**Oh my. So many shocked sensibilities. Your government is killing your sons and daughters, looting your treasury, pollluting your country, and you get squeamish over a newpaper ad? WAKE UP PEOPLE! WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND, well you know how that ends.

MoveOn.Org lost its credibility with their ad against Gen. Petraeus. I considered myself somewhat open to their views, but no will no longer give them credibility.

Remember that (1) Gen. Petraeus wrote an op-ed just before the 2004 elections and (2) made the talk-show rounds before testifying to Congress. He made himself a political advocate and can be criticized for that. Couldnt you look at the NUMBERS and see if they had any basis in reality? No information on the basis for the numbers was release, and I believe 3 other organizations (including the Pentagon) have different numbers. There's plenty of reason to believe the data is being massaged, and no reason to believe anyone the Bush Administration is relying on so heavily.

Moveon.org...a better name would be Mindless Dummies following Other Mindless Political Dummies. UGH!!! I am sorry to say I even took a look at this site. Anyway, to anyone that wants to answer my post you can rest assured I won't be reading it. This site is full of crap and I am sorry I ever looked at it or read what any of you mindless followers had to post.

Hi,

Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:

NEW moveon,org TV ad coming out on monday sept 17th...basically calling president bush a traitor.

Catch it here:
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/2007/09/14/908/

For general david betray us fans or not:
http://davidbetrayus.com/

Have a great weekend!
Steve

Hypocrite gop. Practice what you preach. At least tehy got a picture of bohner crying again at www.crooksandliars.com

"Rhetorical question, I know. Kombiz at DailyKos wonders where the Republicans so eager to call out Democrats for the MoveOn ad are after Boehner's bone-headed remarks about the "small price" he's willing to pay for "success" in Iraq.

John McCain has already called on Boehner to retract his remarks, but not apologize. Will Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani rebuke House Republican Leader John Boehner's hurtful remarks?

And while we're at it, let's put EVERY SINGLE member of Congress on the record. Will they condemn this disgraceful talking point that minimizes the sacrifice of those risking their lives in pursuit of a failed policy?

"

The great divider(RNC)at work. It was okay with their despicable Swift Boat Veterans fo BS ads, so what's the news here, oh yeah, let's divert attention to something meaningless instead of focusing on the RNCs' failures. Where was everyones outrage from the Right when Kerry, who served for his country, was belittled ?
Not like the two cowards in the White House. No arguement here, so quit blowing air, it's a waste.
Neo-Conism at it's finest.

Thanks Move On for forcing yourself out of the shadows and into the spotlight so that mainstream America can see who is really behind the Dems. Now that they know - We get a Republican in office for the next 8 years. Thank God!!

Thanks a lot, MoveOn. Only idiotic, slanderous movements like this can distract the voters from this disastrous war and who's responsible. I'm a lifelong Democrat; are you, MoveOn? You couldn't have represented the Republicans political interests any better.

Just move on -- to another country.

Go Demos, Go Patriotic Americans in 2008.

BTW - C-Span now allows anyone to search their video of government business and use it anyway they want.

Time to pull out all the republican trashing of witnesses [including soldiers] at the House hearings on the waste, fraud, and abuse of this republican administration.

Start with Rep. Issa - CA - the rich Republican who doesn't like any democrat-called witness.

Go to www.c-span.org

C-Span did a 30 minute call-in today about the NYTimes - MoveOn ad price and the NYT's ad policy.

The MoveOn ad was farther back in the paper than is Rudy G's strange whiney hypocritical rebuttal ad today. He attacks the NYT, MoveOn and Hillary - GOP Trifecta!

Quit making a mountain out of a molehill.

Republicans don't like the NYT so they attack them on how much ad costs? MoveOn paid $65000 for a last-minute, no guarantee placement ad.

BTW - Rudy wants donations to fund his ad. A website is at the bottom of the ad.

I'm reaching for my checkbook to give more $$$ to MoveOn. that ad is the closes thing to truth we have had in this mess. More of the same and maybe we will get out of iraq in this century.

then we can prosecute those warmongering Bushies and make them own up to their horrendous decisions that has cost us in death, poverty and destruction, never mind the trillions of dollars we could have used in our own country.

Keep it up, MoveOn, and look for my check in the mail.

"Besides questions of campaign finance, the deep discount could also raise questions about the fiduciary duty owed the NY times shareholders. Another issue is whether the NY Times discloses these discounts in their financial reports to the SEC." - bradcpa

Brad, campaign finance is not an issue here. MoveOn is not a campaign organization. So, there is no in kind contribution.

The question about the discount for MoveOn.org and the fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders is a good question; but one that applies to every single business where management gives different deals to different customers for any number of reasons.

The Times probably reports in as much detail as the SEC requires, as I'm sure Ruppert Murdoch does. BTW - Does a pro-Rudy headline in the NY Post constitute an in kind contribution to his campaign?

Headline currently on the Post's website: Now, It's Gen. Petraeus'War

Thank you MoveOn, you allowed responsibility for the war to be shifted from where it really should be.

I was amazed at the "free pass" which MoveOn got from quite a few of the regulars here, simply because they are MoveOn. As if they are exempt for responsibility for what they disseminate.

It was a nice touch for Chris to follow that thread with one about Drudge.

"There's no such thing as bad publicity" may be good for Hollywood agents, but that doesn't fly in politics. See John Kerry (Swiftboats), Howard Dean (Iowa) John McCain (South Carolina 2000), Mike Dukakis (Willie Horton) and Geroge Romney (brainwashing) just for starters.

It will get back to being Bush's War, as it should, when Gen. Petraeus is back in Baghdad and the President is still here. But the focus never should have changed at all.

MoveOn screwed up, and it's showing.

Chris-

In a post on rightwing blog a great point was made about the Times ad sold to Move-on. I know that Newspaper ad rates are hard to understand but can you chase this down. I tend to agree with the bloger who said

According to Jake Tapper at ABCNews, the ad cost MoveOn.org approximately $65,000, running in the "A" section of the paper.

And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales, their own rate card (PDF) seems rather specific that Advocacy ads, which the MoveOn.org ad most clearly was, are sold at $167,157 for a full-page, full-price nationwide ad.

...

If true this raises some interesting questions. Is the Time making an in kind contribution to a political group? Giving away ad space is different from giving away news coverage. Besides questions of campaign finance, the deep discount could also raise questions about the fiduciary duty owed the NY times shareholders. Another issue is whether the NY Times discloses these discounts in their financial reports to the SEC. Perhaps someone will scan their 10-K.

It's not hard to tell who's side Hillary and Obama is on. If they are against the United States of America helping a country plagued with terrorists who also had weapons of mass destruction and are buddies with the Castro brothers Fidel who ordered innocent pilots shot down in un armed airplanes, and sent all of his mentally ill and harden criminals to South Florida in the late seventies and early eighties and Raul who is a child molester and has raped young children mostely boys since Fidel took control of Cuba in the early sixties and so many more crimes against humanity these two sick brothers of Cuba have commited and Hillary and Obama are friends with these sick evil brothers and they also want to end the work my fellow country men and women have died for and are still fighting for a freedom in Iraq then what exactly do these individuals have in store for the future of our great country America. The idea that they are in the government at the level they are is a scary nightmare, and for them to even entertain the idea of being a commander and chief is obsurd. In my opinion they should be charged with acts of treason. Thanks and God Bless the true American's

Rufus, demconvert, shut up idiots. Seriously, here you are calling anyone with an (R) after his name scum of the earth. Where's your evidence? Demconvert, get a life. Look at the way you cloned gopconvert's post and handle. Aren't you ashamed of being so pathetic?

