MoveOn Haters Require the Suspension of Disbelief

So today C-SPAN took a stream of callers on that phony ginned-up artificial manufactured vat-grown faux-controversy over Move-On's "General Betray Us" ad. Moonbat found herself chewing the steering wheel when none of the Democratic callers could stay focused on the statistics, but at least the Republicans were amusing enough to use Petraeus' report as a justification to nuke Baghdad. Guiliani's frogs hop about promoting his own, closer to the front page, denouncement of Hillary Clinton, for not being a spokesperson for MoveOn, so that she can hurt her own campaign by being stupid enough to give into his demands to apologize for the ad. MSNBC's political analyist Joe Watkins claims on television that MoveOn's ad contained only the words "General Betray Us?" and a mug shot of General Petraeus, so outrageously taken of his unflattering side. And oh yes... TalkLeft's call for liberals to denounce MoveOn has been reposted to raise advertising revenue.

Con-blogs whipped themselves into hysteria over the idea that MoveOn got a $167,000 full page-ad for only $65,000. "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." (Beware the ad-ware that downloads off this site!) Heck, it's even McCarthyism to demand accountability, not for your political affiliation anymore, but testimony you're going to give to Congress. McCarthyism? MoveOn must be calling Petraeus a communist, oh my!

BlackFive takes the cake by filing a very sad complaint with the Federal Elections Commission. "I sold political advertising ...during the 2006 elections. We were informed that there could be absolutely no discounts to the rate card prices for political or advocacy advertising ...to stop the paper from favoring one viewpoint over another. It seems evident that if the reports are true, the NY Times has favored MoveOn by offering a huge discount to them for political advocacy advertising." Blackfive and it's dear readers seem unaware that the New York Times is available online, where spokeswoman Catherine J. Mathis explains how political advocacy groups can save a little green by running ads on ""standby." Wait.. it get's better!!

Who backs up the NYTimes against Blackfive but Freedom Watch. “The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad.” Freedom Watch expresses the doubt that MoveOn would have the political savvy to leak it's own ad once the NYT phoned them before putting the paper to bed.. but who cares about sour grapes? Perhaps it's even too little to point out Blackfive's selective revision of the English language when UncleJimbo "defines" betray... as "to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country." Now, clicking on the link provided we find something beyond such an elementary understanding of our language:

1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8. to seduce and desert.

Moonbat discovered that not a single one attempted to actually defend Petraeus' redefinition of determining who is or is not a terrorist by how they pump you with lead. In fact, poor reading skills led Newsbusters to claim MoveOn cited Iraq sectarian death statistics wrong. MoveOn's Ad stated "For example, death by car bombs don't count." Newsbusters quoted the NewYorkTimes incorrectly to refute that statement:

Victims from car bombs are treated as sectarian casualties if the attack appears to be directed at a sectarian or ethnic group ....Casualties that result from fighting between groups, like the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps, however, are not classified as sectarian, as they are the result of clashes between two Shiite organizations. But victims of all car bomb attacks and Shiite and Sunni infighting are included in the overall civilian casualty count.

Key parts they misread are in bold. Car bombings that strike open market places in cities, or random buses, or police stations, or Coalition military personnel are not counted. Only the overall civilian count, which General Petraeus did not use, includes all deaths by car bombs. Unless a car bomb strikes a mosque or an isolated tribe, that car bombing has been excluded as an indication of the continued insurgency. The difference made means de facto, MoveOn is right.

Giuliani forgets Aesop's parable about the little yappy dog who tries to bite two steaks at once and looses both, aiming poorly at MoveOn and Hillary at the same time. At least he's not as sad as Thompson, whose words of wisdom are that veterans are stupider than youngsters who he doesn't trust to drink beer. McCain perhaps does him better by saying Hillary can prove she's a man's-man by not showing she understands something as hard as math. Moonbat will let her dear readers be the decider.

Interesting to see if this fantasy love-affair between MoveOn and Hillary Clinton will become the stuff of pop legend. Beyond conservatives insisting that any elite with a PhD or who has been called a Great Leader by a magazine deserves having their reputation defended by a congressional resolution, Hillary Clinton's full testimony gets hacked into unrecognizable tidbits which she "huffed" when she pointed dared grill the General over the point that to accept his report as accurate, several other recent independent reports must be dismissed wholesale. Clinton even went out of her way to point out that no one should expect Petraeus to have to answer for the years of Bush's policy, to be a spokesperson for everything that came before him. Sheesh. Giuliani dearly would love Americans to be so uncultured as to equate the phrase "the willing suspension of disbelief" with deliberate falsehood... but no, we is more learned than that, yes?

