• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MoveOn.org ... "Shut UP!"

Getting back to what the General didn't say, and just looking at the military issues and any truth stretching from what he did say the report still amounts to using rose paint on a pig.

What Petraeus Left Out- McClatchy Report
He said 445,000 people were on the security forces' payroll, but didn't discuss that many officials believe that thousands of those don't actually exist, but are phantoms whose salaries actually go into ministry officials' pockets.
Click to expand...

What Petraeus Left Out- After Downing St
Petraeus conceded that that success didn't extend to Ninevah province, where progress "has been much more up and down." But he didn't say that many believe that al Qaida numbers increased there only after the surge began. Ninevah is where some of the largest bombings of the year occurred, including the attack on the Yazidis, which killed more than 300.
Click to expand...

What Petraeus Left Out - Common Dreams
Both Iraqis and U.S. officials concede that militias have infiltrated the security forces and that political leaders continue to interfere with their operations to serve their sects' interests.
Click to expand...

What Crocker and Petraeus Didn't Say - Truth Out
Petraeus also didn't highlight the fact that his charts showed that "ethno-sectarian" deaths in August, down from July, were still higher than in June, and he didn't explain why the greatest drop in such deaths, which peaked in December, occurred between January and February, before the surge began
Click to expand...

What Crocker and Petraeus Didn't Say - Crooks and Liars
Neither Petraeus nor U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker talked about the fact that since the troop surge began the pace by which Iraqis were abandoning their homes in search of safety had increased. They didn't mention that 86 percent of Iraqis who've fled their homes said they'd been targeted because of their sect, according to the International Organization for Migration.
Click to expand...

Crooks and Liars on a different page posted, Hardball: General Petraeus Doesn’t Know If The Mission In Iraq Makes America Safer and noted that didn't really support the surge as successful.

And finally, this women's rights watch group added, in this article, Report vs. Reality: What General Petraeus Didn’t Say, a number of other issues.

1) No independent assessments support the assertion fewer Iraqis have been killed.
2) Petraeus arbitrarily excluded a number of categories of people killed.
3) Their research showed, "Figures from Iraqi hospitals, morgues, and police logs show that civilian killings are double what they were this time last year", which contradicted the Petraeus numbers.
4) Anbar’s anti-al Qaeda initiative had nothing to do with the surge, I believe I mentioned this already.
5) Petraeus’ focus on al Qaeda was misleading and this in particular indicates his report was party line rhetoric, not a valid assessment. "Al Qaeda in Iraq represents less than five percent of the anti-US insurgency, which shows no signs of wearing out." Claiming we are in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, to destroy those phantom WMDs, those are not why we are there. Those were the claims used to justify invading and those claims have been discredited. So when I see that same rhetoric still being used, it is a clear sign of propaganda, not an honest report.
6) And this women's rights group states the same thing as in the above reports, "Petraeus’ figures reflect the success of ethnic cleansing across Iraq, not the success of the surge."
 
Tokorona said:
Because they ignore Limbaugh as he's a radio host, but the NYT is more widely read?
Click to expand...
The condemnation was against MoveOn, not against the NYTs.

But if you really think that is the reason, you are foolishly rationalizing why it is OK to condemn free speech by one group and ignore similar speech by another.
 
skeptigirl said:
Getting back to what the General didn't say, and just looking at the military issues and any truth stretching from what he did say the report still amounts to using rose paint on a pig.

What Petraeus Left Out- McClatchy Report

What Petraeus Left Out- After Downing St

What Petraeus Left Out - Common Dreams

What Crocker and Petraeus Didn't Say - Truth Out

What Crocker and Petraeus Didn't Say - Crooks and Liars

Crooks and Liars on a different page posted, Hardball: General Petraeus Doesn’t Know If The Mission In Iraq Makes America Safer and noted that didn't really support the surge as successful.

And finally, this women's rights watch group added, in this article, Report vs. Reality: What General Petraeus Didn’t Say, a number of other issues.

