"Betray Us" ad by moveon.org

[Gan]

To judge from the wall-to-wall coverage of MoveOn.org (http://www.moveon.org/)'s full-page ad in The New York Times on Monday, the liberal group strolled to the 18th hole up by two strokes, pulled out its driver and shanked one deep into the woods.

The solidifying Beltway consensus is that the ad (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_moveon.html), which refers to Army Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us,” was a blunder of the highest order, uniting Republicans and distracting Democrats at a time when the party could instead be pressing for an end to the war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) both distanced themselves from it, while Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) denounced it. “I would have preferred that they not do such an ad,” Pelosi said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

MoveOn, though, welcomes the controversy. Eli Pariser, executive director of the group’s political action arm, said he wouldn’t do it differently if he had to do it over again, and pushed the envelope further.

“Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, even if it’s a respected general,” he said.

While congressional Democrats might not be comfortable defending the “Betray Us” part of the ad, with the exception of a few, they’re not denouncing it, either.
After saying she would have preferred that the ad not run, Pelosi qualified that “it’s not for me to say how people express themselves. But it’s a demonstration of the frustration people have about the war.”


more...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5813.html
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/betrayusad.jpg
_________________________________________

Anyone have any thoughts on this ad that was run by moveon.org?

Personally I think its funny that even the Democrats are distancing themselves away from it.

[Khariz]

They should. It's so fuckign rediculous it makes me want to vomit.

[Warriorbird]

I've distanced myself from them ever since they started promoting Hillary over Obama despite Hillary's decidedly less anti Iraq War message and they throw stuff like this out.

Petraeus is pretty much the only general they can put in his position left. I don't hold it against him. He's been given the task of making the Iraq War sound like it is going well.

[Parkbandit]

Why is this such a surprise to anyone? Next step will be the "OMG SOLDIERS R BABY KILLRZ!!"

[Gan]

Why is this such a surprise to anyone? Next step will be the "OMG SOLDIERS R BABY KILLRZ!!"

Jane Fonda is covering that story. News at 10.

[DeV]

They're coming off as some asinine political attention whores who even the most liberal of Dems want no part of. Sad.

[Jazuela]

I didn't realize anyone actually took MoveOn.org seriously, until I read about the fuss everyone's been making about this ad. I assumed they were the political version of ChickTracks, heh. Silly me.

[Sean of the Thread]

Backlash is a Moveon.org employee last I heard.

[serra7965]

Amazing they only had to pay 1/3rd of the regular cost of a full page ad.

[Gan]

Fancy that.

Guiliani called the NYT out for that. I wonder if they gave him the same discount for his ads he just ran on Hillary.

[Stanley Burrell]

I have no idea what moveon.org is but I will say that I'm glad Dubya will not be leader of the free world in '08.

[Parkbandit]

I have no idea what moveon.org is but I will say that I'm glad Dubya will not be leader of the free world in '08.


Then you are a bigger retard then previously thought.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm still sad that Gore got robbed.

[Stanley Burrell]

Then you are a bigger retard then previously thought.

To quote Rhett:

(Than)

Sincerely,

- The Retard

[Khariz]

Fancy that.

Guiliani called the NYT out for that. I wonder if they gave him the same discount for his ads he just ran on Hillary.

He demanded it, and they did. O'Reilly confirmed it with his camp.

[Ilvane]

I don't like those kind of ads at all, even if they sometimes have a glimmer of truth in them.

It is, however, great that we are Americans and have the right to freedom of expression, isn't it?

It makes me laugh though that the Repubs come out, acting all holier than thou, when they did the same kind of ads in the elections last time around too. Too bad there wasn't such an outrage when people jumped all over John Kerry by putting out ads from "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", which said a hell of a lot worse things about him. You didn't hear them all screaming "Hey, don't badmouth a war hero, how dare you!!"

Angela

[Parkbandit]

I don't like those kind of ads at all, even if they sometimes have a glimmer of truth in them.

It is, however, great that we are Americans and have the right to freedom of expression, isn't it?

It makes me laugh though that the Repubs come out, acting all holier than thou, when they did the same kind of ads in the elections last time around too. Too bad there wasn't such an outrage when people jumped all over John Kerry by putting out ads from "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", which said a hell of a lot worse things about him. You didn't hear them all screaming "Hey, don't badmouth a war hero, how dare you!!"

Angela

There is a HUGE difference between attacking a politician running for office and a General in the middle of a war.

I'm not surprised you cannot differentiate between the two though.

[Latrinsorm]

It makes me laugh though that the Repubs come out, acting all holier than thou, when they did the same kind of ads in the elections last time around too.It makes me sad that you seriously just lumped "the Repubs" in with the actions of a few.

[Ilvane]

There is a HUGE difference between attacking a politician running for office and a General in the middle of a war.

I'm not surprised you cannot differentiate between the two though.