Rufus, thank you for your service, but it doesn't keep you from being an idiot. Where's your evidence of this "blood for oil"? Uh-huh, that's what I thought. And don't give me some link to a lefty hate-site.

I really think I'm going to give up blogging because it really brings out the idiots, from both sides of the aisle, actually.

Two bit on Petraeus report:

Petraeus report written by WH:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&track=mostviewed-storylevel

Petraeus provides GOP caucus-only briefing on Iraq in April 2007:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-petraeussecretbriefing

If Gen Petraeus is going to behave as a partisan, his report should be treated as a partisan report.

But why would you expect anything less from the totalitarian-wannabees in the GOP?

I'm through with the republicans, I have been voting for the gop since I was 18 but no more. They have been hijacked by the fundy loons, and for them to accuse an honorable man like take your pick -- Clinton Kerry etc -- of betraying the U.S. is just deplorable. I thought the gop was party that was going to unite people, instead they decided to make treasonous remarks, manufacture failure for profit, and further divide us. (etc ad nauseum)

HAHAHAHHAHA.

LIke you needed the moveon ad to vote republican. Let me ask this. Do you have any of the same resentment for the republican's calling John Murtha (war vet) a traitor and sayinf he is anti american?

What about Coulter calling Mr. Obama a terrorist and edwards a fa**ot?

I'm just asking. if One ad, by a group not affilieated with the dems, gets you this angry. What about a channel commiting itself to attacking liberals?

HAHAHHAHA. Nice try. Why to try and sway a vote or two on this site. Only republican sell-outs would fall for that trick.

And I was Army infantry 11B. You people are trading my brothers and sisters blood for oil and stock prices. MAy all gop'er sell-out traitors fascists rot in hell.

I'm through with the democrats, I have been voting for the dems since I was 18 but no more. They have been hijacked by the MoveOn.org loons, and for them to accuse an honorable man like General Petraeus of betraying the U.S. is just deplorable. I thought the democrats were party that was going to unite people, instead they decided to make treasonous remarks and further divide us. I find it extremely disappointing that so many people are questioning the motives and integrity of General Petraeus. I have no doubt that most if not all of those questioning his integrity have never worn our country's uniform. He has devoted his entire adult life to the service of his country, going into harm's way on numerous occasions. What service have his detractors provided? I'm sure the answer is, in the vast majority of cases, none.
They run their mouths while he gets the job done. It's one thing to disagree with his positions, that's fine it's another thing entirely to assume he is being disingenuous. Shame on MoveOn.org and shame on the democrats for supporting this organization. Good luck to the GOP in 2008 you have just picked up two votes from this household.

Forget it, Blarg. You're not worth it. I'm done with you.

"Dems balk at MoveOn censure resolution
By: Steve Benen @ 5:21 AM - PDT The far-right Washington Times reports this morning that Republican demands for a resolution condemning MoveOn.org are being ignored.

Democratic congressional leaders and the party's presidential candidates yesterday refused to repudiate a liberal group's ad questioning Gen. David H. Petraeus' character.

Capitol Hill Democrats rejected a call for votes in both chambers to condemn the attack newspaper ad, run by MoveOn.org, saying Republicans are trying to take attention off what they call the president's failed Iraq policy.

Good. MoveOn is not the problem. If the right took coming up with a coherent Iraq policy half as seriously as they take some intemperate newspaper ad, the nation would be far better off.

"

www.crooksandliars.com

It's not a threat to say someone should suck a machine gun? You said that a MoveOn ad calling a general a liar was "a vile piece of garbage". But when Nugent says that he wants to stick his gun in Barack Obama's mouth, that just makes him an idiot performing stage theater. Calling someone a liar is that much worse than threatening to kill someone? (And no, I don't believe Nugent seriously intends to kill Obama and Hillary, but what he said was still a threat.) You also said that we don't see the same capitulation from Republicans towards the radicals on their side. Tell me what Republicans castigated Nugent for what he said. And no, you don't count.

You also said that prayer in school isn't a problem, because different religions are all expressions of the same ideas, and we all believe in the same god. But Hinduism isn't an expression of the same ideas as Christianity, and Hindus don't believe in the same god(s) as you. The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with this; the discussion was about prayer in school. Drindl's point still stands: If you're going to have prayer in school, you need to pick which religion's prayers you use.

and, for the record, I'm a former Army Sergeant. it's amusing how the party of Never Served Always Swerved thinks they own the military. They don't.

Time to bring them home. Less talk. More action.

Typical Red Bushies ... bringing a knife to a shotgun fight ...

Look, it was a very effective ad. It got you talking about it, it blew out the Red Bushies lies about Iraq off the talk sphere, and it basically said to any Dems that if they don't do something like refuse to fund the Iraq War in the appropriations bill, they are subject to the same kind of thing.

Which part of 80 percent of America wants out of Iraq don't you beltway boys GET?

Just ask the 70 percent of Iraq that wants us out what they think.

The Dem base (not that there is one) has changed. We rip out Red Bushies guts and laugh in your face now. It's the only thing that works with you traitors on the Red Bushie side.

Blarg,

NO IT'S NOT ENOUGH OF A THREAT FOR ME. Do you think I'm an idiot, Blarg? I KNOW the video you're talking about; it's been played out endlessly. Those were no more threats than countless comments made by the far Left virtually daily. Ted Nugent was an idiot for saying crap like that, and I condemn it as hate speech designed to rile people up, as he admits it was intended to do, just "stage theater". But a THREAT? Hell no.

And I know that Hindus worship different gods, as do countless other religions and cults throughout the world. But here's what secularists--and I don't know if that applies to you--don't understand. Although the Declaration of Independence doesn't carry the weight of law it IS this nation's mission statement, fair enough? It states that we were endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can define your Creator HOWEVER you want, but without this Creator our rights are only as inalienable as the next strongman who comes around to choose our rights for us. Calling our rights inalienable because they are ENDOWED to us by a source higher than man means that, logically, NO MAN can take them away from us, and we are therefore expected to defend them to the death. But if our rights were merely given to us by man, who's to say another man doesn't have a better and wiser moral code for us all?

Again, define the Creator as you want. You can worship the Judeo Christian god, the colorful characters of Hindu theology, the universe, the holy Cabbage, whatever. And atheists would NEVER be obliged to participate, I can assure you. But our society benefits from the concept that our rights are larger than us because of their unimpeachable source.

No need to get too carried away with the specifics beyond that, OK?

blarg, i'd tell the Hindus and the atheists to suck it up and deal just like everyone has to do with numerous other things in life where they hold beliefs different from the norm around them. I have few if any liberal beliefs yet I had to put up with the school mantra that FDR was the greatest president since Lincoln, that the New Deal saved the world and having my money being used for the FDR Memorial in DC. It does not mean that I need to convert to being a liberal. It's simply a part of life you deal with.

pcon-t, you're assuming that everyone worships the same god as you. What about Hindus? Not all religions are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. There's no way to have a prayer non-denominational enough to incorporate everyone's religious beliefs. And that's without considering atheists, who have no religious beliefs, and thus don't want to take part in any prayers.

Ted Nugent's threats against Democratic candidates took place August 21. He told Barack Obama to suck on a machine gun, and Hillary Clinton to ride a machine gun. Here's a link that includes the video. Is that enough of a threat for you?
http://www.prefixmag.com/blog/ted-nugent-threatens-hilary-clinton-barack-obama/7036

Publishing an ad like they did will get MoveOn publicity, including negative (people talking about how low it was). MoveOn shot themselves in the foot with this ad by alienating a number of people who opposed the war. A majority of people oppose the war, but I am skeptical that more than a small minority share MoveOn's views of General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker.

KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA ,
OK, I'll bite:

When will Ann Coulter be arrested for threatening physical harm against a Democratic presidential candidate? When somebody in the law profession decides that a law has been broken. Maybe the Democratic presidential candidate should press charges? You seem to be suggesting a double standard and I think you are correct. If Ms. Coulter had crashed into the Capitol in the middle of the night, high on perscription drugs, the result would not have been just rehab and expressions of sympathy by DC police.

When will Ted Nuggent be arrested for threatening physical harm against a Democratic presidential candidate? See Answer to Q1.

When will Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air for consistently smearing and lying about Democrats, Liberals and Progressives? About the same time as Keith Olbermann which should be never. I am shocked, shocked to find out there is fibbing going on in the political arena! And I am surprised that you wish to curtail the first amendment. Is that a Democratic, Liberal or Progressive position on that?

When will the radical far right neocon enablers of the White House be held up to the same standards as Democrats, Liberals and Progressives? What standards are those? Seriously. If you can tell me the high standards that the D,L,P is being held to, i'd be able to answer this one.

Kevin Schmidt, slightly above, says that the juvenile name that Move On smeared General Petraeus with was funny but true. Why is it true, Schmidty? (For that matter, why is it funny?) Is it true because Petraeus has showed some support for Bush as a president in general? So that must mean that he's automatically a lackey for the administration, and MUST be willing to throw away his entire reputation, after decades in public service, on a political whim for somebody else? Or do you have some other evidence to support your slander of this fine man? Where is it?

That's leftism for you. Facts and evidence be damned, and let's say and do anything to get our way. Destroy the messenger when we don't like the message.

More garbage from the Schmidtster:

"When will Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air for consistently smearing and lying about Democrats, Liberals and Progressives?"

#1: WHAT smears and lies? Name them.

#2: "Taken off the air" by WHOM? By the leftist Thought Police? I thought you were supposedly the ideology about "civil rights and freedom of expression". More leftist hypocrisy.

Ann Coulter and Ted Nugent threatened "harm against a Democratic presidential candidate"?

When? Cite it.

Drindl writes this drivel:

"What if there's prayer in schools? What will the prayer be? Who will choose? To which God? I'm belong to a Jewish Reconstruction Temple. I'm sure you won't mind if we use one of my prayers, right?"

Drindl, Drindl, Drindl.

Get a clue. Why should we believe in different "gods"? I thought the entire Judeo Christian theological philosophy was monotheism, and ETHICAL monotheism at that. Different religions, including moderate Islam, are just different communal expressions of this same concept, theological differences about the nature of Jesus Christ and the sanctity of the Koran aside.

Have you ever heard of the idea of non-denominational prayers? Isn't that what we mean when we communally say "In God we Trust" and "God Bless America"? Of course it is. Get over yourself.

Moveon.org called a general a funny, but truthful name. So what?

When will Ann Coulter be arrested for threatening physical harm against a Democratic presidential candidate?

When will Ted Nuggent be arrested for threatening physical harm against a Democratic presidential candidate?

When will Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air for consistently smearing and lying about Democrats, Liberals and Progressives?

When will the radical far right neocon enablers of the White House be held up to the same standards as Democrats, Liberals and Progressives?

Here's the deal--My Democratic Party lied to me when they said they would bring our troops home...this would all end tomorrow if the only money in the defense bill was to fund withdrawl from Iraq and bring our troops home..Pelosi, Reid, Bush...they are all of the same cloth..liars...

Bush is setting the Democrats up for a 4-year failed presidency term. No one will vote republicans back in in 2008 if the war is still on. Democrats will have a hard time getting out of Iraq in 4 years. Experts say it will be 10-15 years more. And Bush will probably invade Iran next year.

After the Gulf war, and end of the Cold War, Def. Sec. Cheney implemented a 10-year plan to downsize the military. New Def. Sec. Rumsfeld's first order of business in 2001 was to make the military leaner and more efficient but forgot that plan after 9-11.

The republicans blamed Clinton for dismantling the military in the 1990s. Cheney left the Humvees and other equipment in the Middle East and when it came time to use it in Iraq, we find out they didn't have the right armor or spare parts. Now the military is near breaking [March 2008] and more funds will be funneled into war machines at the expense of our future citizens. The republicans will be more than happy to put the blame on the democrats again.

I am a supporter of Moveon and will continue to be because I believe in our goals, strategy and tactics. Petreaus showed his partisan colors when he wrote an Oped piece supporting Bush prior to the 2004 election. We said he would tell Congress what Bush wanted him to say. And he did because he knew that to do otherwise would cost him his job. Bush whacked the careers of other officers when they criticized his war and Petreaus did not have the guts to be honest He loves the media attention and played along with the entire Bush strategy from day one. I suggest that critics of Moveon look more carefully at the record of this officer.

The democrats are wimps again. Why don't they fight back against the GOP attack on the MoveOn ad with videotape of the republicans [Rep. D. Issa - CA for one] who question the integrity, patriotism, and professionalism of all the witnesses [including former soldiers and government employees] brought before the committees investigating: the outing of a CIA agent - Valerie Plame, the Iraq contractor boondoggles, the lost military arms in Iraq, ETC. Republicans are hippocrites. The Daily Show last night proved that Gen. Petraeus used the same words that Pres. Bush has used - and he said he wrote his own testimony.

How far MoveOn.org has come! Formed to get focus off of Bill and Monica (hence move on) to sliming a distinguished member of our armed forces. Oh but hey, at least General Petraeus was referred to as a baby killer.

What will MoveOn do when Bush is no longer President?

MoveOn clearly states in their own rules for blogging at their site that anyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job will be banned from posting. Of what are they afraid?

What will be the MoveOn complaint of the day if the Democrats gain the White House in 2008?

Correction to my previous post: In the first sentence, I should have (and meant to) say numerous times instead of countless times. I apologize for the error.

If the Republicans were truly offended by the Moveon.org ad, why did they hold it up countless times for the C-Span cameras? To me if they were TRULY offended by it and thought it was in poor taste, they wouldn't give it free publicity by holding it up for the world to see. My own view is that I disagree with negative personal attacks, but where was the outrage from the Republicans regarding the totally unfair and outrageous Swift-boat personal attacks on Sen. John Kerry during his run for the Presidency?

JEP,
"Is it possible the surge was actually created just so the Republicans in Congress and the Republican presidential candidates would have an illusion of "pulling the troops out" before the next election?" So let me get this straight. If the R's pull the troops out, that's wrong. If the R's don't pull the troops out, that's wrong. It seems like this should be an easy win/win situation for the Democrats THAT ARE CONTROLLING CONGRESS and should be leading on this issue since it is (so i keep hearing) the reason they got elected in the first place. What's the problem then?

JEP,
"...use that designated prayer group to establish social cliques that discriminate against other schoolchildren." There are literally HUNDREDS of things that cause social cliques that "discriminate" against others in both schools and life in general. Why pick on just religion? Forming cliques is what people do, especially young school kids. Don't you think that the Jocks "discriminate" against the the people on the Math club?

And yes, i actually do browse MoveOn so i am not unaware of the content. But your phrases "promote justice during the Clinton impeachment scam" and "illegal war" leads me to believe that you are not looking at them from a centrist point of view. Similarly, a southern right wing social conservative would look at Ann Coulter and ask what the hubbub is all about...