1) No independent assessments support the assertion fewer Iraqis have been killed.
2) Petraeus arbitrarily excluded a number of categories of people killed.
3) Their research showed, "Figures from Iraqi hospitals, morgues, and police logs show that civilian killings are double what they were this time last year", which contradicted the Petraeus numbers.
4) Anbar’s anti-al Qaeda initiative had nothing to do with the surge, I believe I mentioned this already.
5) Petraeus’ focus on al Qaeda was misleading and this in particular indicates his report was party line rhetoric, not a valid assessment. "Al Qaeda in Iraq represents less than five percent of the anti-US insurgency, which shows no signs of wearing out." Claiming we are in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, to destroy those phantom WMDs, those are not why we are there. Those were the claims used to justify invading and those claims have been discredited. So when I see that same rhetoric still being used, it is a clear sign of propaganda, not an honest report.
6) And this women's rights group states the same thing as in the above reports, "Petraeus’ figures reflect the success of ethnic cleansing across Iraq, not the success of the surge."
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's all well and good, but three things invalidate your post:

1) MoveOn is RUDE!!
2) Hillary Clinton said he was a straight shooter!!
3) He's a general, and the troops are always right(when they agree with Bush)

Don't you feel silly doing all that research and checking out all those facts?
 
jsfisher said:
Why are you so quick to erect straw people?
Click to expand...
For Pete's sake, what straw man?

You said there was no nationalized police.

Yes there is, the FBI.

You said there was no nationalized edication.

I noted the federal government supports all public schools, funding is a mix between local, state and federal monies.

You said there were no national fire departments.

I posted a link to a national fire department.

What straw are you referring to? I contend it was you who tried to use red herrings to negate my statement that we had other nationalized services. Many Western capitalist countries include health care in the same category as police and fire and suggesting or supporting nationalized health care is hardly a radical left wing idea.

In addition, many corporations are on board with the idea of national health insurance because the trend in this country of having health care provided as an employee benefit is making it hard for them to compete in a global market. And there is a looming crisis as these companies move to divest themselves from providing health insurance starting with contracts for retirees.
 
Last edited:
The purpose of the Republican sponsored Senate condemnation of MoveOn was to feign outrage. That distracts from the real issue of the shortcomings of the Petraeus report and the failure of the surge to accomplish anything of real substance in Iraq. Unfortunately a number of Democrats in the Senate still haven't figured that out.
 
Democrats Voting to Condemn MoveOn.org
Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Feinstein (D-CA), Johnson (D-SD), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Leahy (D-VT), Lincoln (D-AR), McCaskill (D-MO), Mikulski (D-MD), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Salazar (D-CO), Tester (D-MT), Webb (D-VA)

Demsocrats Who Voted ‘No’

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Byrd (D-WV), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)

Democrats Not Voting

Biden (D-DE), Cantwell (D-WA), Obama (D-IL)
Click to expand...
Just in case anyone wants to let their Senator how they feel about the vote.
 
skeptigirl said:
For Pete's sake, what straw man?

You said there was no nationalized police.

Yes there is, the FBI.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. the FBI is not responsible for every crime.

You said there was no nationalized edication.

I noted the federal government supports all public schools, funding is a mix between local, state and federal monies.
Click to expand...

But states can still set their own curriculum.

You said there were no national fire departments.

I posted a link to a national fire department.
Click to expand...

That fights wildfires on national park ground? Not exactly socalised national fire department.

What straw are you referring to? I contend it was you who tried to use red herrings to negate my statement that we had other nationalized services. Many Western capitalist countries include health care in the same category as police and fire and suggesting or supporting nationalized health care is hardly a radical left wing idea.
Click to expand...

It's not, but it's radical compared to current center.

In addition, many corporations are on board with the idea of national health insurance because the trend in this country of having health care provided as an employee benefit is making it hard for them to compete in a global market. And there is a looming crisis as these companies move to divest themselves from providing health insurance starting with contracts for retirees.
Click to expand...

The only time I'd consider argumtum ad populum to be valid.

The purpose of the Republican sponsored Senate condemnation of MoveOn was to feign outrage. That distracts from the real issue of the shortcomings of the Petraeus report and the failure of the surge to accomplish anything of real substance in Iraq. Unfortunately a number of Democrats in the Senate still haven't figured that out.
Click to expand...

So this is a poisioning the well, presumption of guilt and a few other fallacies, I'm sure. For that matter, I love how you can just say they're FEIGNING outrage. :rolleyes:
 
Tokorona said:
Incorrect. the FBI is not responsible for every crime.