Is there? I mean, doesn't someone running for President deserve the same respect? Never mind that he was a war veteran and a multi-term senator.

But then, I can see why you can't see the difference, he's a Democrat.

Angela

[Clove]

Is there? I mean, doesn't someone running for President deserve the same respect? Never mind that he was a war veteran and a multi-term senator.

But then, I can see why you can't see the difference, he's a Democrat.

Angela

Surprisingly you still manage to astonish me. :help:

[sst]

Never mind that he was a war veteran
But then, I can see why you can't see the difference, he's a Democrat.

Angela

Okay so that means you cant attack me because I am a war Veteran.

Come on now Ilvane that's a load of politically biased bullshit on your part and you know it

Now as to General Petraeus, I sincerely think he believes in what he is doing over here. You guys need to understand that he has written the doctrine on counterinsurgency tactics for the military that it is now using with the aid of a bunch of Harvard folks.

[Parkbandit]

Is there? I mean, doesn't someone running for President deserve the same respect? Never mind that he was a war veteran and a multi-term senator.

But then, I can see why you can't see the difference, he's a Democrat.

Angela


Do you seriously need this explained to you? FFS, not even you can be this stupid.

Oh, wait...

[Ilvane]

I never said I agreed with moveon's ad, mind you. I was just astonished by the fact I don't hear the same screaming from the other side when these kinds of attacks came out previously..on the other side(as in conservative ads running against democrat or non-conservative)

:shrug:

[Parkbandit]

I never said I agreed with moveon's ad, mind you. I was just astonished by the fact I don't hear the same screaming from the other side when these kinds of attacks came out previously..on the other side(as in conservative ads running against democrat or non-conservative)

:shrug:



Clearly you do not understand an elected position and an appointed position.

Clearly you are too dumb to understand putting out an ad like this targetting our General during a time of war.

Clearly you are stupid... but you've heard that hundreds of time in your life.

[TheEschaton]

What's wrong with attacking the tactics of someone if you believe they are sneaky and underhanded, and just more politcal hackery?

People have this insane notion that because we're "at war" we have to shut up and not criticize? That's insane.

[Ilvane]

Exactly. There is a little thing called freedom of expression in this country.

It is sad that some people forget that.:)

Angela

[Sean of the Thread]

Wow.

[Parkbandit]

Exactly. There is a little thing called freedom of expression in this country.

It is sad that some people forget that.:)

Angela


Are you fucking kidding me?

Your position was that it was alright to put this ad out, because the Republicans did it to Kerry. I countered with the differences between Kerry and the General. NOW your position is 'We have freedom of speech'?

I'm done with this dumb bitch.. someone send in the next clown.

[Sean of the Thread]

It's amazing she still tries to post in the grown up threads.

[TheEschaton]

Republicans denounced Wesley Clark's tactics in Bosnia, as part of a political ploy. Bill Clinton's people shrugged their shoulders and just wrote it off as another idiotic tirade by the right.

Much like you could, if you wanted, to write this off as an idiotic tirade by the left.

Instead, you choose to further make it a political issue, by somehow implying criticizing a General is not only NOT the left's right, but treasonous to do so.

-TheE-

[Shifted]

Bash the Greek guy.

Just because it's legal to do so, does that make it right?

[Parkbandit]

Republicans denounced Wesley Clark's tactics in Bosnia, as part of a political ploy. Bill Clinton's people shrugged their shoulders and just wrote it off as another idiotic tirade by the right.

Much like you could, if you wanted, to write this off as an idiotic tirade by the left.

Instead, you choose to further make it a political issue, by somehow implying criticizing a General is not only NOT the left's right, but treasonous to do so.

-TheE-


I think it's a stretch to consider an ad by a bunch of freaks as "treason". Let's understand that this IS a mostly political issue.. Republicans want to continue to show the Democrats weak on defense and the Democrats want to focus their attacks on the war and not on the General THEY appointed to manage the war effort THEY funded. The ad was just another in a series of blunders by the Democrat wackos to force policy.

[Warriorbird]

Man. Way to spin while decrying spin. Hats off. I'm impressed.

[Parkbandit]

Man. Way to spin while decrying spin. Hats off. I'm impressed.

Yea.. I guess my post did kinda do that.

My point: It's ok to bash an elected official in office or running for office.. it's what is expected. It's not ok to bash an appointed General while in time of war.

What is happening to the ad now is pure political spectacle on both sides. It was a dumb move by a dumb organization to put the ad out.. but hey, it's $65,000 that played better for the Republicans than the Democrats. Republicans should be giving money to Moveon.org.

[Warriorbird]

It's not ok to bash an appointed General while in time of war.

Why not? Me, I personally hold no particular rancor towards the guy and I thought the ad was stupid... but, where's the mysterious "don't bash generals even if you disagree with the war" memo. Seriously, it's a lot better than bashing the lower ranked soldiers. If mistakes are made you trace em to the top. There've been a lot of generals with issues historically.