Friends,
There are many innocent people who need basic quality of life support in Iraq. A Civil Military Affairs Operation Center operates a medical/dental clinic at Radwaniya on Camp Victory, Baghdad.

This clinic reaches out to over 1200 Iraqi women, men and children each month providing basic medical and dental services, hygeine, medical and school supplies, clothing and shoes. All of the supplies are provided by volunteer donors like you.

The medical and dental staff are service members who donate time and skills along with other service members who help sort and give out supplies.

What can you do? Organizations and individuals can send supplies to the Multinational Corps Chaplain's office who take the donated items to the clinic for distribution.

They need supplies. You can send presorted or bulk supplies at your own expense. Enclose kit items in heavy duty Ziploc-type bags.

Hygeine kits: soap, shampoo, lotion, doedorant, powder, toothpaste, toothbrush, dental floss.

Feminine hygeine: Pads, etc. fem. hygeine products
Medical kits: Prenatal vitamins, children and adult vitamins.
Infant packs: diapers, wet wipes, lotion
Medicine: Ibuprofen, diflucan, naproxen, children's tylenol.

Shoes: tennis shoes and sandals, youth, women and men's work and athletic shoes (preferably new, not expensive)

School kits: Ruled paper, rulers, pencils, crayons, childrens stickers, glue sticks, construction paper, backpacks, blunt end scissors, compostion books.
Soccer balls, send uninflated

If you would like to help "Hearts for Baghdad" box up your supplies and send them via US Postal Service to:

MNC-I Chaplain
Attn: Hearts for Baghdad
Unit 42014
APO, AE 09342

For information contact:
heartsforbaghdad@iraq.centcom.mil

Thank you for helping give them a hand!

"The big question in my mind is, how many of the 65% who want us out (the number is from a post above, I don't know how accurate it is) will shift when the President announces his "pullback" plan tommorrow?"

Anyone want to bet that entire pullback p[lan hinges on July 2008? And what does July 2008 represent in the timeline of Iraqi history?

Nothing.

But it is the beginning of the 2008 election scramble here in the USA.

Which suggests to me this surge is purely political just a dead pig, swallowed by a python, with neocons at both ends of the process.

Is it possible the surge was actually created just so the Republicans in Congress and the Republican presidential candidates would have an illusion of "pulling the troops out" before the next election? And also as a warning to Democrats that, if THEY try to stop this war, BUSH WILL SEND A LOT MORE OF OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS OVER THERE!

THE SURGE AS PURELY POLITICAL?

SURELY NOT!

In the 1960s we had the John Birch Society, the right-wing group that said liberal Democrats were ruining the country and ran ads accusing them of betrayal.
In this decade, we have MoveOn.org, the left-wing group that says conservative Republicans are ruining the country and running ads accusing them of betrayal.
So what else is new?

Dave;

you obviously only know what someone else tells you about Move On. Have you ever really looked at their work?

Their very origins were to promote justice during the Clinton impeachment scam, and their one primary task now is to hold the Dem's firfeet to the fire to end this illegal war.

I don't think I have ever once seen them promoting Karl Marx, they spend most of their effort defying Karl Rove.

But, like so many right wingers, "Dave" just accepts the "MoveOn's a bunch of commies" propaganda, and probably has never looked at their site.

The GOP cranks up the Fake Outrage Wurlitzer once more.

The shorthand version is this: some damned liberal said something, and now we're so pissed off we that we are justified invading yet another country.

The GOP puts itself in the role of an abusive and insane parent. If the kid says the milk you poured on his cereal is sour, a month old, and lumpy, tie him to the radiator for the weekend, duct tape his mouth shut, and burn him all over his body with cigarettes. How DARE he complain! Clearly he brought it on himself.

JEP - I'm not so sure Chris is wrong. I think that the Republicans can get back into the debate by using "begging the question" tactics with ammo such as MoverOn provided.

I also think that it won't have a very long lifespan and people will focus again on the mess which we have.

The big question in my mind is, how many of the 65% who want us out (the number is from a post above, I don't know how accurate it is) will shift when the President announces his "pullback" plan tommorrow?

"The problem here was MoveOn's lack of judgment, and how it actually helped the people they oppose."

Repeat that often enough, you may even believe it yourself.

Its just more propaganda, Move On has gained more PR and the peace movement many more adherents because the Republicans so giddily took the bait, and now they have propelled Move On into international prominence.

If the R's had kept their big mouths shut about Move On, the only people it influenced would have been the ones who read the ad.

No one else would have even known about it.

So, a big thank-you note from the managers at Move On might be in order, to the many Republ;icans who provided them a billion bucks worth of free advertising.

Move On could never have accomplished this much influence without help from the very Republicans who trash them.

As far as the chess game goes, Move On can claim check and mate. The Republicans have rocketed them into international notoriety. And the more they acxt like crybabies about it, the more the Republicans look like sore losers, and bullies who can't stand the heat.

"the combination of Petraeus' plan to draw down 30,000 troops by next summer and the MoveOn ad gave Republicans a foothold to get back into the debate."

Did Drudge give you that angle on it, Chris?

This is propaganda, mothing more than cocktail weenie crowd wishful thinking.

Thr Republicans can only re-enter this debate on the other side of the argument, until they give up their ghost, the Republican-owned media will continue to promote the Republican line.

Chris, it won't be Petreaus' plan or MoveOn that gives the Republicans any foothold, that will be done exclusively by propagandizing poundits like you and Drudge and Hannity, et al.

And this series of posts is a great example of just that.

It's been over 24 hours of discussion and people are still defending MoveOn.

Let me reiterate what only a few posters cogently noted.

Thinking that they were being cute with their ill-advised play on words, MoveOn actually did the White House's work for them.

Think about it!

MoveOn took the focus off Bush and put it on Petraeus. The White House would like nothing more than to have somebody other than the President taking the heat for the war.

Bush's staff should send a Thank You gift to whoever at MoveOn came up with that headline. It saved the White House a lot of difficult work.

This is not about free speech or MoveOn's positions. The problem here was MoveOn's lack of judgment, and how it actually helped the people they oppose.

On this one, MoveOn = Menace.

JEP,
"Move On has ALWAYS been about Peace and Justice, anot about promoting a left-wing agenda." I want some of what you are smoking. Are you actually typing that with a straight face?

Prayer in school is up to the individual.

It should never be a "sanctioned event," prayer is between the person and God, and Jesus was not fond of "making long prayers just for show"(sounds like a televangelist to me).

Too often, local "Mean Girls for Christ" and "Bullies and Jocks for Jesus" use that designated prayer group to establish social cliques that discriminate against other schoolchildren.

I would guess Jesus Himself would have been rejected by those same little cliques, as just another dirty hippy.

11:06 - it'll take four months of draftees before the invasion level strength is reached.

Jane,
"Lieberman just can't wait to get us into WW3." I did not get the full exchange so i am not sure of the context but simply asking someone a question to get their views on the subject does not necessarily imply what the person asking the question believes. I ask my wife things like "So you're heading out to get a $50 pedicure?". Don't jump to conclusions on how i feel about that!

Many of Move On's managers proudly claim the Lefty label, and rightly so.

But Move On has never been, essentially, a Lefty Blog, not by any means.

Move On has ALWAYS been about Peace and Justice, anot about promoting a left-wing agenda.

If you consider Peace and Justice "liberal talking points" you're probably a loyal Republican.

This administration has trivialized both Peace and Justice, symbolically and by every real measure.

I find it curious, Chris that you follow this piece with a Drudge genuflection.

Your true colors are peeking through again...

"I guess they start drafting tomorrow if they want an invasion Army in 10 months."

