud up to our assholes and our dicks stuck in a ringer from which we will find it difficult to disengage without significant sturm und drang.
Personally, I can't imagine wanting to be the next president. There will be no graceful way out of the mess in Iraq, or even Afghanistan for that matter. As they say "fools rush in where wise men... yada, yada, yada."
B-tone
22 - moonraven
Didn't understand a word of it, did you?
23 - Baronius
This article seems to argue that supporting Bush is unpatriotic. Patrick, it's always easier to spot the other guys' personal attacks. I don't think you're a traitor; do you think that my support for the war makes me one?
Beyond that, there's an odd obsession in the Left with being oppressed. I don't recall who said it, but I recently read the comment that the anti-war movement dearly wishes for 1950's-style blacklisting. They look for accusations of treason that just aren't there. It vindicates them somehow.
24 - handyguy
Clavos, you are misquoting the Dem candidates. They refused to commit to a withdrawal date, a smart though very cautious move during a campaign. They didn't say they would definitely keep troops anywhere for 6 more years. Also, troops could be in Iraq [or nearby] without being in direct combat roles.
25 - Dr Dreadful
They look for accusations of treason that just aren't there.
Aren't they?