[TheEschaton]

I'm waiting for PB's response to Republicans bashing Wesley Clark during Bosnia.

General? Check. In fact, he was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces, at the time.

Bashed for how he handled Bosnia? Check.

DURING A WAR OMFG?!?!?!!? Check.

I like how you quoted my whole post, and then talk about how you weren't implying the ad was treason, but merely dumb, thereby giving the impression you answered the whole post, while not. Here, I'll even start your answer for you:

"But....but...it's all Bill Clinton's fault..."

Spin away.

[Parkbandit]

I'm waiting for PB's response to Republicans bashing Wesley Clark during Bosnia.

General? Check. In fact, he was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces, at the time.

Bashed for how he handled Bosnia? Check.

DURING A WAR OMFG?!?!?!!? Check.

I like how you quoted my whole post, and then talk about how you weren't implying the ad was treason, but merely dumb, thereby giving the impression you answered the whole post, while not. Here, I'll even start your answer for you:

"But....but...it's all Bill Clinton's fault..."

Spin away.

To be honest, I'm not aware of the Republicans bashing Clarke over Bosnia.. but I'll see if I can pull up some un-biased sources on this. And NATO or UN /= US.

[TheEschaton]

Ah, spin from an angle I'm not expecting - A U.S. majority force, led by an American general, appointed by an American President.....TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY.

Well, if this was actually a "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, I suppose we wouldn't be having this semantical tete-a-tete.

[Parkbandit]

Why not? Me, I personally hold no particular rancor towards the guy and I thought the ad was stupid... but, where's the mysterious "don't bash generals even if you disagree with the war" memo. Seriously, it's a lot better than bashing the lower ranked soldiers. If mistakes are made you trace em to the top. There've been a lot of generals with issues historically.

When you bash the individual appointed to manage the war... are you hurting our 'cause' or helping it? Are you supporting our enemy or helping them?

Make no mistake.. the Democrats have a vested interest in our failure in Iraq. They have formulated their entire '08 campaign on that premise that the war is bad and we need to get it out. The LAST thing they want is any success there. Success in Iraq = loss of votes in '08.

[Warriorbird]

That's the difference, Parkbandit. You're presupposing that any war is "our cause." I tend to think the Iraq War is a crazed waste of funds. Just because Congress voted for something doesn't mean I supported it...or particularly value that a bunch of Democrats who are mismanaging their mandate voted for the war initially.

Why do you expect people to help a war they oppose? While you're at it you can take a look at the length of time it took to solve the wars that we won in the last century...and exactly how long it took to somewhat resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland. I've always thought Northern Ireland was a far more apt comparison to Iraq than Vietnam was from an "actual environment" point. Vietnam is telling regarding wars that a great deal of people did not support and their results, however.

[Gan]

That's the difference, Parkbandit. You're presupposing that any war is "our cause." I tend to think the Iraq War is a crazed waste of funds. Just because Congress voted for something doesn't mean I supported it...or particularly value that a bunch of Democrats who are mismanaging their mandate voted for the war initially.
While I agree that its your right to agree or disagree, there comes a time when the words you say affect what goes on in the front lines. It affects not just someone's day job, it affects someone's life. That someone may or may not support the war, but its their job to fight in it. And with how critical an impact media is today, conflicts, wars, battles, are now fought on the media front as much as they are fought with bombs and bullets.



Why do you expect people to help a war they oppose?
Because what they do here can directly affect what happens on the front line. It can directly affect whether johnny soldier comes home on two feet or in a box. While I firmly support freedom of speech, I also support responsibility with speech.



While you're at it you can take a look at the length of time it took to solve the wars that we won in the last century...and exactly how long it took to somewhat resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland. I've always thought Northern Ireland was a far more apt comparison to Iraq than Vietnam was from an "actual environment" point. Vietnam is telling regarding wars that a great deal of people did not support and their results, however.
Viet Nam was an example on many many things, some of which are still ignored by today's politicians in Washington.

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles:

Many people, all of them Republicans (except Joe Liebermann, and he doesn't count), agree with you. You might be right. Then again...you could consider that by working against this war you're saving American lives.

Were people wrong to protest Vietnam?

Maybe Presidents should consider the support America will have for a war and not work to divide us (and don't tell me Bush hasn't) before going to war in the first place.

[Gan]

:chuckles:
Please explain whats humorous about the ad that moveon.org ran?


Many people, all of them Republicans (except Joe Liebermann, and he doesn't count), agree with you. You might be right. Then again...you could consider that by working against this war you're saving American lives.
Explain how the ad that this thread is about is saving American lives?


Were people wrong to protest Vietnam?
They were when the protests turned to violence, they were when the type of protest actually harmed our soldiers overseas instead of helping them.



Maybe Presidents should consider the support America will have for a war and not work to divide us (and don't tell me Bush hasn't) before going to war in the first place.

Exactly how large was the non-support for the Iraq war when we initially kicked it off? And how does that support your last statement, unless you think that our president has a crystal ball or something else just as 'magical' to see the future with.

[Warriorbird]

1. It's ridiculous. Political stunting on a Lee Atwater/Karl Rove level. Ridiculous can work well though. Their donations spiked.

2. A response to Parkbandit.

3. :chuckles: So...those kids at Kent State needed shot? You're basically saying that all protest for the Vietnam War was wrong if you agree with Parkbandit's "any protest harms soldiers" idea. Curiously enough, a lot of the folks who protested thought they were saving the lives of young people like themselves.

4. Not that large... IF you polled Congress. If you looked at the heavy division that Bush did...the divider issues, the attacks... to the country to win the Presidency? Every war becomes an extension of a Presidency as it continues. Half of America hated (and more now) him. That's not the best way to go into a war. Say what you want about Bush 1, he had a relative cakewalk in comparison to Dubya.

Iraq 1 coincidentally had a lot more support than Iraq 2 at least to start with.

[Gan]

1. It's ridiculous. Political stunting on a Lee Atwater/Karl Rove level. Ridiculous can work well though. Their donations spiked.

2. A response to Parkbandit.

3. :chuckles: So...those kids at Kent State needed shot? You're basically saying that all protest for the Vietnam War was wrong if you agree with Parkbandit's "any protest harms soldiers" idea. Curiously enough, a lot of the folks who protested thought they were saving the lives of young people like themselves.

4. Not that large... IF you polled Congress. If you looked at the heavy division that Bush did...the divider issues, the attacks... to the country to win the Presidency? Every war becomes an extension of a Presidency as it continues. Half of America hated (and more now) him. That's not the best way to go into a war. Say what you want about Bush 1, he had a relative cakewalk in comparison to Dubya.

Iraq 1 coincidentally had a lot more support than Iraq 2 at least to start with.

1. Glad you think an advertisement attacking the integrity of a General who's plans and policies responsible for thousands of lives during wartime is humorous and just a political stunt. I can agree with it being a stunt, but I dont find it humorous nor do I find it appropriate.

2. Failed to answer the question.

3. Failed to answer the question. And to note, I find the Kent State killings a tradegy. Also to note, its a shame that the people not in the war didnt stop to think about what and how their actions affected those actually doing the fighting.

4. I disagree with your assessment of the support for the Iraq invasion prior to and during the initial phase. I think it was a lot higher than you are giving it credit for.

[TheEschaton]

Way to go, Gan, PB takes the day off, and you come up perfectly frothing at the mouth.


Exactly how large was the non-support for the Iraq war when we initially kicked it off? And how does that support your last statement, unless you think that our president has a crystal ball or something else just as 'magical' to see the future with.

1 million people marched in NYC the month before the war started. Half a million in SF. Millions more around the world.

Now, 1.5m in the course of our population might seem inconsequential to you, but they were the largest mass protests since Vietnam.

Please, illustrate to me how critcizing a general "hurts" our soldiers on the front line. What, suddenly because a bunch of so-called liberal pussies whine, our generals are going to second guess themselves? How is that our fault?

-TheE-

[Gan]

Way to go, Gan, PB takes the day off, and you come up perfectly frothing at the mouth.
They're simple questions dumbass. I'm posting hardly less than 'frothing'. However, if the questions make you squirm, then perhaps they need asking. ;)



1 million people marched in NYC the month before the war started. Half a million in SF. Millions more around the world.

Now, 1.5m in the course of our population might seem inconsequential to you, but they were the largest mass protests since Vietnam.


The Iraq War has met with considerable popular opposition in the United States, beginning during the planning stages and continuing through the invasion subsequent occupation of Iraq. The months leading up to the war saw protests across the United States, the largest of which, held on February 15, 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_anti-war_protest) involved between 300,000 - 400,000 protesters in New York City, with smaller numbers protesting in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities.

Consistent with the anti-war rhetoric of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention. That poll also found, however, that if diplomacy failed, support for military action to remove Saddam Hussein was above 60 percent.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#_note-0)

Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration didn't not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%. [5] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm)

Immediately after the 2003 invasion most polls within the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq) showed a substantial majority of Americans supporting war, but that trend began to shift less than a year after the war began. Beginning in December 2004, polls have consistently shown that a majority thinks the invasion was a mistake. As of 2006, opinion on what the U.S. should do in Iraq is split, with a slight majority generally favoring setting a timetable for withdrawal, but against withdrawing immediately. However, in this area responses vary widely with the exact wording of the question.[6] (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War)
(still looking)


Please, illustrate to me how critcizing a general "hurts" our soldiers on the front line. What, suddenly because a bunch of so-called liberal pussies whine, our generals are going to second guess themselves? How is that our fault? Grats on being blind to everything outside of 2 feet in front of your face.
By simply reading the statements that are released from whom we are in conflict with, you would see that it does nothing but encourage the insurgency, resistance, and morale of the 'enemy' while at the same time distracting and demoralizing (to some extent) our own troops. Tell me how you would feel if you were the enemy and saw repeated propeganda befouling the war efforts, the troop efforts, and the war leadership by the generals directing it. Now tell me how you would feel if you were on our side fighting over there and read the same thing.