But states can still set their own curriculum.

That fights wildfires on national park ground? Not exactly socalised national fire department.

It's not, but it's radical compared to current center.

The only time I'd consider argumtum ad populum to be valid.

So this is a poisioning the well, presumption of guilt and a few other fallacies, I'm sure. For that matter, I love how you can just say they're FEIGNING outrage. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

FBI Jurisdiction is very specific and very narrow. The Federal govt does set guidelines for state schools. Saying that the schools are nationalized is a stretch IMO. Yes, the vast majority of fire departments are NOT federal, they are not even state, they are county. Further I don't believe that the federal govt sets guidelines for county fire departments I could be wrong on that one.

The Federal govt usualy gets compliance by offering funds to those who comply for most guidelines. They don't have a lot of enforcement capability, AIU.
 
Last edited:
Toko, your comments do nothing but sidetrack the discussion.

Capitalist countries have national health insurance. Everything in the US that is state run is not considered communist, socialist, nor far left. MoveOn's support of national health insurance does not make them radical left wing.
 
Tokorona said:
....

So this is a poisioning the well, presumption of guilt and a few other fallacies, I'm sure. For that matter, I love how you can just say they're FEIGNING outrage. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I can say it because I am a student of Karl Rove campaign strategies and this is one of them. Whether or not anyone is really outraged is irrelevant. The point is to play it to the hilt. The goal is to distract the public from the real issues. It's a repeating theme. You seem quite distracted, for example.
 
.. great, so you have no proof. (And I'm not commenting on the Paetrus report because I happen to agree with DR, it's also outside the scope of this argument.)

Toko, your comments do nothing but sidetrack the discussion.

Capitalist countries have national health insurance. Everything in the US that is state run is not considered communist, socialist, nor far left. MoveOn's support of national health insurance does not make them radical left wing.
Click to expand...

The comments directly answer your question about it being nationalized. How is that irrelevant? And while other countries do, indeed have it, the American center is quite notably not located in other countries. Appeal to world thought doesn't work when aren't considering the world.
 
I don't know if Moveon.org is extreme. I know that it looks as if they shot themselves in the foot. It's fair to blame Republicans for diverting attention but Moveon.org most certainly gave them the ammunition.

The Washington Post stated on September 20 that "Democrats blamed the group [Moveon.org] for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war."[20][21]
Click to expand...

I find it a bit amusing when people get upset at the opposition political parties for playing politics especially when the opposition plays them like a fiddle.

Here's a hint: Don't do dumb things.

Democrats have been shut down cold. Not a single combined resolution has been passed to bring about an end to the war. Republicans have effectively made this about patriotic BS and the American people have, to a degree, bought that. Americans don't want politicians attacking the troops. Soldiers are just regular guys who get shot and maimed just doing their job.

Paetraus is NOT one of those guys but he is perceived as one.

Watching the Dem's it's hard for me to imagine they have anyone who can piece together a coherent strategy.

Congress pulls lower ratings than Bush.

Look, complaining about Republicans isn't going to do anything. Democrats have to be perceived as having a solution and not just attempting to look less incompetent or less dishonest than Republicans.
 
Proof of what, Toko? That feigning outrage is a Karl Rove campaign tactic? I'm not the only one to make that observation.

Huffington Post
In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, President Bill Clinton said there was something "completely disingenuous about the feigned outrage" from conservatives over the MoveOn ad. Clinton noted that many of the same conservatives who expressed outrage had likened Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) to Osama bin Laden and had smeared Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) war record. He added: "It was just bait and switch. It was just, oh thank goodness, I can take this little word here and ignore what we've done in Iraq and what we're gonna do"...
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)



And according to this national poll done by CNN this year, 64% of the US public is for some kind of national health insurance. Do you have anything that suggests otherwise? In 06 it was 55% in an ABC poll. You should take a look, there is a lot of information at the link.
 
First one is an appeal to authority, second is appeal to people. I'll take the CNN one on faith, but if so many people wanted it, it'd probably have broader support.

ETA: To make my own position clear, I am neither for or against health care right now. I'd like it, but I am unsure if I trust the government to actually administer it efficently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom