Elizabeth Edwards criticizes MoveOn.org ad

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


Elizabeth Edwards criticizes MoveOn.org ad
By TONY LEYS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER


September 14, 2007

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.

If all my life I have been an honest upstanding citizen, and then one day I decide to rob a bank, does that not still make me a bank robber??? Just because I have years of honesty behind me doesn't change the criminal act I commited.

So since he betrayed us, I say call him Gen. Betray Us.

:crazy:

I like Edwards and Elizabeth..I just don't like this response.

I can disagree with 'military officers' about many things, but one thing I would be very aware of is using the word 'betray' to refer to them because military officers and their families take 'treason' very seriously.

I don't know that you could say anything more offensive to a military officer or his family.

It may be better to simply not get involved in a fight on this issue. I assume that most of us can agree that the republicans would like this to become a controversy, and that it create divisions within the democratic party. We will do best by recognizing that we are all entitled to our own opinion on the issues involving General Petraeus and the MoveOn.org ad, and that others within the democratric party have the right to very different opinions.

The blame here lies with Bush, and Bush only.

No doubt that bush deserves the majority of the blame, but that doesn't excuse the lies that betray us told. HE STILL BETRAYED THE COUNTRY

lying assholes!!!

MoveOn did, you've got to be a little cleverer than cutsie name calling. This was soo predictable.

Well, sounds like it's all for WHAT?

they betrayed his vision and poof they were gone.

No Flunkies among them..now betrayus, he's another story.

ought to be a mitigating factor.

Years of public service doesn't change your actions of breaking the public trust (or the actual crime)- in fact, as a public servant, breaking the public trust is that much more egregious

and as military service IS a form of public service....

like it or not Petraus set himself for that criticism by allowing himself to be used as a shill by Bu$h, its no secret that they ( Bu$hCo) cooked the books to come up with the rosy picture they are trying to convince people of.

It hurts the credibility of your argument, no matter how sound it is and how well supported it is, if you use words with 'strong negative connotations' to promote your ideas.

Elizabeth Edwards is not criticizing the content of the Moveon.org ad. SHe is pointing out that the use of the word 'Betrayus' when referring to a career military officer is inappropriate.

It also will turn off many of those you are trying to reach because that is all they will see and remember about the ad.

SHe is pointing out that the use of the word 'Betrayus' when referring to a career military officer is inappropriate.


This would only be inappropriate if he wasn't actually betraying us.

This blow my mind. The Dems are siding with the repukes on this. Un-freaking-believable

Personally, I really do feel betrayed, so the name fits.

We have to remember it does us no good to be right if we aren't persuasive. Anyone who wasn't offended by the "betrayus" comments was already on our side. But how many people sitting on the fence are persuaded to join us?

the word betray us. This ad has received so much publicity that I think it is actually doing some good. Just because the Dems that want to please the repukes that will never vote for them anyway, doesn't mean the statement isn't true.

Have you seen MoveOn's new ad??

It's really rhetorical question, not directed at you. When she points out it's inappropriate to call a betrayer.. a betrayer, I'm not liking or agreeing with it. If it turns off people, they are the people who aren't looking for the truth anyway, imo. If they are, they'd find the ad was backed up by facts and then they can dig their head in the sand then, or not. It's up to them.

The way I see it, the ad ASKED a question as to what is he/ or what will he do? Thats why it's in question form... Gen Petraus OR Gen Betray Us?..

It really didn't call him anything, up and until AFTER he spoke and then moveon followed up on what the obvious answer was.

When the career military officer is betraying us INCLUDING the troops, with lies.. it's VERY APPROPRIATE. In fact, its warranted and necessary and it's OUR DUTY to dig in, ask questions, find the truth and expose it.

In another opinion I have, I think MoveOn should do a follow up ad, worth TWO pages, shouting truth to power about the distortions, and misleadings and outright lies we were fed by this man. Who the heck isn't sick of people denouncing those who speak the truth. God.

