Eric Earling responds to my post from earlier today. Let’s see if we can make some sense out of this thing:
I would like to personally thank Lee over at Horse’s Ass for so ably proving my original point on this topic.
You’re very welcome, sir. For those who haven’t been following, here are what appear to be the points he made in that post:
– MoveOn.org and the netroots community – including our own local friends in that following – have lost touch with political reality
– Their attack against Giuliani in Iowa after his response to their Petraeus ad is a blessing of the first order for Team Rudy
Eric is exactly right that I “proved” the second of these points. Why? Because I somewhat agree with it. And I even said so in the original post:
Giuliani may very well be able to use this as a way to make him look tough to the 29% of Americans who are still inhabiting the fairy tale world where Bush is a great president and victory in Iraq is just around the corner.
The first point was the one I took issue with. MoveOn has not “lost touch” with political reality in any way. Rudy Giuliani took out a one-page ad in the New York Times attacking them, so they responded. That’s politically smart. When someone challenges you, you fight back. Americans actually want more of that from Democrats and left-leaning groups, not less.
Eric’s just warming up though:
His frothy indignation over the fact MoveOn.org attacks against Rudy Giuliani are actually helping his candidacy is a delightful exhibition of all that is lovable and cute about the netroots.
Actually, as I mentioned above, my “frothy indignation” was over the accusation that MoveOn and the netroots have lost touch with political reality, not that any of this helps Giuliani. While I’ve been very outspoken on why I think Giuliani might be the worst of the Republican candidates, I have little interest or ability to influence who the Republicans pick as their nominee. MoveOn arguably has some more interest and ability, but anyone who thinks that that’s the main consideration for why they responded to his attack is silly. Giuliani went after them. If this helps Giuliani, it was because he was the one who picked the fight (any of the candidates could have responded to the original MoveOn ad). What was MoveOn supposed to do? Respond to Mitt Romney or John McCain instead? The fact that it might be helping Giuliani is not an indication of MoveOn not understanding political reality, it’s an indication that the Republican Party is an embarrassment and that they seem eager to nominate someone who can’t possibly win next fall.
He continues:
His core point seems to be: “Earling is wrong because the American public isn’t happy with the situation in Iraq.” Thanks for the newsflash. Too bad I don’t dispute that point about the American public’s feelings and it has nothing to do with the post in question.
That’s pretty far from obvious if one reads that post again. The mistake I made is that I didn’t realize that when Eric was talking about “political reality,” he was talking solely about the fantasyland that Republicans are living in now – where they’re looking for a candidate who appears tough enough to keep themselves from wetting their beds – and not the political reality that the rest of us are dealing with, where we’re appreciative of anti-war efforts with some spine.
The reality of national public opinion doesn’t for a minute change the fact that attacking Rudy Giuliani in a Republican primary by saying he didn’t stand up to George W. Bush on Iraq isn’t going to have the desired effect.
Except that it is going to have the desired effect. MoveOn isn’t responding to Rudy solely because they’re trying to take him out in the Republican primary. They’re responding to Rudy because they’re sick and tired of watching Democrats in the same situation fail to respond to attacks.
Who the attack is coming from doesn’t help either. MoveOn.org has about as much credibility with Republican primary voters as Pat Robertson does with their Democratic counterparts.
Exactly, so why would they care about how die-hard Republican voters react? Their message is for those whose minds actually work. If none of those people are voting for Republicans any more, then it doesn’t matter. But a recent survey showed that a majority of Iowa Republicans want a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq in six months. That’s the political reality. If this ad still helps Giuliani in the primary, it arguably hurts the Republicans severely in November 2008.
Put a different way; imagine the Club for Growth running ads in the primary attacking a Democratic candidate for not standing up to organized labor on free trade. Same effect.
If the Democratic candidate attacked the Club for Growth, I would expect them to fight back. But whether or not this helped the particular Democrat would not be based upon the response, but whether Democratic voters agreed with the original attack.
Such attacks from MoveOn.org’s might – stress might – have some potential in the right swing states in the general election, depending on where things are at a year from now. But that’s not exactly what MoveOn.org is trying to accomplish right now is it?
Is he kidding? Is he really saying that when MoveOn responds to an attack on them by a Republican, it could make them look bad? What? [Actually, no he’s not, see below]
It’s certainly theoretically possible that a particular MoveOn.org position can be seen as extreme enough that an unprovoked attack (like the original Petraeus ad) could alienate people. But if a majority of Americans strongly agree with their message, it won’t. And when it comes to some of the basic stuff MoveOn.org is fighting for, the majority of the American public agrees with them.
As I said in the earlier post, am I really sharing a planet with this guy?
UPDATE: After re-reading, I definitely misinterpreted Earling’s last paragraph. He’s saying that an attack like this could help defeat a candidate like Giuliani in the general election. Of course it could. In fact, it most definitely would, and it’s part of the reason why these ads are appearing already. I’m still not sure Eric really grasps how unpopular this war has become.