While the surge strategy gets hashed to pieces, at least the BBC got around to asking the Iraqi people what they thought of the surge:

"The United States has increased the number of its forces in Baghdad and surrounding provinces in the past six months. Please tell me if you think this increase of forces has made it better, worse, or had no effect?"



"How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"

"Some 47% of respondents now back an immediate withdrawal, compared with 35% in February. The poll also shows dwindling support for troops remaining in the country, even in support of the Iraqi government and security forces. Only 10% of those surveyed favor coalition forces remaining for that purpose."



Con-blogs better batten down the hatches, pile up the Pepsi, and hook up that pee-bag: MoveOn Moves On to presidential shrubbery on September 17th. "Before the surge, George Bush had 130,000 troops stuck in Iraq," says the narrator of the new ad. "Americans had elected a new Congress to bring them home. Instead, Bush sent 30,000 more troops. Now he's making a big deal about you guessed it . . . pulling out 30,000. So, next year, there will still be 130,000 troops stuck in Iraq. George Bush. A Betrayal of Trust." 130,000 + 30,000 - 30,000 = 130,000 Which means the surge got us right back to start. But wait, I suppose that's more math moonbat shouldn't worry her cute little curls over??

Technorati Tags:
General Petraeus, troop surge, Iraq, Move On, withdrawal, politics, current affairs, moonbat

TalkLeft Learns to Say "Yes, Mistress!!"

So today marks the day when moonbat addresses an unfortunate incident when she was addressed as "SIR." Given gender and a stunning photo of my lavish red hair, this was very wrong, wasn't it??

TalkLeft: Yes, Mistress.

Let's choose a "safe word" for today. I know, that self-described "service" for busy progressives who want their own voice heard inside the legislative and electoral progress in an age of big money... Move On.

So, why is the anti-war movement so sick at heart? Why do the turn outs to the marches and rallies still suck even after a few thousand pairs of feet are argued one way or another? 2% turnout of a city so liberal the Democratic winner of the primary for Mayor orders his stationary the next day with city funds is piss poor. Especially since the march got infusions from around the country. Where was this majority of the country that disapproves of the Iraq War and elected a Democratic Congress, and why does nobody talk about Iraq?

"Now that this atrocity has moved into its fifth year, I don't overhear any street-corner, café, or waiting-room debate about what is being done in my name and yours. Of course, the war and endless war are the main topics when I'm with my friends and fellow members of the different peace organizations....Perhaps, soon, more and more of our young will awaken, throw off that blanket of apathy, examine the crimes committed by this administration against the people of Iraq and the people of the United States, and emerge as defenders of justice who will not allow the peace baton to ever be dropped again."

But it's not the anti-war movement's fault!! Oh no. Never let that cross your mind. Despite the fact that at the Pentagon, the only way they came up with that crowd was to give microphone time to causes that had nothing to do with Iraq. Like immigrants. Save the cheap lettuce, and all, but you are standing outside the Pentagon. Despite the fact that they spent more time denouncing the crimes of the Democratic Party than they actually spent denouncing the Iraq War of the polices of Bush. Despite the fact that so many of the protesters showed up to put pressure on the elected members of their government while waving the face of Hugo Chavez. But don't say it's the anti-war movement's fault they couldn't come up with the numbers to actually surround the Pentagon.

The anti-war movement explains that the Iraq War is the liberal anti-Iraq War voting public's fault: they have an imperial mindset, the fact that a majority of Americans don't support a phased redeployment is kept from them, and they've been duped into believing that the only way they can fight injustice is to shop. You see:

Let's remember, by the way, that, unlike mainstream Democratic "withdrawal" plans, the American public is talking about actually leaving Iraq, as in that old, straightforward slogan of the Vietnam era: Out now! In other words, there is a hardly noted but growing gap -- call it, in Vietnam-era-speak, a "credibility gap" -- between the Washington consensus and what the American people believe should be done when it comes to Iraq.

What I love about the anti-war movement is the whole "planting the seeds of your own destruction part." Yes, after cutting your teeth on movements to tell a whole lot of people what they can and can't do (save the rain forest, save the whales, dolphin-free tuna, stop violence against women, yadda yadda), you are told that all your skills are imperialistic. Right. Yes, because if you follow the links the anti-war movement provides to prove that the American public no longer backs the Iraq War, you find out that the answer to the question "Which of the following comes closest to your view? The U.S. should immediately begin to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. The U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq within a year. The U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq as long as is needed to turn control over to the Iraqi government." is not something the anti-war movement wants to have anyone talk about. The numbers? Oh yeah. Only 21% support an immediate withdrawal, 37% in one year, 39% to stay as long as necessary for peace, 4% unsure. RightAnd I sure have noticed all the "spend your money here" payment links at the bottom of the only anti-war emails moonbat is privileged to receive. Right.