In the world of what "sticks" though.. you gotta make it REAL CATCHY so it spreads. I thought it was imperative for that aspect with the seriousness of the situation. They were brilliant, jmo.

This is effin ridiculous. UGH!

for this criminal administration.

This is america Ms Edwards. I don't give a shit if your father was a career naval officer. My father was a Marine in WWII. I served in the US Army in the early '60's. My brother was a Naval officer in Vietnam. I'd venture to say most American families have connections to the military in one form or another. Moveon had every right in the world to say what they did about Betrayus (what they said was actually rather mild). His own superiors had a lot worse things to say about him.

Spending your life in the military does not buy you a free pass from criticism if you act dishonorably. Petraeus sold out his principles and his honor for self promotion. He's fair game.

Elizabeth could have said something about the content and veracity of the ad or about the stupidity of all the brouhaha over the ad rather than the war (the true travesty). Instead, she piled on like the repukes.

I am truly sick of this sort of shit from our supposed side. Wrong is wrong, and what's wrong is Bush's war, Bush's lies and all those who aid and abet him, including Betrayus! Fucking criminals don't get a fucking free pass. PERIOD.

would start talking about how cowardly Bush is to send a General out to do his bidding for him.

Doesn't seem like an effective strategy as they draw attention to themselves and closer scrutiny of their own betrayals.

Does not the majority of citizens think that their government has betrayed them? That would include the WH and the uniforms that shill for them.

It's a very scary concept for authoritarian type people.

And Move On sent a shot across their bow last Monday!!

The fight is ON!!!!! And it's going to get nasty!!

Tighten your seatbelts!!! This is a fight for our lives!!!!

All of their squawking has managed to raise the awareness of regular non-political citizens about an organization called Moveon.

Subsequently, and more importantly, awareness was raised among the citizens that the WH has a shilling general who Betrayed us.

Moveon = +5 points
Rethugs = -10 points

but she's wrong.

They didn't call anyone a name!!! That's just more RW SPIN!!!!

The ad title says:

General Petraeus OR General Betray Us?

Do you see the word OR there, Mrs. Edwards??

Mrs. Edwards?? Stop falling for the LIES OF THE RW HACKS!!!

They're spinning it and your believing it!!! :grr:

Isn't that the same problem we've been having with a lot of people in Congress??

They RUN from the right wing spin machine!!! TAKE A STAND!!!!!!! JFC!!

that this is NOT a statement, ?

I mean what happened to reading comprehension in this country??

The RW "forgot" to ad that tiny detail and then they inserted

a word that ISN'T EVEN IN THE AD ANYWHERE!!!

And the DEMS FALL FOR THIER CRAP AGAIN!!!!!! :grr:

And raising the level of political dialogue is not running from the RW spin machine. If anything, she has stood and fought them, which you would know if you had followed her history.

Your criticism of her is disingenuous. She should not remain silent in order to escape your wrath when she thinks there are other ways to accomplish the same goal without offending military officers and their families.

Take a time out.

She hasn't read the ad, IMHO.

...but in the title of your post you belie no such uncertainty.

I believe you are letting your opinionated and as yet unsupported outrage get the better of your common sense.

The fact that she volunteered this statement, it seems, makes me wonder why!

"Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by simply using Petraeus’ own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.

She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says.”

Her views on the ad were similar to those expressed Thursday by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin. The Iowa Democrat told a Des Moines Register reporter that the MoveOn.org ad “was a bad choice of words. I would have said, ‘Petraeus, mistaken again,’” Harkin said. “But ‘Betray Us?’ That’s going too far.”

MORE

*********************


So there you have it. Spin that.

She's spinning it just like the RW!!

That would qualify as 'spinning' in my book.

THose darn inconvenient facts keep popping up and exposing your argument as flawed!