Heh, Your party picked Hillary, and you are telling us we picked the worst candidate?
Ha Ha Ha
@1
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have picked anyone yet.
Right on, Lee.
Regular ‘mericans don’t give a rat’s ass about any newspaper ad. They don’t. It’s an inside-the-beltway, David Broder “concern troll” type story. If Guiliani thinks MoveOn is tough, he ought to watch out for the NYC firefighter’s union, which is going to tear him apart.
Moveon.org has proven their incompetence and mis-reporting of the facts as usual. A pleasant smile appears on my face. Glad they could unintentionally help Giulliani. Haha. Morons. Exposed. ‘Nuff said. Maybe now they should “move on”. *grins*
P.S.
Too bad they can’t take Roger Rodent’s food stamps as a “contribution”. Hoppity-hop-hop!
HAR HAR HAR as that mentally challenged, insecure vermin likes to spew in lack of a real solution.
Ah, the wondrous emptiness of the Wrong….er, Right on display…….
Won’t it be fun watching them squirm in irrelevance for the next 40 years after we celebrate the End Of The Error next year?
tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick
http://www.thirdworldtraveler......t_War.html
Crackpot Realists and Permanent War
by Ann Berg
Reporter: “How may we know, General, when and if we achieve victory?”
Van Fleet: “I don’t know, except that somebody higher up will have to tell us.”
So Mark. The invasion, and occupation of Iraq was “Good For America” right? The war is going “Great” right? Most Americans think the Iraq war is going “Swell” right?
General Betray us has been a Bush Crony for years. Why would he stop protecting Bush’s backside now? He was even campaigning for Bush. An active military general. What a joke. He should be court-martialed for that.
Think about it.
I don’t recall Betrayus calling the Iraq War a disaster of the worst magnitude, and perhaps the greatest error America has ever made now did he? That would be the truth. As far as the surge is concerned he appeared to be fantasizing in front of congress. No facts backed up his statements.
His testimony is like saying that because your team made a play and ran for 12 yards that some things are going well in a game you are losing 56 to 0.
Supporting Bush in any way is betraying America general Betray Us. There is nothing easier to understand than this.
The only solution to Iraq is to start withdrawl right now, and bribe the rest of the world help the Iraqis divide up the country into 3 pieces, and try to keep from killing each other in the process. Bush opened Pandora’s Box, and hasn’t got a clue as to cleaning up the mess. Harriet Myers, and Gonzo can’t quite get him out of this one.
More American Blood Is Not The Answer. Period.
Unfortunately most people on this planet hate Bush more than the average American. I guess they spend more time paying attention.
Way to go Move On. Pointing out the fact that a known liar is a liar, and may be lying during his testimony in the coming days is fine with me.
Petraeus used to be in charge of training Iraqi ‘security forces’ before becoming the current Judas Goat.
@9 Good Point
It seems to me that the follow up ad form MO might be:
“This Soldier Deserves Better”
@8 Your analogy is flawed. They didn’t make a 12 yard play, they managed to go 4 downs without fumbling the ball.
Sen. Warner: “Has the war in Iraq made America safer?”
Gen. Petraeus: “To tell you the truth, I really don’t know.”
Apparently, Gen. Petraeus thought that telling the truth was such a remarkable thing for him to do, that he commemorated the fact by telling us that, for a change, he was telling the truth.
@12
And after he did that, the White House called him and told him to stop telling the truth.
Did you hear that the sheik that Bush met with wasn’t actually a sheik. He just got paid to play a sheik. The real sheiks (who probably really are Al Queda in Iraq) then smoked his ass.
http://www.gregpalast.com/bush.....eda-bunny/
Even the success in Al Anbar is a fraud.
Congress is just playing stupid.
“”There are some real sheiks in Anbar, like Ali Hathem of the dominant Dulaimi tribe, who told Rick Abu Risha was a con man. Where was his tribe, this tribal leader? “The Americans like to create characters like Disney cartoon heros.” Then Ali Hathem added, “Abu Risha is no longer welcome” in Anbar.
“Not welcome” from a sheik in Anbar is roughly the same as a kiss on both cheeks from the capo di capi. Within days, when Abu Risha returned from Dubai to Dulaimi turf in Ramadi, Bush’s hand-sheik was whacked.””
God, supporting these liars in the White House must be hard. A little investigative reporting, and the truth is uncovered. Where is our media? Hiding in bunkers?
Thanks Greg Palast.
We have to go to England to find a real journalist. The press here is too afraid of Bush to actually investigate anything.
The “surge” is a distraction. The real issue is the “disaster, carnage, clusterf*ck, etc.) we have created. Bush has changed the subject from disaster in Iraq to surge.