It was less than six months from the day I received my draft notice to the time I set foot in Vietnam. (Less than five months from Induction)

That included Basic Training, Advanced Training and three weeks of leave. When they need bodies as cannon fodder, they don't waste any time.

I have been watching a live feed from the WaPo of a news conference by Gen. P. and the Amb., that started a little after nine this AM, and from the media blitz by these two, plus GW will be talking to us tomorrow night. Al Quida in Iran keeps coming up in each of these. The trip to Iraq by GW is now beginning to make sense now that GW is reported to be going to follow the plan as presented by the General. BTW, it is the same plan.

drindl,
"No one I've met wants to force anyone to have an abortion." I'm not saying that its forcing people to HAVE abortions. It's forcing people to support and in many cases fund something that goes against the moral fibre of that person as well as (in their view) the constitution. All your questions on prayer in schools are valid but there is no reason that they can't be addressed by the particular school/system/community/etc as opposed to the Federal government banning everything, including silent prayers or non-demoninational ones (this is in reference to the "NOT allowed" contention by Bokonon). I would have no problem with Jewish Reconstruction Temple prayers. I take the view that whatever your religious affiliation or lack thereof, it's an aspect of everyones life and people need to be exposed to it (and what better place than at a school?) at somepoint, just as they are environmentalism, conservativism, liberalism, patriotism or any other isms. Jewish prayers would not alter my beliefs but would make me think critically about religion and the role it plays in the world. And if it did alter my beliefs then they weren't very strong to begin with. But then i wasn't going to get into discussion of the issues :)

Now i think that we both would have a major issue if the Feds tried to legislate that Jewish Reconstruction (or any other religion) was the official religion of the US. But that is a far, far cry from prayers in school. My point on the post was that liberals like to think that they are the ones that are not forcing things on people. I submit that any policy, including but certainly not limited to, liberal policies, forces things on people and in many cases, sets up the "Don't" or "Can't Do" limits that Bokonon talked about.

I guess they start drafting tomorrow if they want an invasion Army in 10 months.

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind.
...
Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/crime/hatecrimes/index.html

WASHINGTON -- A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

Germany -- a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States -- notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

'Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) doesn't think Gen. Petraeus has enough war on his hands. The senator (changing the subject from Iraq with "I want to go to Iran...") asked Petraeus if he wanted "the authority" from Congress to "pursue the Qods forces into Iranian territory." Petraeus, for some reason, politely declined to start a third contemporaneous U.S. war.'

Lieberman just can't wait to get us into WW3. The man is insane.

ANTIOCH -- Coming on the heels of two high-profile suspected hate crimes, the East Contra Costa community is reexamining the region's level of tolerance in the wake of a weekend attack against a group of hearing-impaired people.

'Ken Ballen, the group's president, said the poll was the most worrisome of 23 it has conducted in the Muslim world over the past three years because of the anti-American, pro-bin Laden feelings it found and the unpopularity of Musharraf, who leads the only Muslim nation with nuclear weapons.

"It's disturbing. It's almost like a perfect storm" of distressing findings, Ballen said.'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mochila.php?articleId=8935553&channelId=73&buyerId=talkingpointsmemo_com400732&buid=

Only a quarter of Pakistanis support their military working with U.S. forces to pursue terrorists inside Pakistan, and even fewer favor letting American forces mount such operations on their own, a poll released on Tuesday said.

In a broader measure of America's unpopularity in its erstwhile ally against terrorism, 19 percent of Pakistanis see the U.S. favorably _ half the number with a positive view of India, a bitter rival Pakistan has fought in three wars since 1947. The U.S.-backed Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, is less popular than Osama bin Laden, though both are far better liked than President Bush.

Just came across this -- MoveOn is a 'menace'? You mean like 'terrorists'?

Did Mr. CC ever call the Swiftboaters a 'menace'? I'm just asking. Since when is free speech a 'menace'? Since when is an advertisement paid for by a group of citizens a 'menace'?

The media in this country is truly pathetic--worse government lapdogs than Pravda ever was.

2 of them are dead, and one was shot in the head before the op-ed was finished.

that op-ed figured in the questioning of petraeus by hagel, who was a tough interrogator.

NEW YORK The Op-Ed by seven active duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq questioning the war drew international attention just three weeks ago. Now two of the seven are dead.

Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance Gray died Monday in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad, two of seven U.S. troops killed in the incident which was reported just as Gen. David Petraeus was about to report to Congress on progress in the "surge." The names have just been released.

'LOGAN, W.Va., Sept. 11 -- A 20-year-old woman was held captive for more than a week in a mobile home, where she was raped, stabbed and tortured by at least a half-dozen people, the police said. Sheriff's deputies rescued her on Saturday, and she remained hospitalized Tuesday in stable condition.

"I've been in law enforcement for more than 30 years, and this is the first time I've ever seen anything of this nature," the Logan County sheriff, Eddie Hunter, said.

Six people, including a mother and her son and a mother and her daughter, have been charged in the case.

The police said the people charged, all of whom are white, yelled racial slurs at the woman, who is black, during some of the attacks. The woman endured horrific torture, according to court documents. She was raped by multiple men, some of whom poured scalding water on her during the assaults, according to the criminal complaints.

She was forced to lick up blood, eat animal feces and drink water from a toilet, the documents said, and she was also stabbed repeatedly in the leg and was told that if she tried to leave, she would be killed.'

I agree with your point that a unified foreign policy would be more respectful of the Baghdad govt. I do not buy the risk analysis - but it IS the kind of strawman that opportunistic political opponents - in your hypothetical, opponents of HRC - raise ALL the time.

But I will still root for any TX indie to get the deal over EXXON, even if the 'catter is HRC's buddy.

"American kids are dying, supposedly for a unifed Iraq, at least that is today's rationale, and American corporations are making deals that undermine that goal."


Sounds like something that should be addressed in the next funding bill.

.

'In the context of furthering US goals of Iraq - one of which is a stable Fed gov't - shouldn't we consider their opinion before allowing such deals? Should US policy be 'hey, whatever deals our companies can sign - great' or should US policy be 'The Maliki gov't is the official government of soverign Iraq - deal with them, not with the Kurds, not with the Sunni, not with the Shia'.'

Thank you bsimon, that is precisely my point. American kids are dying, supposedly for a unifed Iraq, at least that is today's rationale, and American corporations are making deals that undermine that goal.

And again, I repeat, so no one would have a problem if one of Hillary Clinton's buddies cut a deal that undermined our 'mission' in Iraq--and therby put our troops at greater risk?

bsimon - YES. That's the part of drindl's argument I can buy.

JD - Schlumberger is run by a Houston family named Schlumberger. They have been in TX a long time. One of the Schlumbergers invented wireline well logging. When I was at Rice, the Schlumbergers owned an estate in River Oaks with a private zoo. Not really French, TX French.

' suspect that your concern is not the legality of the deal, but rather the fact that one of Bush's friends will make some money, and you hate Bush... well, that seems like an issue you need to come to terms with yourself.'

How typically and gratuitously nasty. Say it was one of Hillary Clinton's personal friends and contributors who got a plum deal in Iraq. I guess that would be fine with you, right?

'Did we get Drudged or what?'

I suspect because there were so many rightwing nutcases on, that because the piece was about MoeOn, it was linked to by some farr-ight hate site.

Mark in Austin writes
"if there is no Iraqi "oil law"
then there is no illegality dealing with the Kurds who have passed provincial oil laws that recognize the revenue sharing that the "proposed" Iraqi oil law encompasses. The Iraqi govt. just seems to be jealous that they cannot deal while the local Kurds CAN."