The ads asked a question. A point you Kerry, Harkin, and Mrs. Edwards seem to be missing.

If for example you use a racial epithet, making sure you use it in the form of a question does not give you free pass.

That point is totally germane to this discussion.

It didn't even say anything about the families. It only spoke to the fact that bushco and betrayus cooked the books, which by my definition is a betrayal.

What do you define as a betrayal, and explain to me how that ad offended military families?

sons that have served, one recently, I AM NOT OFFENDED at all!!

the allegation.

We have lots of military bases in North Carolina, and Elizabeth knows how they feel about the treatment of the troops. They are fiercely loyal to one another, and take their responsibilities very seriously.

I know from my military friends that to question their loyalty is offensive, and use of those words is exactly that.

If there is proof that the offense of 'treason' should be pursued, military families will be first in line to see that the officer is tried and convicted. But understand that 'treason' is such a serious crime, that extraordinary evidence is required and the penalty for committing treason includes the death penalty.

So don't pretend this is something that military families would not find offensive, especially when the same message could be delivered in slightly different wording.

This shit makes me so mad. Calling the Gen. betray us was exactly that. HE BETRAYED US. He did, if you don't think that is fact, then you are out of touch with reality.

What the military families should find offensive is what this governement is doing to them. I don't understand why you can't see that MoveOn wants the war ended. Isn't that supporting the troops?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1807295&mesg_id=1807295

MoveOn asked the question, and I'm answering in the affirmative.

Yes, he betrayed us, his constitution and his country.

He has betrayed the trust we have in his command by servicing the political goals of the president.

He took an oath to the Constitution and he has betrayed that oath by misrepresenting to Congress the situation under his command.

Waiting....

"http://m-w.com/dictionary/treason

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: trea·son

Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR

1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY

2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family"

****************

YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE DEFINITION #1 shows that use of the word 'betray' is part and parcel of 'treason' as defined.

There is no other way to take the use of 'betrayus' other than to infer 'treason'.

Absolutely no one is accusing Petraeus of "treason".

By trying to link "betrayal" to "treachery" to "treason" using dubious etymology you are inflaming this discussion. Is that intentional?

I guess you don't use a dictionary very much!

YOu cannot talk about 'treason' without alleging a 'betrayal' of trust or responsibility.

But I guess you consider any kind of mental agility required to put those together is an attempt to inflame a discussion.

(You might want to go to the dictionary site I posted and look up 'inflaming' --you can learn a lot there! "Disingenuous" is also in there, take a look!)

And the poster asked where the word "treason" was in the ad, instead you found it in the dictionary.

You are the one bringing "treason" into the discussion of Gen P's testimony, and only you.

Here it is for your consideration:

"1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY"

I explained why the use of the word 'betrayus' was offensive to military families because of the relationship to the crime of 'treason' -- you are being very disingenuous yourself in your allegation against me.

To help you out, I already looked up the definitions of the 'big words' you like to use, but do not understand. Here you go:


Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "dis-in-'jen-y&-w&s, -yü-&s-
Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING
- dis·in·gen·u·ous·ly adverb
- dis·in·gen·u·ous·ness noun

Main Entry: in·flam·ma·to·ry
Pronunciation: in-'fla-m&-"tor-E
Function: adjective
1 : tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult : SEDITIOUS
2 : tending to inflame or excite the senses
3 : accompanied by or tending to cause inflammation
- in·flam·ma·to·ri·ly /-"fla-m&-'tor-&-lE/ adverb

Main Entry: con·flate
Pronunciation: k&n-'flAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·flat·ed; con·flat·ing
Etymology: Latin conflatus, past participle of conflare to blow together, fuse, from com- + flare to blow -- more at BLOW
1 a : to bring together : FUSE b : CONFUSE
2 : to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole

Main Entry: ob·tuse

Pronunciation: äb-'tüs, &b-, -'tyüs
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): ob·tus·er; -est
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin obtusus blunt, dull, from past participle of obtundere to beat against, blunt, from ob- against + tundere to beat -- more at OB-, CONTUSION

1 a : not pointed or acute : BLUNT b (1) of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2) : having an obtuse angle <an obtuse triangle> -- see TRIANGLE illustration c of a leaf : rounded at the free end
2 a : lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : INSENSITIVE, STUPID b : difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression
synonym see DULL

**********
I guess that the fact I use a dictionary as a source creates an impression in your mind that I am somehow 'lacking in sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect' --or did you not understand the meaning of the word?

