Tuesday, September 11, 2007
The poisonous soul of MoveOn.org
Yesterday, Americans opened their newspapers to see a full page ad from MoveOn.org, the Democratic activist group originally formed to wage the political battle in defense of Bill Clinton during the Starr investigation. The ad speaks for itself, I think (click through for larger versions):
Conservative bloggers jumped all over it, wondering whether it was -- or ought to be -- the moment when the men of good will ask "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" This morning, the editors of the Wall Street Journal argued with more than no evidence that MoveOn.org is the beating heart of the Democratic Party.
MoveOn.org calls itself a "progressive" political group, but it is in fact drawn from the hard left of American politics and a pedigree that sees politics as not so much an ongoing struggle but a final competition. Their Web-based group is new to the political scene, but its politics are not so new. More surprising and troubling are the formerly liberal institutions and politicians who now share this political ethos.
In an editorial on Sunday, the New York Times, after saying that President Bush "isn't looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public," asserted that "General Petraeus has his own credibility problems." We read this as an elision from George Bush, the oft-accused liar on WMD and all the rest, to David Petraeus, also a liar merely for serving in the chain of command. With this editorial, the Times establishes that the party line is no longer just "Bush lied," but anyone who says anything good about Iraq or our effort there is also lying. As such, the Times enables and ratifies MoveOn.org's rhetoric as common usage for Democrats.
Late last week, for instance, we heard it said of General Petraeus that, "He's made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual." This was from Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate.
The Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, said Thursday that General Petraeus would not be the author of his report; it would be written "by Administration political operatives." He opened yesterday's hearing, moments before General Petraeus was to speak, by saying, "We cannot take anything this Administration says on Iraq at face value."
Finally, there is informed speculation that the New York Times charged MoveOn.org less than full price for the placement of the ad. If true -- and, candidly, I would bet that it was in the ordinary course rather than calculated -- it would represent an unusual convergence of advertising sales and editorial policy. This morning, the New York Times indeed characterized General Petraeus' claims of success as "false," an accusation that, of old, would have demanded the defense of honor at paces. The friends and family of editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal are undoubtedly delighted that times have changed, even if the Times has not.
Commentary
There are obviously numerous grounds for outrage, both spontaneous and manufactured. Yes, MoveOn.org, aided and abetted by the New York Times, has smeared a man whose honor is absolutely not in doubt. Any person of good will ought to regard that as an outrage, whether or not he or she agrees with General Petraeus. Yes, Republicans will call on Democrats to "repudiate" MoveOn. That is manufactured outrage for political advantage (even if genuinely felt), which advantage even MoveOn has belatedly realized -- it seems to have broken the link to the ad from the ABC News article on the subject notwithstanding its insistence that it "stands by its ad."
It seems to me that all of these outrages and others pale in comparison to this: MoveOn's ad is nothing less than an attack on the Army as an institution. It has not merely said that it disagrees with General Petraeus, or that it begs to differ with his interpretation of obviously interpretable facts. MoveOn has accused the commander of more than 100,000 American soldiers of treason in the middle of a war.
There are several messages embedded in the charge that General Petraeus is a traitor. If the United States Army in its most important theater is led by a traitor, then how can it be said that the Army is any longer serving the United States? MoveOn's careful use of coded language -- the language we use to describe Brutus, Benedict Arnold, and Vidkun Quisling -- is calculated to destroy the credibility of the United States military. MoveOn uses the language because it does not want the American people to believe that its Army is looking out for its best interests. It not only wants to win the political fight, it wants Americans to stop volunteering to serve -- who would, if the Army's most famous general were in fact a criminal? -- and it wants those who have to doubt their commander and quit, protest, or otherwise subvert the mission in Iraq.
MoveOn uses language that subverts the Army as an institution for purposes that go beyond the next vote in Congress. It not only wants us to think General Petraeus is lying today, but that any soldier who argues that Iraq is anything other than a defeat is lying. Not disagreeing, but lying.
There was a time when even the Democrats understood how terrible it was to subvert the Army as an institution. More than 50 years ago Joseph McCarthy attacked the Army for sheltering "communists" in its ranks, and the left has reminded us of that outrage ever since. Once upon a time the Democrats understood that McCarthy's investigation of the Army threatened more than just the civil liberties of a few innocent people, but the credibility of the institution. Today's left has forgotten that lesson, or remembers it simply as another story of Republican perfidy.