Its not that difficult to consider, if you open your mind to it.

[TheEschaton]

So you're literally telling me that fanatical psychotic asshats who are willing to blow themselves up in order to obtain heaven are encouraged or discouraged based on how much the American public rah-rah behind the war?

Grow up. In one breath you say how unable to be swayed these people are in their fanaticism, in the next you would say they're huddling somewhere reading the NY Times and taking heart that the American public is questioning the war.

And aren't you the one who says never to trust Wiki?

-TheE-

[Gan]

So you're literally telling me that fanatical psychotic asshats who are willing to blow themselves up in order to obtain heaven are encouraged or discouraged based on how much the American public rah-rah behind the war?
No, I'm saying that their leaders are smart enough to guage when and where they plan their missions and impact with the additional input they get from American media.


Grow up. In one breath you say how unable to be swayed these people are in their fanaticism, in the next you would say they're huddling somewhere reading the NY Times and taking heart that the American public is questioning the war.
Their leaders dumbass, your reading comprehension or at the very least memory/retention sucks. Its about the leaders, their fanaticism, they recruiting the mass of stupidity based on religious reasons, and their use of American propeganda to further justify their actions. I would suggest that its you that grow up, or at least remove the blinders before you lose your way in the tunnel.


And aren't you the one who says never to trust Wiki?

-TheE-
LOL, not me.
I actually like the sources that are cited in Wiki articles. Its easy to refute a 'Wiki' article, but not the sources that it cites. ;) For someone who is in law school, I thought you would have figured that point out with regards to research.

[TheEschaton]

Funny, I can't seem to find the source that Wiki is referencing in that article.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying - the leaders will read how we disagree with the war, and then plan their attacks based on that? How does our protesting affect strategy? It doesn't.

Or maybe you're saying the leaders can then use that to justify their war to the people they're trying to recruit. What do you suggest? The blind fanaticism and support they advocate? Maybe we should just fall into line and take it, like they suggest? Fuck that. I'm not going to curtail my beliefs, which are my right, to mimic the organization and lockstep our enemies supposedly have.

[Gan]

Funny, I can't seem to find the source that Wiki is referencing in that article.
Kind of like how you overinflated the NYC protest by 600k? LOL
Here, it works fine for me...


As people tried to reach the rally area they ended up constituting an unplanned march, stretching twenty blocks down First Avenue and overflowing onto Second and Third Avenue.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_anti-war_protest#_note-Cities) In total there may have been 300,000 to 400,000 protesters (WSWS estimate).[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_anti-war_protest#_note-Mass)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_anti-war_protest#New_York


I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying - the leaders will read how we disagree with the war, and then plan their attacks based on that? How does our protesting affect strategy? It doesn't. Reading comprehension: C-
First, focus on the thread topic: The Ad.
Second, consider how ads such as this impact the war effort, especially when its about a command general currently in theater. Think, its not hard to do. ;)


Or maybe you're saying the leaders can then use that to justify their war to the people they're trying to recruit. What do you suggest? The blind fanaticism and support they advocate? Maybe we should just fall into line and take it, like they suggest? Fuck that. I'm not going to curtail my beliefs, which are my right, to mimic the organization and lockstep our enemies supposedly have. My God you're pretty mixed up in the head. :(

[TheEschaton]

First, what is the WSWS?

Then I ask for a simple request: Please show how an ad in the NY Times calling into question how a standing General is running this war, ACTUALLY affects said war.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

I effect Dave's day to day life. I totally do. And you wonder why Republicans only believe this, Ganalon?

Where were you when your party was going, "We don't want to help the Yugoslavians!" again?

And Ganalon...when I'm addressing you, I'm addressing you.

:)

With that said.

1. Boo fucking hoo. I'm sorry that you suffer a vast degree of moral outrage over this horrible horrible thing. Done anything for Rwanda lately? Didn't think so. How many times have you made fun of someone for saying anything about Karl Rove?
2. I was addressing someone else. I can repeat this. Parkbandit suggested that nobody should ever get to say bad things about a war we don't agree with. This is pretty ridiculous.
3. There was no question there other than you falling all over yourself not to say that all protest of the Vietnam War was wrong. I'll give you an opportunity again. Was all protest of the Vietnam War wrong?
4. You missed the point. About half of America disapproved of Bush due to his efforts to divide the country to win votes. I'm saying it was a bad time to go to war versus Iraq 1...where Bush Sr. had a lot more of America behind him personally.