Show me the word treason is in the ad.

You can't because it isn't there.

The military (and national security in general) has a plan and they are not going to change their plan as a result of politicians who come and go. Whoever wants to get elected has to indicate that they understand that beforehand, if they want to stand a chance.

As you can see by my avatar, I am an Edwards supporter. Even still, his wife's comments are hers and should not sway someone to vote for him or not. Nevertheless, when EVERY legitimate investigation into the progress on Iraq refutes his version presented to the American public, it is a betrayel. Sorry military folks, what is is.

He not only betrayed the American public in order to ensure his position within this criminal administration, but also the soldiers who respect and honor his decisions about their welfare and missions. To say that he doesn't know whether the mission in Iraq is making us safer, then to lie, embellish at best, about progress is a betrayel.

To make my perspective clear: if Jesus Christ himself got up on that stand and did the same as General Betrayus, then I would consider him to be someone who betrayed us. End of discussion.

And as a black man, I find this rallying behind General Betrayus because he is in the military to be equivelant to the black community rallying behind OJ because he is black. This is unacceptable.

I'll :kick: it anyway! :D

Thank You!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:blush:

It's as if people are starting to wander off into fantasy land, as if life is some Mel Gibson movie. "He's the good guy and can do no wrong!" We know this is bullshit.

Thanks for the mojo. I could tell we were on the same page when I saw your "JFC!!" at the end of your post! Maybe you can submit a question to John Edwards during his next youtube townhall: "Mr. Edwards, can your wife read?"

;)

;)

I didn't know if anyone would know what that meant! :P

:rofl:

Not quite! LOL! :D

I thought you said it was just a question.

Did you post to the wrong message? :shrug:

Welcome to DU! :hi:

"Mrs Edwards?? READ THE DAMN AD!!! They didn't call anyone a name!!! That's just more RW SPIN!!!!
The ad title says:
General Petraeus OR General Betray Us?"
______________________________
and then in response to this post-

"He betrayed us. Period" ...", it is a betrayel. Sorry military folks, what is is.

-----------


you- Breeze54 38. Well said! I wish I could recommend your post!
I'll :kick: it anyway! :D

Thank You!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
---------------------------------------------

You show your disingenuous nous by pretending to not see what everyone else sees, as if the ad said "Mrs. Clinton or Murderer?"
you would say that they weren't implying, they were just asking a question!

I stand by my statement.

The ad asked a question. The RW said it was name calling.

Good to see that you can intelligently weigh the facts instead of blindly following someone. I actually really like Edwards, and aside from Dennis K (Going to have to learn to spell his last name if I am going to support him huh)Edwards is my choice. I would like to see the two of them team up together.

Ms. Edwards is wrong wrong wrong. She is entitled to that opinion though.

Yes, she is entitled to her opinion. Unfortunately, I think it borders on fantasy land. Dennis (see, I can only use his first name myself!) is presently my second choice and I am going to start doing some more research on him, but I would also need to find something that is unacceptable about Edwards. Time will tell.

Cheers!

either combination of DK/Edwards or Edwards/DK, but John is going to have to keep his wifes mouth shut.

Maybe you got confused and thought you were on a Republican 'family values' site --where the wives stay at home, bake cookies, and keep their mouthes shut.

Can't you take a joke. Next time I will have to use :sarcasm:

Stop trying to paint her as an opponent of Moveon.org. SHe is not.

But she is right --there were any number of ways to communicate that message without using the term 'Betrayus' in the ad.

You think the ad was OK --fine. She thought the ad should have been worded different --give her the same consideration.

If you attack Elizabeth Edwards over this, then obviously you have another agenda.

I didn't see anyone in this thread "attacking" Mrs. Edwards!

I will attack her if you want me to...

I am just sick of Dems attacking this. IT WAS CORRECT. BASED ON FACTS.

Ms. Edwards is giving betrayus a pass because he has served the military for years and years. That is not right. Sorry, but it isn't.

So why is bush getting a pass, for all of his wonderful years in the military?:sarcasm:

and of course the MoveOn ad wasn't effective- at least not for dems. It's turning out to be very effective for reptilicans. Bad framing, and people here are evidently too entrenched in their viewpoints to understand that to speak truth to power effectively, you have to frame properly.

taking all kinds of heat for her remarks about Petraeus.....so they'll take a different tact.:eyes: They should be defending Hillary and MoveOn!!!! I cannot believe the Democrats are falling for this shit again! The man is a WH mouthpiece and they fucking know it. WTF?

for something that wasn't even connected to Move On's ad.

Politics as usual with spineless Democrats.

I guess if you can draw the conclusion you have, we should have a moment of silence ... because her comments have certainly made global warming much worse.

Ridiculous.

time we make some headway with attacking the RWers...some IDIOTIC Democrat screws it up! How stupid can they be? It's no wonder we're in the situation we're in. The spineless Democrats put us here because they don't know how to fight back! They take spit balls to a gun fight! Now THAT is ridiculous!

Hopefully for the last time, Elizabeth Edwards did not attack Moveon.org.

Why is defending a 'personal attack' on Petraeus MORE EFFECTIVE than using facts and his own words to impeach the credibility of his testimony?

You have to know that words you choose to use are important --just as the message here is subverted by people who fail to understand what 'betray' and 'treason' mean to military families.

From the linked article in the OP, Here is what she said:

"Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by simply using Petraeus’ own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.

She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says.”

Her views on the ad were similar to those expressed Thursday by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin. The Iowa Democrat told a Des Moines Register reporter that the MoveOn.org ad “was a bad choice of words. I would have said, ‘Petraeus, mistaken again,’” Harkin said. “But ‘Betray Us?’ That’s going too far.”

MORE

or Bill Clinton had made the same comments. Let's see ...

Never mind.

I think John's ad will have more of an impact than this DesMoines Register story.

and that makes a difference. Kerry had to answer when a mic was stuck in his face, but I don't know why anyone would go out of their way to bring it up.

and I don't know what her reasoning for making this statement is but I wish she would not have made it. Democrats need to quit being on the defensive about everything we do while republicans trash us every step of the way with impunity. FUCK THAT.

...and she is entitled to be wrong. :)

wrong once, shame on her, wrong twice, shame on us........

This crap pisses me off.

To no end.

Unfortunately, that seems to apply to Mrs. Edwards as well. Too bad....

It was a question as to what he was going to say in his testamony.


Do you think that what he said to congress was a betrayal?

If you go back and read the history of Benedict Arnold you would find that he was very well thought of and very effective as a general up to the time he allowed a woman to convince him to compromise his loyalties(and that is what betrayal is). He was eventually discovered and condemned for what he did, and all the good things he did on behalf of our country counted for nothing.

Not many people know, but Benedict Arnold regretted his decision to turn his back on our country and investigated the possibility of switching back to our side. He was not welcomed back, and died in obscurity in England and buried in an unremarkable grave.

THere are few members of the military unfamiliar with the saga of Benedict Arnold. THey know and understand exactly what 'betrayal of trust' and 'treason' mean.

