Has ANYONE read the text of the MoveOn.org ad?? Here it is.

I find it somewhat remarkable that the sole 'discussion' I've read and heard focuses only on the last three words of the headline and not at all on the text of the ad. How deeply can we bury our heads up our asses? Hell, let's go for the esophagus.
:silly:

Read https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

that it was spot on! ;)

People aren't reading it but reading into it.
And believing the RW spin on it.

*sigh*

because there is nothing untrue about what they state. The right wing can't face TRUTH.

:rofl:

But you're right! Look at Mrs. Edwards, Sen. Kerry's comments and
a few others that joined the rethugs in their comments! Ugh! :argh:

God forbid the sheeple dust off their think-boxes and plug 'em in, huh? :rofl:

and gave the right wing nuts a perfect target. Eli made a HUGE mistake on this one.

I respectfully disagree. I won't have done it the same way but, the ad pushed back.

The text is accurate, cogent, and simple.

Personally, the head-line strikes me as an apt bit of agit-prop, but it does point up the difficulties faced when seeking maximum impact for a piece as a whole: it is possible to put something so eye-catching and startling in the lead that it blanks the body of the thing altogether, rather than pulling people into it.

It is always wise, when making any move in a conflict, to consider what the opponent's counter-strokes might be, and whether your own actions open an avenue for riposte.

We're a culture with widespread attention deficits ... I can find no significant fault with their apporach.

But 'Will Petraeus Betray Us?" might have been a superior use of it in a head-line.

I don't know if I heard it from the Daily Show or what, but I remember hearing something about how only troops who died on the battlefield are counted as a casuality of war. Otherwise, if a soldier died after being picked up they weren't added to the offical count.

Has anyone else heard this?

Thanks for all that you do,

–Nita, Karin, Laura, Eli, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, September 11th, 2007

P.S. Yesterday, MoveOn members sponsored an ad in the New York Times debunking Petraeus' claims.

Click here to see the ad—and the evidence to back it up:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html?id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=4

The ad stirred a controversy on Capitol Hill—it accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books." And it charges that Petraeus is betraying the American peoples' trust by spinning the facts to support the White House. Some Democrats were uncomfortable with such strong language, and Republicans attacked MoveOn.

We're sure if we'd run an ad debunking Colin Powell's testimony in 2003, they would have done the same thing—but sometimes it's important to set the facts straight.

SOURCES
1. Washington Post, "Petraeus Backs Initial Pullout," 9/11/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2958&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=5 2. Ibid.
3. New York Times, "Time to Take a Stand," 9/7/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2941&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=6
4. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=7
5. ABC News, "Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment," 9/10/07
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3571504
6. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=8
7. Associated Press, "1,809 Iraqi civilians killed in August," 9/1/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20543737/
8. Los Angeles Times, "Iraqi civilian deaths climb again," 9/1/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2956&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=9
9. http://www.iCasualties.org
10. Washington Post, "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2957&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=10
11. Washington Post, "Scarier than Bin Laden," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2959&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=11
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They're 100% clean and accurate. ... or at least 99 and 44/100% -- They meet the Ivory Soap standard.

Was just trying to help her out. ;)

As usual. :pals:

Thanks for that! :hug:

While I sure don't believe in either the Tooth Fairy or Military Intelligence, I'm fairly confident that any failure to count military deaths is nowhere nearly as blatant. We have plenty of KIAs listed who died afterward (under medical care) as a direct consequence of wounds recieved. They might be ignoring some, but it ain't that gross.

That is talked about in the ad, as well.

The example cited is about whether a killing is counted as a "assassination" or not - shot in the back of the head? Yes. Shot in the face? I guess not.

Likewise, they say they don't count car-bombing deaths (of Iraqis) as "sectarian violence" ... but don't say how they DO count them.

Been there. Done that. "Body Counts" in Viet Nam were notoriously skewed. Our own troop causalites weren't .. except for deniable ops (e.g. Laos, Cambodia).

I do remember the hoopla it caused!! I remember that there were
a LOT of really pissed off people back then, concerning that!

I guess I got it wrong. Back of head vs front. :puke:

What kind of fucking monster EVEN considers that?? :wtf:

Makes me soooo sad! :cry: and pissed OFF!!!!! :grr:

tv..attention span of a gnat.

I have this inner ethic that says we should include Republicans. Not alienate them. But it's just a thin vapor of my beneficent side. It would be possible if they were reciprocal in that feeling. If they even tried at all. If they didn't lie and cheat and kill. If they hadn't murdered our finest leaders. Sorry. I'm getting all hystrionic about this.

What I'm saying is republicans are surface and image oriented. If I may generalize. And I think I can. We injured their little surface patina. Maybe that's what we should go after. Polish their tarnish. Clean them up. Shine them up. Bother them. Ruffle their feathers. After all, they're the ones who started this murderous invasion.

But to get down to the meat of the discussion. That may never happen. So maybe our only alternative is to just call them names. Then when they break down, we can finally have a conversation.

Fuck 'em!

Well said TahitiNut.

....sounds very reasonable to me....

....the crime: speaking the truth as bushco starts a new ad offensive to sell the status quo....

....if the congressional Dems don't move to end this debacle before the next Dem president takes office in '09, they're either collaborators or chumps....

:shrug:

Especially of a tinware and ribbon bedecked General. We should all just sing "God Bless America" and worship at the alter of war and warriors.

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." - Albert Einstein

"It lacked the politically correct adulation of the military."

Well put!! ;)

:yourock:

They needed to skip the clever play on words for the name and get a slogan that would have gotten the idea across so the average voter could get it without having to read that paragraph. After all, reading those paragraphs is SO much effort. :sarcasm:

Maybe "Cooked the Books" would have been better.

the headline almost forced dems to step away from the ad.

america still loves it's generals.....god knows why.

The rest of the ad is perfect and very well stated.