Given the concentrated smear campaign done against a tremendous number of Democrats over the years (Willie Horton, anybody?)...grow up, Ganalon. I expect more out of you theoretically realpolitik types.

[Gan]

Where were you when your party was going, "We don't want to help the Yugoslavians!" again?

Be more specific please.

[Gan]

First, what is the WSWS?
Your mouse broken? Try the #37 citation from CNN...


Then I ask for a simple request: Please show how an ad in the NY Times calling into question how a standing General is running this war, ACTUALLY affects said war.

-TheE-
Recently there was a story about an Al Queda Arab who survived a truck bomb mission where he was the driver. Read it, its very enlightening (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/14/reformed.jihadist/index.html). Oh thats right, the only thing that doesnt require written proof is your Bible eh?

[Warriorbird]

Be more specific please.
-Ganalon

Did you get upset about all the Republican Congressmen who didn't support America going into Yugoslavia? I think you only care since the Republicans are trying to use it to score political points. It is a bad look. Rather than supporting MoveOn (which getting pissed is doing)...Republicans should ignore it.

As an added note? Man, Ganalon. You totally answered how some dude surviving a truck bomb (front page, CNN) had everything to do with General Petraeus.

I'm waiting to here about y'all sticking up for Wesley Clark.

[Gan]

"Be more specific please.
-Ganalon"

Did you get upset about all the Republican Congressmen who didn't support America going into Yugoslavia?
Are you talking about the Bosian/Serb war in the early 90's?


Man, Ganalon. You totally answered how some dude surviving a truck bomb (front page, CNN) had everything to do with General Petraeus.

Would you both get real? Like I can immediately assess and identify the impact this ad, which just came out last week, will have to do with our efforts? You're kidding right?

[Warriorbird]

Well then... if you can't assess it... why exactly are you saying you can?

Still not hearing about your opinion on the former Yugoslavia situation and Republican sandbagging...

[Gan]

I effect Dave's day to day life. I totally do. And you wonder why Republicans only believe this, Ganalon?

Where were you when your party was going, "We don't want to help the Yugoslavians!" again?

And Ganalon...when I'm addressing you, I'm addressing you.
Wow, I'm glad you cleared that up. /sarcasm



1. Boo fucking hoo. I'm sorry that you suffer a vast degree of moral outrage over this horrible horrible thing. Done anything for Rwanda lately? Didn't think so. How many times have you made fun of someone for saying anything about Karl Rove? Not that many times, I recall specifically commenting about what he's done or what he's being blamed for. I pretty much respect his abilities while understanding that he's a politican. And my stance on all politicians has not changed.

Rwanda, yea, the CIA has photos of me at the front of the rallys for global change on the genocide. Tell me, what have you done for Rwanda? What did you do for Croatia? What did you do for all the suffering people in the world? What are you doing now? YOU HYPOCRITE! You cant justify protesting Iraq and not being involved in the thousands of other conceiveable injustices in the world! You cant want the US to be the world's police force only when it suits your opinion on the matter! /sarcasm


2. I was addressing someone else. I can repeat this. Parkbandit suggested that nobody should ever get to say bad things about a war we don't agree with. This is pretty ridiculous. So because you were addressing someone else, nobody else can respond? Riiiiiight. Are you living in your own little world tonight?


3. There was no question there other than you falling all over yourself not to say that all protest of the Vietnam War was wrong. I'll give you an opportunity again. Was all protest of the Vietnam War wrong? Reading comprehension: D+
Go back and read what I said. Or get someone to read it to you with an explanation.


4. You missed the point. About half of America disapproved of Bush due to his efforts to divide the country to win votes. I'm saying it was a bad time to go to war versus Iraq 1...where Bush Sr. had a lot more of America behind him personally. I disagree with your point, no missing it, I just flat out disagree with it. Furthermore, I find, through articles referenced here, that support, regardless of how it was compared to the Gulf War, was evident at the onset of the Iraq invasion. So you using that as a basis for your argument simply fails. Dont take it personally though. ;)

Given the concentrated smear campaign done against a tremendous number of Democrats over the years (Willie Horton, anybody?)...grow up, Ganalon. I expect more out of you theoretically realpolitik types.[/quote]

[Gan]

Well then... if you can't assess it... why exactly are you saying you can?
Obviously thinking outside the box is lost on you. When you figure it out, let me know.


Still not hearing about your opinion on the former Yugoslavia situation and Republican sandbagging...
Enlighten me, because I'm unfamiliar with what you are trying to relate to.

[Warriorbird]

What was that about reading comprehension again?

Oh, right...it was you attempting to say something.