I do not think that what Petraeus said was accurate, and that it served this country. I am not willing to go so far as to say he intended to betray his duty to defend our country. If that is proven with evidence, then he will deserve to be called 'betrayus' --but not until then.

We need to be careful how we address military personnel and their families, not because they deserve 'kid glove' treatment --but because they live in a different environment than the rest of us. It is just being considerate of their special role in our society not to call them 'betrayers' and 'murderers' and 'babykillers' like so many were when they returned from Vietnam.

Enough history ... it is out there if you are really interested.

You will NEVER convience me that he didn't know what he was saying was a flat out lie (that is also a betrayal).

BTW, betray us was used mainly because it rymed with his name, and that is what many feel he was doing. It was a catchy, attention grabber. To relate that to Benedict Arnold is a little far reaching, but you too are entitled to your opinion, as am I. BushCo. (that includes the mouthpiece Betray Us) betrayed this country, and the troops. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE OTHERWISE??????

He told the Iraqi officers he was working with that he was planning to run for President one day if all went well in Iraq. He indicated that 2012 would probably be too soon. So, I guess he is planning to run in 2016.

I do not think there is any kind of chance he could be elected.

He must be having dreams of Eisenhower. LOL

Damn I wish someone would point out the amounts Bob Perry has thrown into 527s...like the current propaganda campaign headed by Ari Fleischer...rather than play into the GOOP's meme of the week. I thought Elizabeth was sharper than that.

"Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by simply using Petraeus’ own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.

She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says.”

Her views on the ad were similar to those expressed Thursday by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin. The Iowa Democrat told a Des Moines Register reporter that the MoveOn.org ad “was a bad choice of words. I would have said, ‘Petraeus, mistaken again,’” Harkin said. “But ‘Betray Us?’ That’s going too far.”

I saw the article before I posted and stand by what I said. The ad didn't personally attack Petreus and her comments now will be played with on the corporate media as how "Democrats are divided" and into the meme of how evil and unpatriotic MoveOn is. She should know better than to now give Hannity and the other hate spewers more material to slime and distract with. And, sadly, I see her remarks overshadowing the fine message John delievered last night. No, from a perception standpoint...and that's how "conventional wisdom" plays...this wasn't a very sharp move.

the same thing happened with Jason Leopold, and Skinner posted about it. Criticizing them as public personalities is different from criticizing them when they post here.

Like General Colin Powell?

:eyes:

This military worship is for the fricking birds

...than to use offensive and inflammatory terms which attack the person when use of the facts and their own words would be more effective.

Calling someone 'a liar' proves nothing. Proving someone is 'a liar' is more effective.

"better ways to criticize" - That is your opinion, not a fact, even though you have repeated it a couple hundred times. Still does not make it a fact.

There are "other ways" to criticize but perhaps no "better way" to criticize. You don't control the debate.

While I am thinking about it -something seems to be wrong with your profile.

You would not approve of an ad that called * a liar, the worst president ever, a warmonger, etc.

Civilian officeholders do not enjoy the same privileges as those who serve in the armed forces. Why? Because in military service there is a well defined structure of command that does not allow for individual spouting of opinions, otherwise the chain of command would break down. Military officers all report to someone higher, all the way to the top Joint CHiefs of Staff.

Bush does not serve in the military. Bush does not have to report to anyone higher than himself in the chain of command as CIC.

Therefore, Bush's duties include hearing the petitions of the civilians, and that may include unflattering insults like 'liar' and 'warmonger' etc.

Because of the differences I would approve the use of the those terms by American civilians in addressing Bush, but I would not be in favor of using the same terms against a person serving in the military unless I had the evidence to back it up and was willing to do so if put to the test.

It's part of the disease of America.

as they mentioned earlier this year?

It does little good to engage them in dialogue when they were never serious about the allegation to start with --- just intended to use it in an attempt to smear her.

link and first four paragraphs of the article. I didn't make any comment on it. I did however assume that it would create a lot of interest and I have been keeping an eye on the number of views and the number of replies. (not really in the comments though)

I usually post in the disability forum and it is very rare to have more than 5 comments or more than 50 views.