33 Comments:
By 
Georg Felis, at
Tue Sep 11, 09:57:00 AM:
Honestly I could not think of anything that Moveon.Org could have done that would have strengthened the Republican’s position, weakened the Democrats, increased the loyalty of the military, and cast shame on all things Leftist more than this ad. May the Left continue their self-destructive behavior until the Democrats realize what bozos they have teamed up with.
By 
, at
Tue Sep 11, 10:36:00 AM:
Don't be so coys. They know it is an attack on an institution. That is the point. They don't care for the institution either and haven't for decades.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 10:36:00 AM:
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 10:40:00 AM:
Of course they think the military is lying. One of the reasons their "we support the troops" and "don't question our patriotism" crap rings so hollow - and is so infuriating - is that one of the main reasons they oppose the war in the first place is because they think our soldiers are brainwashed neanderthals.
Quite a few people I meet honestly think that soldiers are subject to lenghty classes on right-wing politics - and you can't reason with these people My own personal experience is discounted with "but YOU wouldn't remember! They BRAINWASHED you!!"
By Angevin13, at
Tue Sep 11, 11:01:00 AM:
"MoveOn's careful use of coded language...is calculated to destroy the credibility of the United States military."
Absolutely. I think it's part of the same strategy that I see taken up by the TNR in the Beauchamp scandal and by De Palma in his new film: to not only discredit the war, but to discredit and smear the troops and the institution fighting it.
Because the goal is not simply to subvert and end the war in Iraq. We shouldn't kid ourselves at all that their outrage is simply over an "illegal" war or "Bush lied, people died," as if, for the MoveOns-types there are "legal" wars or wars that we're not lied into. They want to subvert the instution of the military; destroy it's credibility and thus hinder our ability to go to war ever again. For the radicals like MoveOn and such, it's about ending our ability to use military force on the world.
By Unknown, at
Tue Sep 11, 11:12:00 AM:
They will go down in history as reviled as Joseph McCarthy.
By Andrew Zalotocky, at
Tue Sep 11, 11:39:00 AM:
Political activists who assume that everyone who disagrees with them must be deliberately lying have gone beyond partisanship into outright fanaticism.
Given the level of rage on the far left in both America and Europe, I am actually surprised that we haven't seen the emergence of any new leftist terror groups on the lines of the Weather Underground or the Baader Meinhoff gang.
But it's certainly just a matter of time before mainstream Democrats - i.e. those who care more about getting elected than maintaining ideological purity - come to see the likes of MoveOn as a huge liability.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Sep 11, 11:47:00 AM:
Has anyone at MoveOn ever taken a PR or marketing course? You would have thought they would have learned their lesson during the last Presidential election: Don't piss off America's 25 million military veterans.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 11:48:00 AM:
Andrew Z.: Who says they don't already?
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 12:01:00 PM:
Any forthright condemnation of MoveOn has to include enablers like the Times, the Democrat power structure in Washington as equally culpable. This is the modern low water mark, and it's a despicable thing to have done.
By Frederick, at
Tue Sep 11, 12:34:00 PM:
All this bluster, yet no one has refuted what the Moveon add points out...that General Petraeus has dishonored himself by misrepresenting the facts.
By Joan of Argghh!, at
Tue Sep 11, 12:46:00 PM:
I'm willing to listen to MoveOn's military man-on-the-scene who is on peer level with Petraeus, who's working his ass off. I'm not willing to listen to some blogger's interpretation of events as they have been filtered thru the Kos-sack-less crowd.
Michale Yon, on nobody's payroll, says that the report squares with his long experience there.
Freddy, your talk is a cheap as mine. That's why I listen to the doers, not the yappers.
By tm, at
Tue Sep 11, 02:19:00 PM:
All this bluster, yet no one has refuted what the Moveon add points out.
Indeed.
If what Moveon said is so outrageous because of its falsity, then it should be pretty easy to debunk it.
G'head, guys. Get cracking!
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 02:23:00 PM:
Why is it that no one got upset when Rush used the same play on words against Sen. Hagel for his opposition to the war?
If use of craven play on words is bad for the left, then why should it be good for the right?
You can argue all you want that 'withdrawing the troops' is a betrayal but I think there is just as valid argument that 'staying the course' is just as valid of a betrayal.