You never asked me a "question" in that one section. There was only you not answering whether all protest of Vietnam was wrong because you were contradicting yourself.

I'll make it real simple...

Did it even register to you all the stuff that the Republicans pulled on Wesley Clark/and all the sandbagging they did to what we did in the former Yugoslavia? I doubt it.

America's political process has always been built around a fair debate. To suggest people can't disagree with a war is pretty stupid. To suggest that citizens of a country cannot criticize generals is even more stupid. When you look at all the things "appointed generals" have done in the history of the world? Quite a few of them could use criticism.

As I stated earlier...the best move would have been for you and all the brainwashed Republican masses to ignore the existence of this ad. MoveOn's made a lot of money off of your response.

[Gan]

What was that about reading comprehension again?

Oh, right...it was you attempting to say something.

You never asked me a "question" in that one section. There was only you not answering whether all protest of Vietnam was wrong because you were contradicting yourself.
LOL, show me where I contradicted myself.



I'll make it real simple...

Did it even register to you all the stuff that the Republicans pulled on Wesley Clark/and all the sandbagging they did to what we did in the former Yugoslavia? I doubt it. What sandbagging? Other than the bombing campaign what did we 'do' to former Yugoslavia? Are you butthurt because after Clark's military term ended and he tried to enter into the political world that he got slammed?


America's political process has always been built around a fair debate. To suggest people can't disagree with a war is pretty stupid. To suggest that citizens of a country cannot criticize generals is even more stupid. When you look at all the things "appointed generals" have done in the history of the world? Quite a few of them could use criticism. Again, for the third time. When protests harm other people or when they indirectly increase the risk or cause harm to the people actually doing the fighting on our side, then I see the protest as wrong. I'm not saying all forms of protest are wrong, just what I described in the previous sentence. Furthermore I classify the ad that this thread is discussing as the latter in my opinion.


As I stated earlier...the best move would have been for you and all the brainwashed Republican masses to ignore the existence of this ad. MoveOn's made a lot of money off of your response. The best move would have been not to run the ad. Period.

[TheEschaton]

First off, the religion crack is ridiculous. I don't believe the Bible is true word for word any more than you do. There are some truths in it, but please.

Secondly, there was a well documented outcry by Republican politicians against the whole Bosnian campaign. They said it was an unnecessary war, a political ploy to distract the country, all sorts of things. They were wrong.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Secondly, there was a well documented outcry by Republican politicians against the whole Bosnian campaign. They said it was an unnecessary war, a political ploy to distract the country, all sorts of things. They were wrong.

-TheE-

Link please. This will be an interesting read.

[Warriorbird]

Oh shit, Ganalon. What was that sound? That was you sucking the wall of text.

Have a nice day.