Perhaps that is a reasonable analysis. I'd like to offer a different perspective. What if, (il)legality aside, the problem is merely that last point: the Iraqi govt's 'jealous' of the Kurds ability to negotiate. In the context of furthering US goals of Iraq - one of which is a stable Fed gov't - shouldn't we consider their opinion before allowing such deals? Should US policy be 'hey, whatever deals our companies can sign - great' or should US policy be 'The Maliki gov't is the official government of soverign Iraq - deal with them, not with the Kurds, not with the Sunni, not with the Shia'.

drindl, if there is no Iraqi "oil law"
then there is no illegality dealing with the Kurds who have passed provincial oil laws that recognize the revenue sharing that the "proposed" Iraqi oil law encompasses. The Iraqi govt. just seems to be jealous that they cannot deal while the local Kurds CAN.

JD - I thought you would be amused by my invoking "your plan" at 7:26P:

"If GWB were pushing JD's plan - one that makes sense in its own right - that we withdraw from all of Iraq except the Kurdish north, where the Kurds like us, and keep permanent bases in the north, and help protect the oil fields and pipelines, and let the Arabs kill each other south of Kirkuk, then I would connect the dots."

drindl was seeing Hunt Oil getting the right to drill in a contract with the Kurds
as GWB cronyism and maybe an unspecified crime and maybe something that would p.o. the Iraqi govt. and I could agree with #3.

But I sent her the most detailed story on it that told how Ross Perot, Jr. already had a deal, that Exxon and the globals were still too risk averse to bid for deals, and I finally admitted that while "all" TX oilmen were Bushies, but we still Texans rooted for them.

All Texans root for TX indies to do the wildcatting rather than the globals.

drindl, Kurdistan, for the most part, operates as an independent territory from Baghdad (not just with regard to oil). They've done this for years, maintaining seperate police, government, etc, as part of a federated structure. They clearly didn't want to wait around until Baghdad got their act together, to exploit this natural resource of theirs.

I suspect that your concern is not the legality of the deal, but rather the fact that one of Bush's friends will make some money, and you hate Bush... well, that seems like an issue you need to come to terms with yourself.

Yesterday might have been the nastiest day on this blog since the Virginia Tech shooting. (More specifically, since the 800+ posts about gun control.) Did we get Drudged or what?

'If you know if anything illegal, please chime in, I'm all ears.'

I'm surprised really, how easily everyone dismisses the Hunt Oil deal. A major contributor to a political party [a 'Super Ranger] and good friend of the president gets a plum deal in a country we are occupying, in a colonial kind of way, while our kids are dying--and for what?

I said it was illegal because that's what the Iraqi federal government calls it. They are livid. Are we supporting them, or are we not? I'm just asking the same thing as George Will. What is the miission? If it is to support a unified Iraqi government, this is a hell of a way to go about it.

When this war started and I said to people that American oil companies would soon be operating in Iraq, I was called a conspiracy theorist. Now that's simiply taken for granted. How things change.

Davel,

What I am struck with in your argument is that you say liberals want to force something on you-- like abortion. No one I've met wants to force anyone to have an abortion. And there is a fallacy in talking about 'allowing relgion in public life.' No, that's forcing your religion on me. What if there's prayer in schools? What will the prayer be? Who will choose? To which God? I'm belong to a Jewish Reconstruction Temple. I'm sure you won't mind if we use one of my prayers, right?

The right wing fascists call Moveon.org radical liberals. What a joke.
Power to the American people!

M in A and drindl;

I have no desire to go back and read the hundreds of comments, and I'm going to be out of pocket again most of today. When you gave me the name of the guy, a search on WaPo detailed his deal with the Kurds. Nothing was mentioned about any crime.

Of course, Baghdad probably doesn't like the Kurds doing their own deals, but the fact that an American got the business isn't prima facie that the fix was in. It seems plausible, even likely, that they gave the oil exploration to an American company because they were grateful (as opposed to, say Schlumberger, as a French-dominated company who was buddies with Saddam).

If you know if anything illegal, please chime in, I'm all ears.

Just give Moveon the grief that Ann Coulter gets. Thats even.

Gotta luv the liberals comparing Fox news - the Fox crime is their protection of real Americans from the defeatism spouted by PBS, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I see the libs have bought the dem's lies about the 60 vote crap.

Come on Dems, you got the votes, cut the funding to IRAQ, just do it. Go defeatists. End the WAR!!!!

General Petraeus has way more substance then any of those ninnies who pontificated at him. The real shocker is that the New York Times endangered its credibility by accepting the ad. It was something completely irresponsible for the Newspaper of Record. It's something I would expect to see in The Nation or the ISO's little newsletter but it is completely irresponsible for a major news organ to run such a thing.

I served in OIF on the first rotation. When I returned from Iraq, I joined the Kerry campaign and spoke out against the strategy we were using in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus was one of the few critics in the upper ranks of the military who had the courage to be critical of the mistakes we were making at that time. He is a very honorable man.

I remember when the "Swift-boat Veterans for truth" came to Chicago. There supports assaulted not only Senator Kerry, but the other vets like me who had the courage to stand up to their libelous behavior as they labeled us "traitors" for challenging them.

I fail to see the difference between the Swiftboaters and Moveon.org I have discontinued the mailings that I get from them. I would hope that many of the 3 million they claim to speak for discontinue their association with them as well. They should be ashamed of trying to discredit a very honorable man like Gen. Petraeus by assaulting his character and labeling him a betrayer of our nation. You can disagree with his assessment, but he has made enormous sacrifices (that have not been equally shared by this nation) and has earned the respect of his troops because he has shown the courage to voice his concerns when we were following a poor strategy. Moveon's target should be the President, not those who are following his orders.

I am more and more concerned with the direction of this nation and the nature of its debates. It isn't just the direction in Iraq, but the entire direction of this nation's policy's and a political system that has been hijacked by the most extreme elements of the right and the left. The middle needs to speak up and insist on a more civil discourse by not allowing a relative minority like Moveon or DKos to act as though they speak for you. They don't speak for me, and the notion that the ends justify the means is the same Karl Rove BS strategy of discourse that this nation keeps saying they don't want to dominate our body politic.

This nation should be ashamed of itself, and they should shame those who are responsible for assaulting our common decency.

Moveon.org was essentially correct in their add, however I do agree with most posters about how the right-wing would/is using it in a misleading way. The hearings were at best misleading as to what is actually happening in Iraq according to Govt. reports, as well as what we are getting from the media. The charts were spread over such a long period of time it was hard to get the "Surge" data put in proper perspective. Overall, the report was as most folks that have followed closely expected. I stated earlier my thought about this being a continueing of "Stay the course" and as of yet cannot find anything that would change my opinion. Several top military persons have been so damaged by their loyalty to GW, and others that have served many years had their careers ended when they disagreed. Generals Powell and Casey are examples of each of these.

Someone way the hell up the thread said this about Hillary:
"She is a closet sell-out republcian."

And I laughed harder than I have in three days. That was choice. And many of your folks are unhinged. Someone talked about the independents, and fear of wild-eyed hippies. That's me, cause I was one. Child of the sixties, communism seemed pretty cool, make love not war, all that. Never been a conservative, don't believe in god, didn't vote for bush or kerry. Just want the gov't to keep the killers away and not tell me how to run my life. If I want to give a buck to a bum, I'll do it myself, don't go putting a gun to some richguys head and take his money to do it on my behalf. Stealin ain't compassion, and if I did that I'd go to jail. So, as a former liberal turned independent, I gotta say there are alot of obsessed folks around here.