Here's a posting on the latest disability protests and civil disobedience in Chicago last week.

More than 120 persons with serious disabilities were arrested for standing up for their right to live in their own homes instead of being forced into an institution. The confrontation occured with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and resulting in blocking of entrances, exits, parking, etc at the Unions's offices in Chicago.

Earlier in the week, 55 persons were arrested in civil disobeience against the stateof Ill. plans to re-open a closed institution for the Developmentally Disabled.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=250x2949

FREE OUR PEOPLE - OUR HOMES NOT NURSING HOMES

There is nothing wrong with her comments.
Kudos to you for trying to point out what should be obvious :thumbsup:

She did not castigate moveon.org, she objected to the name-calling hook. That's within her right and does not equate her agreeing with Petraeus' assessments.

at least 30% of the little bit of money that disabled folk get in any settlement ends up in the lawyers pocket. Course the lawyers also set up the system so that lawyers have to be invled or you can't win.

Nothing particular to Edwards - more a generic term for all lawyers involved in personal injury suits - inlcuding him.

I still maintain that the majority of all political office holders being lawyers is a large part of the problem America faces in having a representative democracy. Lawyers have far more in common with each other then they ever will have with the rest of us.

Because of insurance companies and big business in this country, 'disabled folk' in this country have little chance of obtaining a fair settlement without the services of a good attorney to help them find their way through the complex legal system. If you want to save that 30% of the settlement you begrudge the lawyer, by all means proceed without one and take 100% of whatever you can get.

I do personal injury work, and I will gladly accept advanced guaranteed payment for my services on an hourly basis for the many hours it takes to adequately prepare cases involving a disability rating. Most folks who are injured cannot afford to hire an attorney on that basis, and they cannot pay the attorney $30,000 -$50,000 up front along with no guarantee of recovery.

Contingent fee contracts put the risk of recovery on the attorney, or they do not collect for all their hours of work. Plus the attorney has to do all the work in advance without payment, sometimes for years, before there is a settlement.

You are just wrong about 'the majority of all political office holders being lawyers.'

And when it comes to defending your rights, who are you going to call? THe insurance company to ask them to be 'fair' with you?

Your comments help to sell the Republican meme that most of the problems today are related to 'trial lawyers.' Shame on you. Most of the rights you enjoy today ARE BECAUSE OF TRIAL LAWYERS defending those rights for you. It is time trial lawyers get the credit they deserve for holding back the total exploitation of the people that would occur without them.

and this is what inspired him.

I would love to see what kind of settlement a disabled person living in poverty could hope to achieve were it not for the "trial lawyers".

And PS, Republicans just loooove "trial lawyers" when they are getting THEM out of hot water - or getting them anointed as President. (BUSH V GORE)

then they will ever have with the rest of us. They are overly important in the disability community because THEY have rewritten the rules so that it is virtually impossible for anyone to function without them. They are and have been essential, because of this, in every advocacy victory we have achieved within the disability community.

"It is time trial lawyers get the credit they deserve for holding back the total exploitation of the people that would occur without them." - YOU APPARENTLY ARE PART OF OUR PROBLEM - cetrainly not a hero for us based on your choice of career.

As I said - Lawyers have far more in common with each other than they will ever have with the rest of us.

Do you know what is the total percentage of lawyers is in Congress (any party) as compared to the precentage of lawyers in the U.S. population? How about the average income of personal injury lawyers compared to the community they are "serving"?

Yep - in the disability community we can't get along without them - that's a large part of our problem.

If it were not for the advocacy of trial lawyers on the behalf of the 'disabled' how many laws protecting the disabled do you think would be on the books today?

WE have a system of justice that depends upon adversary representation. Lawyers are on BOTH sides of every case. That way each side is represented zealously without a conflict of interest.