Heh. Right. If ill people need it explained to them that it's stupid to quote sources that disprove your own agenda, then yeah, that makes you an "idiot." The cameras of FOX News and the blogs of the gung-ho are just waiting to use such idiocy to feed the process of internal sectarian strife in the land of liberal, so that all out civil war will justify their having to remain in occupation until the job is done and liberals have stopped shedding each other's blood and learned to live in peace and share their toys. And back to Iraq.

Technorati Tags:
MoveOn, TalkLeft, anti-war, Iraq, politics, liberal, conservative, Bush, moonbat

Amateur Liberals Shocked; Move on Moves On

So since the passing of supplemental spending on Iraq the response of the outlying fringes of the Democratic Party seem all the rage to dish. Bush tried his best to best what he called "an act of political theater" by denouncing it as "an act of political theater" while standing with a vet behind him to the left and a pretty blond soldier with wispy blue eyes at his right hand. No one noticed, amidst the spasms of outrage over Move On's move to support Pelosi. Move On took no official position without doing something horribly democratic: it twice emailed it's members to vote. 126, 000 Move On members participated in the (first) vote. 84.6% supported the bill. 9.2% said they weren't sure and 6.2% opposed it. Both votes garnered an equal response to Move On's email vote over supporting (or not) Ned Lamont last fall. Anti-(all) war bloggers began to mobile quickly to denounce and campaign against Move On, infected with amnesia over the founding of the online grassroots organization. Which was to ah... promote legislative action that provides results over ideological purity.

Let's get out the discection kit: little scapal, tweezers, eye dropper, ruler and latex gloves. Got your gloves on? So here's this anti-war movement on the cold and hard steel table of reality before you, and it wants to know why it's not getting what it wants from the Democratic Party. Three words: Veto Proof Majority. And ah... not everyone has to think the same thing, like we were brainwashed or something. Move On might be the most accessible target and competitor for media love but the anti-war movement has so starved itself in an effort to avoid the anti-IRAQ war crowd that it bites anything that moves. One despairs over political activists who can't fathom the difference between having your bill defeated by a session of Congress supposedly elected with a mandate to alter the course in Iraq, and a presidential veto. To put a measure on the floor of Congress that will only go down in flames, is to avoid a showdown with Bush. To insist that an ideologically pure bill supported by a segment of the American population that couldn't elect a majority of candidates to Congress should trump over the combined opinions of those members actually elected by majority vote is anti-American. See there? Very little matter in the brain cavity.

Let's move on. With a deep blade into the heart. Here we find a feeling of sickness because Move On dares to stick to it's founding principles (if you don't win, you aren't noble, you just loose) and applauding members of Congress who chose to vote the Dem line. Of course, this heart may judge that another member of Congress who voted to get nothing as being a representative in whom a voter could feel pride. Others may judge, but not Move On? Others may speak, but pragmatism must be silent? This heart quivers from an urgency because tens of thousands of people will die in Iraq if Bush blinks and signs Pelosi' budget? Of course, hundreds of thousands of people will die from other preventable reasons in that same ammount of time, and frankly if the anti-war movement spent all of it's time and money in other directions, more lives would be saved. So it is a fair question for Move On to ask: are you in this to bring the Iraq War to resolution or to see your mug shot on FOX?

Moving down to the shriveled stomach, we find barely the strenght to mention that both Move On and the Congressional Black Caucus announced support for Pelosi. There's an old saying that laws and like sausage, and one should not watch how they are made, which should really apply to the anti-all-war movement, who seem to be largely vegan. Also to be avoided: chess, the Olympics.

"The legislative charade mounted by the Democratic Party has nothing to do with ending the war in Iraq. There are, in fact, no principled differences between the Democrats and Bush when it comes to the imperialist aims of the war. Both parties, the Democrats no less than the Republicans, serve the corporate interests—the oil conglomerates, the Wall Street banks, and the American financial oligarchy as a whole—that seek through military violence to establish US control of the resources and markets of the world."

One cannot forgive the self-imposed confusion of anger at Bush with immediate withdrawal, or the idea that the Democratic Party would best serve America by pissing into the wind. One simply misses the slimy contents of the stomach in the light of the glaring ulcer which ills the anti-all-war segement of liberal America: who the frak do they think they are to accuse the Democratic Party of secretly being just like Bush? How far do they think they will get stabbing other liberals in the back? What, do they live alone on a barren Moon that their desires are alike the decrees of a jealous God?

Good enough reason for this moonbat to join up with Move On. Hah!!

Move On Nancy Pelosi anti-war Iraq liberal politics