Elizabeth Edwards criticizes MoveOn.org ad

Source: Des Moines Register

MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us” in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.

“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

Elizabeth Edwards spoke in an interview after a Des Moines campaign appearance. She noted that her father was a career naval officer, and she grew up on Navy bases, so she said she respects military service.

MoveOn.org is a liberal, national group that supports many of the stances that John Edwards has taken in his campaign, including criticism of the Iraq war. The group ran a full-page ad in the New York Times this week, taking a shot at Petraeus, who is the top military leader in Iraq. The ad ran on the day the general was to testify to Congress about progress he sees in Iraq. Its headline sparked angry protest from Republicans, who said it smeared an honorable man.

Read more: http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/NEWS/70914014/1001/LIFE

---

Why?

and the oath I swore as an officer was, "To Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." This Executive Branch is waging an illegal and immoral war with seemingly NO END in sight. Congress is shirking it's oversight duty.

Bless the American Patriots known as MoveOn.org for "Supporting the Troops." :patriot:

God knows General Petraeus, et. al. other career General Officers, who carry water for The Unitary Executive in an effort to encourage perpetual war, are NOT patriots nor supporting our troops.

as a former non-com vet who remembers what the majority of generals and admirals really want.

extent I do. She just brings out the "WHY?" in me too. What am I missing here? MoveOn supports John, and the Dems in general, in so many ways. I don't want to be rude so I'll refrain from what I wish Elizabeth should do, like ST--....

would hurt if John said them himself. Most campaigns use spouses this way.

General Washington, and even General Grant in a room and pick out the imposter. Military promotions don't have the same significance as they used to nor do they guaranty legends.

Everybody connected with this story wants to keep it alive, to be perfectly cynical about it. Even MoveOn, I bet. More publicity. For Edwards, it gets the campaign a little more ink without paying for it. After it's all over with, in terms of the Iraq invasion/occupation, it won't even be a blip on the screen. But everybody wants to milk it for all it's worth while it lasts.

Maybe someone should inform her that blind respect, like blind loyalty, is still blind!

Even when I was on active duty, I had two kinds of respect. Respect for the rank and respect for the person wearing the rank, and there were times when those levels of respect were not given to the same person.

This is the problem, just because Petreaus is in the military, and respect should be given for the rank he has acheived, it doesn't mean he's deserving of respect as a person, even if he wears a uniform!

Besides a truly honorable man tells the truth, no matter what the personal outcome for himself may be.

in order to put what she said in context. And all the bullshit about "truth" which often is a relative thing, is troubling. Not to mention you can tell the truth about Petraeus being a mouthpiece for the admin without using cutsie names.

:shrug:

Edwards again uses his wife to be an attack dog or to say things from his campaign that he can "distance" himself from. He still gets the "benefit" of Elizabeth's statement but gets to say "Oh, That's just Elizabeth, isn't she great?"

His ad last night was strong, he just wanted to make sure it wasn't associated with MoveOn.org because he saw the negative reaction this week, hence Elizabeth is unleashed.

when he said he did not support gay marriage, but that his wife did. That was a political calculation to me and it stinks.

I strongly support that MoveOn.org ... General Betrayus because that's the truth. He's a chicken ass kisser just like his own boss says.

It takes more than a title or profession to make an honorable man.

I am not going to agree with anyone who condemns it.

The facts are in the ad. They are correct. If they are correct, the good general is little more than a hack and thus, betraying his oath and trust.

I already knew that it's not just what you say, it's how you say it. Nowadays they call that framing. Same thing.

Just what Public opinion poll or data to these Democratic strategists fueling this crap have???? 70% oppose the war...IS THAT NOT ENOUGH FOR THESE PEOPLE TO STOP BEING SO FRIGGING AFRAID EVERY TIME A *GASP* LIBERAL GROUP OPENS THEIR MOUTH???

of the General as an "ass kissing little chickenshit"-- her father being a career naval officer and all. See if an ad with that quote would pass muster, MoveOn. Really, Elizabeth, you could have handled that question better. Benedict Arnold was a general in the U.S. Army, too. They even tell me a certain Vice President of the United States had a role in the outing of one of our CIA agents-- of course he never served in the military but he did take an oath. The Republicans are on the verge of seeing one of their favorite tactics-- questioning an opponent's patriotism-- blow up in their faces.

"President Petraeus? Iraqi official recalls the day US general revealed ambition
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 13 September 2007

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2956422.ece

Calling General Petreaus "General Betray-Us" wasn't polite, it wasn't nice, it wasn't diplomatic, but it WAS necessary.

It DID get the point across, just like a custard pie to the face - and a lot stickier.

The time for being polite and nice and diplomatic is long gone. Republicans don't play nice - and Democrats should not.

Elizabeth Edwards immensely, but all I keep thinking about is the Malvina Reynolds song:

It isn't nice to block the doorway,
It isn't nice to go to jail,
There are nicer ways to do it,
But the nice ways always fail.
It isn't nice, it isn't nice
You told us once, you told us twice,
But if that's freedom's price, we don't mind.
No, no, no--
We don't mind,
No, no, no,--we don't mind.

He swore an oath to uphold the constitution, not a loyalty oath to a commander in chief who expects him to tell lies.

He is not an honorable man.

As in "Will he become General Betray Us? He doesn't have to."

Or am I missing something here?

Well-calculated.

They are allowing the republicans to have us believe that "all our authority figures" within the Military are not to be questioned. That service in the military should automatically give general officers "a pass" with regard to integrity. Sorry, but General Officers are human beings like the rest of us slobs. Many of them are also consummate politicians.

Often times, it's better to keep one's mouth shut.

but I don't agree with it. Petraeus may be in the military, but he's not doing his country any service by being a mouthpiece for Bush's political agenda.

That being said, I am at least glad to see that unlike other candidates spouses, she is not afraid to speak her mind honestly.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Bad move Elizabeth and Edwards campaign. Don't scapegoat the good guys.

Perhaps you'll get votes from this type of maneuver. But have you considered how many you'll lose - mine among them?

It's not either or. You can say the same thing without the implied name calling. And I'll bet anything at all that MoveOn has no problem with her comments.

try standing for what it wants?

she's just saying she disagrees with the language. I read the article in which she said she felt it would have been better to use the general's own words against him. She didn't like that they made it personal.

You can respect some one even when you disagree.