However, you are always free to represent yourself in our legal system. So if you hate lawyers, that is your right --and in your case I would recommend you try it to see how well you do without a lawyer.

YOu are attempting to smear 'lawyers' with a wide brush. Sad.

the right wing talking points by such statements doesn't give me much hope. When will we stop apologizing for the truth?

"Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by simply using Petraeus’ own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.

She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says.”

Her views on the ad were similar to those expressed Thursday by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin. The Iowa Democrat told a Des Moines Register reporter that the MoveOn.org ad “was a bad choice of words. I would have said, ‘Petraeus, mistaken again,’” Harkin said. “But ‘Betray Us?’ That’s going too far.”

MORE

You are making a decision about voting for John Edwards because of what others have told you, not what you learned by reading her comments?

I am sorry, but that reflects disfavorably more on you than on Elizabeth.

General". That would have been accurate.

Will anybody call Harkin a right-winger?

Personally, I liked the ad. Some others didn't like the nomenclature, your mileage may vary. These people are not disputing the important matter, which is that Petraeus is being used as a prop in uniform.

these people should be savvy enough to realize the treachery of the media and its willingness to grab any dissenting sentiment to push the meme that dems are wimps and won't even back up people on their own side--and to cause us to fight with eachother rather than attack the illegitimate propaganda of the right-wing.

Hopefully it will be much ado about nothing by tomorrow.

words used in the ads. Sorry, but this kind of response to a question about the ad is defensive, misses the point of the ad, a represents a lack of positive talking points about the message of the ad. It is like Durbin caving in and apologizing for statements about torture he had made by quoting a report. Spineless.

"Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us'."

It is the inordinate respect for military figures that is exactly the right-wing talking point. Military leaders are not above criticism in all its forms, including those that are as pointed as playing on names to reveal a pithy truth.

says much. Military families often have a great loyalty toward the military. Some of us (moi) were able to grow up in such an environment and question.

Life 'inside' the military is different from life as a civilian.

It does not mean they have an inability to think. It means they respect the structure and the power of the system they find themselves inhabiting.

If there were a 'closed door vote' on Bush among many military families here, Bush could not get elected dogcatcher. But those same people will not state their opinions and preferences publicly.

(which, btw, does not sound healthy for people living in a democracy), it's fear of retribution. There's the perception you could jeopardize promotion, or risk vandalism, sabotage of character, and other manner of "getting back." It's true military life is different of civilian life. There's a freedom in civilian life that doesn't exist in military life. Military life is much like as I imagine company towns were/are like.

The families live in 'both worlds' but they understand the very strict environment in which their loved ones live and work.

They may not like what goes on in the military side, but they do respect it.

I'm thinking of children who have grown up in military homes, like Ms. Edwards. It's valid to question whether the military establishment deserves that respect, but few go there. I grew up in the military myself, but I do not share the military almost-deification that some of my peers do.

do not have ability to think. I said they tend not to question the very establishment that they are a part of. If they were to, people like Elizabeth Edwards would not feel it necessary to take offense that a military officer is sharply (not deferentially) criticized.

If a whore dons a military uniform that makes him a uniformed whore.

.......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.

attacked conservative groups for making negative comments about her husband.

It's exactly why John Kerry came out and criticized the ad.

He'd be a hypocrite if he condoned the Moveon ad, but criticized the Swiftboat ads.

I can understand why politicians need to be consistent in attacking all negative ads.

I just happen to approve of the Moveon ad. And there's nothing wrong with friends disagreeing.

Nothing changes my opinion about feeling that Elizabeth is a wonderful woman.

if she wasn't asked, why keep stoking the fire?

she brought it up.

It seems kind of weird that she would bring it up on her own.

And if she did bring it up on her own, she was wrong, in my opinion to do so.

I wish they made the context clearer.

about Patraeus and the type of partisan he is. I think moveon was right on the money.