Here's a question, if everyone knows Petraus wasn't going to tell the truth, why was he unanimously given the job and asked to come back to talk about it? Congress insisted he report personally rather than a bush appointee, so why do that and then say you aren't going to believe any of it in advance? And what is a govt to do when there isn't any general the president could appoint that congress will listen to, how then do we make decisions if we automatically make up our own facts about the situation we sent the man over to be in charge of? Just questions...but then I didn't hear to many people that really want to get at the truth, unless it's about calling fox or moveon or rush or kos a big poopie head. Don't be surprised if the independent voters decide who runs this country while the two extremes sit around acting like children.

Bokonon,
You know what post I'm referring to, no need to elaborate which one. The fact that you don't understand how conservative principles lead to us appreciating our freedoms demonstrates your liberal misguidedness. As I described, conservatism, contrary to leftist propaganda, is the strengthening and responsibility of the more local solution system before the less local one. When these support systems are minimized to shift responsibility--and commensurate power & decision-making--to more distant & bureaucratic systems like federal and international government, we realize just how much freedom we give up in exchange for security.

This is what the Left cannot understand. EVERYTHING in life is a tradeoff. When you shift power and responsibility outward to distant entities like government, BEFORE taking advantage of the more local systems like the individual, family, and private sector community, you've given away more than you get in the form of benefits which you could have earned for yourself.

The western European model or the American model. Respectively, that's liberalism and conservatism. Think about which you'd choose, and why.

Bokonon,
Nice post on defense of liberalism. A few weeks ago I was reading a very liberal blog with the topic being what it means to be a liberal and your post was easily better than anything i read. That said, your comments on the problem with the liberal-conservative thing of "I do NOT think there is any value in forcing your beliefs on others, which is the basis of my whole problem with social conservatism" is a little the pot calling the kettle black. Take the big social cons issue of abortion. Either way you go, the other side is gettng something forced on them. If you limit or eliminate abortion, the SoCons are legislating their belief that abortion is murder. Alternatively, abortion on demand legislates the belief that life begins at birth or that the rights of the woman/right to privacy outweighs the rights of the fetus.

I guess i found that post interesting because someone with a conservative viewpoint could take it, substitute the word liberal for conservative, and make the exact same arguement. In their minds it would work. For instance, when you said that conservatives views are largely defined around what's NOT allowed, or 'what we DON'T do,' etc., I found myself thinking, oh really? What about allowing religion in everyday life? What about the second amendment? Anyways, i'm not trying to debate any of these issues - I'm just mulling over your post. I'm almost willing to say that if you believe in the common ground as described by Mark in Austin, you should become a conservative! For the most part, what Mark in Austin said i think would be acceptable to both classical and non-classical (social?) conservatives. So my question to Judge is why is common ground so hard to find?

Judge, I think the GOP has made Dick Lugar the exception and not the rule. From a common R perspective around here he is a very, very, cautious liberal.

JD is an independent libertarian conservative, who may well vote D for Prez next time, but he is seen by many Ds here as
"reactionary".

drindl, a good friend of mine - retired NASA engineer and an R - just wrote me the news about Hunt which he read tonight. His view, like mine, is we are glad Perot and Hunt are willing to take the risks that Chevron and Exxon won't. We always root for TX indies in the oilpatch against the globals. After all, BP's plants blow up in Texas City, not Valero's.

I guess you could call it -

Texas populism?

Mark in Austin,
I liked what you and Boko had to say but I'll ask the obvious question: are there any classical conservatives left? Has the GOP killed them all off, leaving no one reasonable for a classic liberal to find common ground with?

Boko - I'm still awake [da##it]. There are some papers they apparently do not want to release now. I do not know the details.

I think you "live" much closer to classical liberalism than to doctrinaire political correctness.

I suspect that you would think that "affirmative action" should not = racial preferences for groups thought to be disadvantaged by skin tone. But you might favor scholarships for penniless good students regardless of color.

You see a social problem and you think there should be a solution, but I suspect that you do not jump to Federal Government as the automatic first choice to provide the answer.

You seem concerned about personal responsibility as well as the "social compact", as Methodists and Jesuits and Jews, for example, might describe the notion of community obligations.

You probably think that taxation is the price we pay for civilization - everything from highways to Boston's water and wastewater system, to air traffic control; but you get as mad as any fiscal conservative at porkbarrel spending.

The religious right draws your ire because they are bullies who want to control your private life. You probably have many libertarian sentiments. Thus:

You were well matched to answer pcon-T because you are a classical liberal with whom a classical conservative could find some common ground.

Mark, thanks for the compliment. I assume you refer to what I was saying to pcon-T in defense of 'liberalism'... the problem with the liberal-conservative thing as I see it (not that you asked) is that because it is in the nature of liberalism to be inclusive and accepting of new ideas, there are not as many "bedrock" principles for folks to rally around, and liberals tend to get overly defensive about those that do exist. (e.g. reproductive choice, affirmative action, alternative energy etc.) Conversely, it seems easier for conservatives to draw lines in the sand around their views because they are largely defined around what's NOT allowed, or 'what we DON'T do,' etc. I realize that in saying that I may anger some cons, and I don't mean to. I do think there is a value in knowing your beliefs and - within reason - being faithful to them... as long as it makes sense to do so. I do NOT think there is any value in forcing your beliefs on others, which is the basis of my whole problem with social conservatism - for that matter, also the war in Iraq.

thanks also for your answer to my Bentsen question, which I did see. It will be interesting when those papers are finally released - by then I'm sure cross-border relations will either be a done deal or even more contentious than they are now. How long do you think it will be before they see the light of day? Do you think anyone in office now, either in Texas or... uh, elsewhere... would have any interest in keeping them under wraps?

phak iu, jdb.

Of course, now that I think about it, maybe that's why Hillary's looking to Chinese money funneled through guys like Hsu to help fund her campaign...

The comments on this thread illustrate the problem the Dem establishment have with the hardcore leftists in their party: the left doesn't realize how out of touch their paranoid screeds are with reality. They make Pats Buchanon and Robertson look positively centrist by comparison.

When Hillary Clinton is too moderate/conservative for you, you have problems. The Dems can't win with the radicals' vocal support (which will drive away a lot of the 20% of us that decide elections), but they can't win without their money, either. Catch-22.

What a phenomenal gift the Democratic party are turning out to be. The last few weeks are manna from heaven. Campaign advertising a Republican could only have dreamt about last November. Thanks, suckers!

oldhonky,

Between moveon.org and Brian de Palma, I am at a lost for words? It's one thing to criticize those that you don't agree with. To abrogate your responsibily for truth and to incite more terrorists to follow in the footsteps of the 9/11 killers, well... You are right. This left wing tirade will be counterproductive.

General David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, and others all have a delusional boss. Is it better, when one is in that position, to try to keep one's job and introduce some element of reason -- or to take a stand and get fired? Probably the answer is not always the same in every case.

One may disagree with the above folks about ending the Iraq War without slamming their characters -- as MoveOn did with its disgraceful 'General Betray Us' full-page ad in the NYTimes. This ad infuriated Republicans, and made it harder to peel off enough Republican votes to create a veto-proof majority in Congress. It was disastrously counterproductive.

Grow up, MoveOn. Ending the Iraq War in Congress should be handled as a chess game, not as a food fight.

By the way, drindl's thought that the Baghdad regime may take double offense that they were circumvented by Hunt, Bush's buddy, is plausible. They may be OK with the earlier deal, with Ross Perot, Jr., but I am speculating as much as drindl.