Good Work!
And the lock step press plays right along like good NAZIS.
What the hell did the Iraqis do to deserve what we did to their country?
Nothing.
That is the point. If you don’t agree, someone should blow up your house / town / school etc. You may then understand….. While your family is living in squalor in a Syrian refugee camp living on a diet of bugs.
To say there is anything “good” happening in Iraq is treason.
“General Betray us has been a Bush Crony for years. Why would he stop protecting Bush’s backside now? He was even campaigning for Bush. An active military general. What a joke. He should be court-martialed for that.”
??? And how exactly do you know this???
He was actually vocally against the “Rumsfeld” doctorine and execution of post Saddam Iraq. So much so that he was denied a promotion, and sent back to the US from Iraq by Rumsfeld. It was only after President Bush started looking at new directions, post Rumsfeld, that Gen Petraeus was given the opportunity to implement his “anti-insurgency” doctorine. Sec Gates gave him the opportunity to put forth his plans. He then was promoted and given the reigns in Iraq.
@16
That’s quite true. Why this was convenient for the White House is because Petraeus is also a very ambitious guy. He implemented his anti-insurgency doctrine and it has possibly had some positive effects in the relations between Iraqis and American troops. Petraeus had a strong incentive to put a positive spin on how things are going because of that personal stake.
However, Iraq is far beyond the point of where military solutions alone matter. The point of the surge was to use better counter-insurgency tactics to create a better security situation to allow for political reconciliation to occur. That didn’t happen. Petraeus knows it didn’t happen, yet he still claimed that the surge has been successful. That’s more than a little disingenuous (it’s a lie), but from his standpoint, he had a personal incentive to maintain that his military approach was effective, even if it wasn’t and had no bearing on the larger questions there.
#3
Yup, I’ll go with what Will said.
16 RS
Petraeus denied a promotion? After the invasion of Iraq? Um, when might that have been?
Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps’s drive to Baghdad. Then, in June 2004, less than six months after the 101st returned to the U.S., Petraeus was promoted to lieutenant general and charged with the task of training the new Iraqi Army and security forces. If he had no “opportunity” before Rumsfeld resigned in November 2006, what was he doing both promoted AND heading up the training of Iraqi forces in 2004-2005?
@19 he was promoted post Saddam for his work with the 101st and given charge of training the Iraqi army. He was sent home for his disagreement with the post Saddam strategy that Rumsfeld was executing. It wasn’t until Gates, Bush and a new direction was looked at that the Gen was promoted and given control of the coalition forces in Iraq.
His vocal disagreement with Rumsfeld could have meant the end of his carreer, which I think gives him credibility as someone who isn’t afraid to speak their opinions independently, with the troops as his first interest.
“However, Iraq is far beyond the point of where military solutions alone matter. The point of the surge was to use better counter-insurgency tactics to create a better security situation to allow for political reconciliation to occur.”
I agree. However the “surge” wasn’t fully in force until June… but let’s roll the clock to January 2007 as the start of the surge. In nine months there has been some political gains. Not full reconciliation, but I don’t think that was the goal in 9 months. The challenge now is to hold the security gains, by Iraqi forces, with our support, to allow the continuing political process to have room to work.
20 RS
I don’t buy it. How quickly do Lt. Generals get promoted to General? One year? I don’t think so. Two years? Still seems kinda quick. As it is, he was promoted to General in January 2007, about 30 months after his promotion to Lt. General. It just does not seem to me like denial of promotion.
If you want to claim that he was both denied a promotion AND sent home for his “disagreement” with Rumsfeld, perhaps you could bolster that assertion with a citation.
I am constantly surprised by the number of people in here who think that asserting a claim to be true is enough.
@21
However the “surge” wasn’t fully in force until June… but let’s roll the clock to January 2007 as the start of the surge. In nine months there has been some political gains.
No there hasn’t. Don’t confuse the tribal realignment in Anbar (which happened even before the surge) as being the kind of “political gains” that matter here. What is needed is a greater recongition that the central Iraqi government has some sort of legitimate authority and that the various factions within the country buy into that. If that’s not possible any more (and I’m actually fairly close to this conclusion now), you have to start treating the different regions as more sovereign entities who can then govern over their own affairs. In some respects, the latter is already happening when it comes to signing oil contracts, which as we both know, is the primary function of government in that region.
The main conundrum we’re in right now is that our presence has generated such mistrust that the more the Iraqi government is seen as supported by our military presence, the less legitimate it will be to the Iraqis. When you get to this point in an occupation, there’s only one responsible course of action. Leave.
Tommy “Ive got all the troops I need” Franks and “I agree” Abizaid assured us , as did the House of White that these generals were not pressured to give the Bush line, while Shinseki was canned for the truth, but now Petraeus is the beacon of honesty and his own man.
Yup.