In 2003 we invaded because of the fear of WMDs and they were involved in 9/11.
When that was shown to be wrong...
In 2004 we invaded because Iraq hadn't properly followed UN resolutions.
When that stopped working
In 2005 We are there to help establish democracy and to fight
the terrorists there rather then here.
In 2006 we're there to stop a civil war.
In 2007 we're there because Iran is suddenly a major threat.
The underlying current in a lot of Right leaning arguments refuses to admit that maybe, just maybe, We screwed up. maybe We made a choice and it was a bad one.
Quit moving the goal posts and start coming up with constructive solutions instead of destructive ones.
By Final Historian, at
Tue Sep 11, 02:28:00 PM:
Andrew, there is no need for the Leftists to form new Terror groups. They have AQ and its affiliates to do their work for them. All they need to do is run cover.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 02:45:00 PM:
As a liberal Democrat, I am embarrassed by MoveOn and its ad. Its like we suddenly have an infestation of SwiftBoaters in our midst. We really should be better than that, and hopefully will be in the future.
By Synova, at
Tue Sep 11, 02:48:00 PM:
Too funny.
So the Moveon defenders show up and *surprise* start arguing that they disagree therefor Petraeus is a liar.
Nevermind that the ad was published *before* the reports to Congress. Minds were made up ahead of time and any suggestion of listening to the person in charge of operations in Iraq is so *threatening* that the attacks on Petraeus had to be made pre-emptively, *before* he gave his reports.
The evidence that not only have minds been set on failure but that failure is *hoped* for is *proven* by the fact that Moveon (and toadies) are so afraid to look at the situation objectively that they refuse to hear anything but what they want to hear.
If things were going *badly* over there they'd be propping Petraeus and saying "Listen to the general!"
If Petraeus didn't tell the truth to Congress it would be trivially easy to prove it *after the fact* by comparing his words to reports from Iraq. Moveon *knew* it couldn't do this. So they had to call him a liar *first* so they could simply *ignore* his report and not respond to it.
It's not up to Petraeus's supporters and those who respect our military to dispute Moveon. They made the accusations, they can support their own accusations.
By Mike H., at
Tue Sep 11, 03:06:00 PM:
The SwiftBoaters were there, where the action was, was Moveon.org?
By Mike H., at
Tue Sep 11, 03:08:00 PM:
BTW, I heard that Soros only had to pay half price. Any truth in that?
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 04:39:00 PM:
Refuting the MO position as bogus (to defend Patraeus, who does not need to be defended) is like trying to logic thru the 'when did you stop beating your wife' type questions.
MoveOn and the Left are flat wrong, and it should cost them.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 06:35:00 PM:
Anonymous at 2:45 PM
I certainly don't see any similarity to an infestation of Swiftboaters. Do you have a clue as to why Francois Kerry has not yet released his military records as he stated he would several times? Advance response, no he has not released them. Or why he has not sued the Swiftboat vets as he threatened several times, and to which the Swiftboaters welcomed the suit to open discovery?
SEW
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Sep 11, 06:44:00 PM:
Raise your hand if you're surprised by this.
*crickets*
I hope all you folks out there who voted for Democrats knew what you were getting yourselves into. Because I sure did.
"Given the level of rage on the far left in both America and Europe, I am actually surprised that we haven't seen the emergence of any new leftist terror groups on the lines of the Weather Underground or the Baader Meinhoff gang."
US servicemembers have been assaulted in targeted attacks in 2's and 3's for the last couple of years. These are written off as 'random violence' or 'muggings.' But what random gang of 5 young adults (as they were reported to be) mugs three marines out for a morning run in their PT gear? Certainly no one after money; they have none in PTs, and there are certainly easier targets.
Getting into a political shouting match with a soldier in a restaurant and then following him back to a parking garage and beating his head in with a baseball bat you just happen to conveniently have with you? (the soldier was paralyzed, BTW)
Or writing a suicide note about how much you hate the government, and then shooting an airman point blank in the chest outside his house?
I was at my last station for about a year and a half, and there were around eight of these attacks that I know about. In one place. They came in waves, too.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 07:19:00 PM:
Democrats ARE insane. Moveon and Code Pink represent who and what they are.