To September 11, 2007:

I don't know how to break this to you, but you republicans need to do better than to run scared and bleat like scared animals in self-righteous indignation about anything movenon.org has to say. You need to provide a match to moveon.org. Don't whine to me.

By the way, your opportunistic use of "September 11, 2007" as your moniker doesn't buy you credibility.

To the poster that stated the MoveOn ad pales in comparison to the Swiftboat ads. Tell me, what is the date of Francois Kerry's discharge from the military. As I thought, no answer or spin. You don't know because he has not released his records as he promised numerous times. If he did, again, what is the date of discharge?

And on several occassions Francois threatened to sue the Swiftboat vets, which they ENCOURAGED him to do. He did not because he knew discovery would prove him a liar and the Vets truth tellers.

Those are the facts, forget parotting the MoveOn BS.

JD - look at

drindl at 6:12P, me at 7:26P, drindl at 7:41P,me at 8:04P, drindl at 8:06P, and me at 9:16P.

drindl thinks Ray Hunt got a windfall because he is a Bushie.

I think every TX oilman is a Bushie, and the Dallas News article says it all, and Hunt is a gambler.

I see no evidence of criminality.

Fact is it truly does take 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. Interestingly enough, if you have followed politics for the last three or four years you know that Republicans tried to end the "60 vote" rule and the Democrats went berserk, but now it seems all Republicans are for it and all the Democrats are against it. It is funny how people in both parties take positions based on what will advance their political agenda rather than what they believe is the best principle.

wow. i consider myself a political mutt - fiscally conservative and socially liberal. i have no doctrine i adhere to - other than common sense. i came accros this op-ed thru a separate web-link. i thought the content of the article fairly benign and obvious. i was however, shocked... shocked, to read the responses here. my god -- are you people serious? if this is what passes for thoughtful, reasoned debate then we, as a society, have some serious issues. you people are warped.

drindl, I've been working my a$$ off the last couple days and honestly I have no idea what you're talking about; my only exposure to news has been the live testimony on CSPAN radio and a tiny bit of Air America.

(Provide a link, please?)

If the answer is: he broke the law, then hang him. Seriously, I'm tired of people skirting and snubbing the laws. If not, then don't.

What else can I say?

Boko - you are an excellent spokesman.

You asked a question last night about whether any good had come out of our adventure inIraq and I replied this morning:

I think there is only one positive from our invasion of Iraq - Saddam is gone.
That makes constant overflights by the USAF and RAF to protect the Kurds and Shia unnecessary. Replacing constant overflights with an occupation on the ground seems... an unintended consequence.

Also, Bentsen died last year and left his papers to the UT Library. They have not all been catalogued for the web yet, I have been led to understand.

moveon.org has a political agenda just like everybody else. Just because you happen to agree with them does not necessarily make them right (or wrong). If you decide that no one is government is to be trusted at all, I suggest you find a hole in the ground and put your head in it for a while. I think that you will find that the earth is still rotating irregardless of your indifference.

Let's face it--the Democrats--just like the Republicans, are a set of few-in-number-politicos who live in their gated world of Washington DC, not unlike their counterparts running Iraq who live in their gated community, the Green Zone.

Move-On and other large-numbered-citizen-activists have a different take on the war than the gated politicos. Therefore the Petraeus ad in the Times.

They make a lot of sense on the issue of trusting a general:

i.e.

THE NOTION that a general such as David Petraeus might not be trusted has a history to it. General William Westmoreland in Vietnam was the grand master of the "5 o'clock follies," press conferences that emphasized questionable enemy body counts.

More recently, General Colin Powell did a superb job at the UN convincing people that the Iraqis could attack us. Wisdom resides in doubting these generals who, after all, work for a commander in chief who has a definite political agenda.

Maria,

You obviously forget that the reason that we have a multi party system is so that multiple viewpoints can be expressed and acted upon. Just because you disagree with a course of action does not mean that the actors are criminals with evil intent. Throughout the history of this nation, mostly civil debate has taken place in the chambers of Congress and throughout the country. It is sad that in today's self obsessed society, only one's viewpoint is of value. Your aspersions of the unworthiness of others only paint to the vacous state of your own mind, your inability to pursue ideas that do not match your own, the need to validate your own place in the universe through useless invectives.

The ad to which this blog entry refers is bi-partisan. It calls on Congress as a general legislative body to enforce its oversight authority over the executive branch.

This attempt to associate MoveOn with Democrats specifically is a sham. Of course MoveOn lines up with the left more, but the call for justice in/on Iraq is bi-partisan.

With a proper dose of reality based thought process, any morally conscientious citizen would agree that the occupation of Iraq is just plain wrong.

The US is in there for the wrong reasons and you don't have to be a Democrat or a Republican to agree. You have to be Human.

pcon-T, I'm a proud liberal Democrat, and I swear, I swear, I swear, by all that's good, NO LIBERAL that I know - and I know quite a few - is wishing for the U.S. to "lose." What I and others believe is that Iraq is not the type of conflict you "win" or "lose" - because we are not fighting a "war" against a defined "enemy," but rather managing - and complicating - the most recent stage of a sectarian struggle which has lasted over a thousand years, in various forms. You claim that the "Left" doesn't know ANYTHING about "you conservatives" - and I agree that the conservatism you describe below (an idealized Reagan-ism, if I'm not mistaken) is not what most think of when they hear the word.
However, Reagan's conservatism in and of itself would not have been easily identified by earlier conservatives, if I'm not mistaken... originally, conservatism was an economic philosophy with a strong libertarian streak of "keep the government out of our lives, and out of our pockets." It was Reagan (again, I think...) who began the practice of equating economic and foreign policy conservatism with RELIGIOUS conservatism, and thus conservatives no longer are willing to stay out of the lives of voters, but would rather enforce a sameness on those lives that they find comforting. Curiously, however, despite the platitudes mouthed by our "compassionate" president, public money spent on ensuring and enhancing the common good is now seen not as moral but as wasteful.

Many believe, as you do, that the role which has been played by New Deal/Great Society programs like Medicaid,.Medicare, Social Security, etc. is better served by "encouraging a society where we solve our problems at the more local level before the less local level, and strengthening these levels accordingly." The problem is that in practice, that too often results only in what a community is willing/able to pay for. Liberals believe that the federal government has a legitimate role to play in ensuring, to the extent possible, the equality of opportunities and services available to Americans everywhere, and making sure that this level meets a commonly accepted standard.

Liberals do not, as you suppose, discourage "solving... problems by strengthening and turning to the responsibility of our individual moral character first, then, in order, the sanctity of the family, then charities, faith based groups..." However, because these groups and individuals each have their own agendas and available resources, we believe that it is appropriate for the federal government to play a role, to ensure that recipients of charity, participants in social programs, students in a public school, etc. are given the same or equivalent opportunities in Alabama that they get in California or New York.

You further say that what you describe as "the Principle of Subsidiarity ... leads to more efficient solutions, more appreciation for our freedoms, and stronger, more self reliant individuals, families, and communities."

I find it interesting that you mention efficiency first. America is not a for-profit corporation... we do of course want to be able to spend our money efficiently, but even more important is spending it EFFECTIVELY and FAIRLY. Sometimes that's not as cheap, but that's OK. I find it curious also that you describe this as a situation which encourages "respect for our freedoms." Not sure how... explain?

"Isn't this what we should all want? Notice that we DO consider government as a solution to our problems, but ONLY as a last resort, and even then, in order from the more local level to the least local."

However, too often if there is no "private sector" solution available, conservatives - at least in recen