The only part of the American public that doesn’t see this is the group of republisheep drinking the koolade.
21 RS
In nine months there has been some political gains.
Name four.
And good for Dan Rather (the real one) for bringing the story of “Mission Accomplished Bush” back into the mainstream of attention so that the TRUTH of the original story will be back in front of the American public.
These trolls would be sitting back smirking instead of shrieking at the top of their lungs if they were really pleased by the Moveon ads. They are the noise of the Con Club disintegrating.
Remember the Alamo and the Swift Boat Liars for Truth, libs.
Right Stuff. There are 10 things going wrong in Iraq for every thing going right. For Betray Us to say the surge is helping the Iraqis move forward politically, as was the reason for spending more money and soldier’s lives, is a sick, sick joke. Al Sadr’s folks just pulled out of the government if you didn’t notice. The Sunnis are arming themselves with our $$$ and driving the Shia out of their controlled areas. Just check the 4 million people in the refugee camps.
There is no way our soldiers can be expected to kick in enough doors or run enough patrols to make Iraq better if their government isn’t helping. They seem to be more interested in running death squads, and drilling people’s kneecaps for not leaving their homes fast enough.
Time to wake up.
Bush, and Cheney opened Pandora’s box, and can not even attempt to repair the damage. They just lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, along with their cronies.
Betray Us should testify Iraq is a mess, and getting steadily worse. That would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I loved hearing Bush talk about creating a Democracy in the Middle East. The day after Republicons in the Senate defeated an attempt to restore Habeus Corpus.
Democracy to Bush is a totally corrupt fascist state. Like ours.
Americans being abducted, held in Gitmo for years with no access to their family, or lawyer. Secret wiretaps. Warrantless searches. Free speech zones. Media intimidation. Corporate control of government, and the press.
Welcome to Amerika. Ala Bush.
So, I just made an online donation to Moveon.org as a way to show approval for them in the current shitstorm sure to follow Bush’s comments this morning. Encourage y’all to do likewise, even if it’s only a few bucks.
@25
Drafting of an oil revenue sharing agreement.
Name 4?, name 10, name 50?
We are not in the chambers of the Iraqi gov’t to know all the agreements and disagreements that go one every day. At least 3 very different groups are trying to forge a new way to gvern themselves, out from under a brutal dictatorship.
@30 Since the Senate has voted to abuse the troops, you might want to go to Moveon and see their new ad, and if you can’t afford to contribute, get on their mailing list and show them some non-monetary support.
@29
Drafting of an oil revenue sharing agreement.
Drafting bills isn’t an accomplishment. Passing them is. Here’s some background on the current state of the oil revenue sharing:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M.....0Ak01.html
You’re right that this is difficult. You’re wrong that we’re accomplishing anything to justify calling the surge anything but a complete failure.
The situation in Iraq will not improve once Bush bombs Iran.
The Cons here will be very pleased when he does, but they’ll soon begin to rethink that.
This spoiled brat in the White House is going to have the satisfaction of doing everything he wants by the time he leaves, and then, well, who cares? He’s sure that history will think highly of him after he’s dead.
Does anyone here think he’s not nuts enough for all the above to be true?
Saddam. Our boy…. Rumsfeld’s friend….. The person we helped gas the Kurds, and the Iranians.
Trying to make the Kurds share power with the people that gassed them is like making the Jews share power with the NAZIS in a post war Germany.
Those mofo’s hate each other. No amount of lipstick will change this pig in Iraq.
Partition the country. Help them get er done, and leave. Worked in Bosnia. The only real solution solution, other than bankrupting America, and helping Bin Laden.
25 RS
Yes, name 4. (a) You said there were political gainS, which implies >1 and (b) One area of agreement, if you could come up with one, which you didn’t, would not be enough to turn things around.
Lee provided one link; I’ll provide another.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09.....38;emc=rss
The Kurds are all but declaring independence by signing their own independent oil deal, which has enraged the Sunnis in the government, who probably will scuttle any deal that looks like it will benefit Maliki’s government. So where’s the reconciliation?
“The Kurds are all but declaring independence by signing their own independent oil deal, which has enraged the Sunnis in the government, who probably will scuttle any deal that looks like it will benefit Maliki’s government. So where’s the reconciliation?”
That Americans still debate the state of affairs in Iraq, in 2007, shows how delusional the “chocolates and flowers” crowd — i.e. OUR GOVERNMENT — really was. Anyone who supported our invasion should quit voting now, as a patriotic act. (Suicide remains a redemptive option.)
Seriously, I’m sick of sharing a planet, let alone a republic, with these people. I used to think that re-education camps were a horrible outcome of political extremism, but they’re looking more and more necessary for 29% of our adult population. By 1865, even most Confederates understood that attacking the Union was a political loser. Four years after starting this disastrous war, what’s the excuse?