Dems hate/loathe the military. Not the least of which is that military action shows up their stupidly insane PC religion. Their moral relativism. Their hatred of America which is the source of all evil. Their romanticizing of the enemy particularly bin Laden who is a hero to the Kossacks (and truth be told, most Dems).
Over 48% of Dems are Truthers. What more need be said?
By Cassandra, at
Tue Sep 11, 07:21:00 PM:
"Poisonous Soul".... isn't there a alternative band by that name?
Admit it. You've missed me.
By Pax Federatica, at
Tue Sep 11, 07:31:00 PM:
Andrew Z: Given the level of rage on the far left in both America and Europe, I am actually surprised that we haven't seen the emergence of any new leftist terror groups on the lines of the Weather Underground or the Baader Meinhoff gang.
Just give it a few years. Here's how I suspect things will play out:
1) As the Left goes further and further over the top, many voters who had been inclined to stay home or vote Dem in '08 will probably change their minds, deciding it's more important to win in Iraq and elsewhere in the global counter-jihad (to borrow Gates of Vienna's term) than to punish the GOP for its shortcomings, however glaring and numerous they may be. As a result, all the expectations of a Dem romp in '08 will begin to dissipate.
2) If the GOP keeps the White House, the Left will wonder why they failed again, and no doubt the "stolen election" meme will resurface (even if it doesn't come down to a single state). This will undoubtedly be the last straw for many Leftists who will conclude that the political system is hopelessly corrupt and/or rigged - and that therefore continuing to work within the political system is useless. Throw in their "Demonic Convergence" (another GoV term) with Islamic supremacists, and, well, you can do the math from there.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 08:04:00 PM:
@ Anonymous
In 2003 we invaded because of the fear of WMDs and they were involved in 9/11.
When that was shown to be wrong...
In 2004 we invaded because Iraq hadn't properly followed UN resolutions….
Before you put finger to keyboard, you would be advised to acquaint yourself with the facts first.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 08:16:00 PM:
Before you put finger to keyboard, you would be advised to acquaint yourself with the facts first.
I notice that the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq doesn't mention the 9-11 attacks, but I recall clearly, and it would take no time to find evidence, that the White House repeatedly referred to Iraq's involvement in the 9-11 murders. This is a fine example of talking out of both sides of one's mouth at the same time.
test
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Sep 11, 08:23:00 PM:
it would take no time to find evidence, that the White House repeatedly referred to Iraq's involvement in the 9-11 murders.
Er, no it didn't and you will not be able to find evidence that it did.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 09:59:00 PM:
moveon.org is a despicable operation that is related to all the leftist operations as well as the democrat party. We expect that all of these organizations will libel and lie. We expect that they will resort to inuendo, character assasination, crime and corruption. Why are we surprised when they libel a 4 star general? They have no understanding of what a 4 star general is - it is beyond their experience. It is totally foreign to their lives that a person could have the integrity and honor of a man like General Petreaus because they live their little petty lives on the fringe, lying, coniving and cheating.
By Unknown, at
Tue Sep 11, 10:35:00 PM:
but I recall clearly, and it would take no time to find evidence, that the White House repeatedly referred to Iraq's involvement in the 9-11 murders.
The Big Lie!!!! -- Repeat and Repeat and Repeat
That's the Left for you, one big lie wrapped in thousands of smaller ones.
By , at
Tue Sep 11, 11:29:00 PM:
Yes it's the BIG LIE all over again. The Bush Admin argued:
1. For the UN to be "relevant" it's resolutions must be honored not flouted by Saddam (ironic given the extent of UN bribery by Saddam in Oil-for-food).
2. In the post 9/11 World it's "too late" to act AFTER an attack or wait for legalistic proof -- that Saddam would either admit the inspectors in a timely manner for face American military action.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Sep 12, 01:57:00 AM:
In support of Dawnfire82's point about attacks on servicemen comes this story today:
"A U.S. citizen who hoped to punish the Netherlands for its government's support of the war in Iraq has confessed to axing a 22-year-old Dutch student to death after failing to find a soldier to kill..."
Link:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3589622
By , at
Sun Sep 16, 12:53:00 AM:
The only one who has betrayed us has ben the liberals BILL CLINTON,MICHEAL MOORE,HANOI JANE,SEAN PENN,GEORGE CLOONEY,AL GORE,MOONBATS,and MOVEON as well