REPUBLICANS CRITICIZED CLINTON DURING
KOSOVO CONFLICT
From March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999, the United States and NATO engaged in a military
campaign to protect ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from Serbian aggression. While American troops
engaged in battle, Republican presidential candidates and leaders in the House and Senate criticized the
Clinton administration and the war in Kosovo, including the proposed supplemental funding for the
conflict.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Governor George W. Bush: According to the Houston Chronicle:
“Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton’s administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal
for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough
response. ‘Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit
strategy is,’ Bush said.” [Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99]
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Dan Quayle: “What has happened is we have taken a political crisis
and a humanitarian crisis and escalated it into a full military crisis. The handling of the situation in the
Balkans reflects the inattention of the Clinton Administration to foreign policy. … You have the same
situation [as Vietnam]. Ambiguity, no stated, clear cut mission and then you are going to have to be there
quite some time.” [Omaha World Herald, 3/28/99]
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Lamar Alexander: “Once we've started bombing we should bomb
aggressively and consistently and for a long time to try and bring Milosevic to the table. But the president
needs to tell us the rest of the story. Which is that if we put peace-keeping American forces in Kosovo
they are going to be there for a long time, maybe as long as they have been in Korea, 25 to 50 years; and
if they are harmed as they were in Somalia, then we are going to put other forces in there to make sure
that they are safe.” [Fox News, “Hannity & Colmes,” 3/26/99]
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan: “And what are we doing bombing and attacking this
tiny country that has never attacked the United States to rip away from them a province that does not
belong to us? I believe it is an unjust war. I think we have failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now
becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a war to save NATO’s credibility and NATO’s face.
And that does not justify sending in an army of 100,000 American ground troops into the Balkans.” [NBC,
“Meet the Press,” 4/25/99]
Then-GOP Presidential candidate Gary Bauer: “The President has not demonstrated he’s got a way to
solve a crisis or conflict that literally has been raging since 1350. … They treated each other with an
incredible amount of inhumanity. That’s a terrible thing. It offends our conscience. But how in the
world are American boys flying over Kosovo dropping bombs going to somehow stop something that’s
been going on for 600 years?” [Des Moines Register, 4/17/99]
REPUBLICAN LEADERS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE:
GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL): “Many may question the path that has taken us to this
point. I have my own questions about the long term strategy of this campaign.” [Dallas Morning News,
3/25/99]
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to
give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I
cannot support a failed foreign policy. … But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire,
I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never
explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign
nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. … Was it
worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.”
[Congressional Record, “Removal of United States Armed Forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” 4/28/99]
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): The deployment of U.S. military forces in Kosovo is
“just another bad idea in a foreign policy without a focus.” [Editorial, Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota),
3/17/99]
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “America needs to quickly change directions and
leave behind this chilling comedy of errors that has defined our foreign policy.” [Copley News Service,
3/22/99]
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “First of all, it's using NATO for the first time to
attack a sovereign nation. … It’s also one more adventure in a whole line of adventures of failed foreign
policy.” [“Fox News Sunday,” 3/14/99]
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX): “I had the utmost confidence in President Bush. He
had laid the groundwork, and our national interest in the Middle East was clear. In the gulf we had a
country that was invaded [Kuwait], and an oil interest to defend. … [In the Balkans] we have a president I
don’t trust, who has proven my reason for not trusting him: had no plan. We have a civil war that was
falsely described as a huge humanitarian problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing.”
[Washington Post, 5/4/99]
Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): “I think he’s [Clinton] gotten us into a
mess. I don’t think you can bomb a country into signing a peace agreement.” [Washington Post, 4/13/99]
Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): “The Administration, and NATO as a
whole, greatly miscalculated the response Slobodan Milosevic would have to a bombing campaign. As I
predicted, the Administration has escalated what was guerilla warfare into a much more serious conflict.
The bombings have unleashed an evil reign and resulted in a humanitarian disaster.” [Senator Don Nickles,
Press Release, 4/21/99]
Then-Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK): “I want NATO to be credible, but for
crying out loud, when you are so arrogant to say here is our wisdom, here is this accord, we determined
this is in your best interest and you must sign it or else we are going to bomb you--I stated in my speech
on the bombing resolution that I don't think you can bomb a country into submission or into signing an
agreement.” [Congressional Record, Senator Don Nickles, 5/3/99]
CRITICISMS FROM OTHER REPUBLICANS:
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK): “(P)resident [Clinton] has decimated our ability to defend ourselves.”
[USA Today, 4/5/99]
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH): “I don’t believe that a ground war in Kosovo using American troops is
going to be very successful.” [NBC, “Meet the Press,” 4/18/99]
Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA): “This is the most inept foreign policy in the
history of the United States.” [Washington Times, 4/29/99]
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face,
that’s his problem.” [New York Times, 5/4/99]
REPUBLICANS CRITICIZED CLINTON DURING
KOSOVO CONFLICT
March 24, 1999 -- NATO began a strategic bombing campaign. [Associated Press, 3/24/99]
→March 25, 1999 -- The Dallas Morning News quoted GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) as
saying, “Many question the path that has taken us to this point. I have my own questions about the
long term strategy of this campaign.” [Dallas Morning News, 3/25/99]
→March 27, 1999 -- Then-GOP Presidential candidate Dan Quayle criticized the Clinton
administration’s Kosovo policy and said, “What has happened is we have taken a political crisis and a
humanitarian crisis and escalated it into a full military crisis. The handling of the situation in the
Balkans reflects the inattention of the Clinton Administration to foreign policy. … You have the same
situation [as Vietnam]. Ambiguity, no stated, clear cut mission and then you are going to have to be
there quite some time.” [Omaha World Herald, 3/28/99]
March 31, 1999 -- Three U.S. soldiers were captured while patrolling the Serbia-Macedonia border.
[Associated Press, 3/31/99]
→April 4, 1999 -- Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said, “We should not be in Kosovo, as we should not
have been in Bosnia. Our concern is we should be able to defend America in the event something
happens where our strategic interests are at stake, such as in Iraq or in North Korea. And this is just
depleting and diluting our resources.” [New York Times, 4/8/99]
→April 4, 1999 -- While appearing on “Meet the Press,” Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said the
“President has decimated our ability to defend ourselves.” [USA Today, 4/5/99]
→April 5, 1999 -- Then-GOP Presidential candidate Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) questioned the need to
protect Kosovo. “Hundreds of thousands have died in Rwanda,” Smith said. “We’re not firing
missiles there. This is a mistake.” [USA Today, 4/5/99]
→April 5, 1999 -- USA Today quoted Senator Richard Shelby (R AL), as saying, “Obviously, we are
not winning the war.” [USA Today, 4/5/99]
→April 6, 1999 -- At an appearance in his hometown of Yorkville, IL, GOP House Speaker Dennis
Hastert (R-IL) said, “The endgame should be, I think, to be sure we can get those refugees back into
Kosovo and stabilized. I have my doubts about whether we are going to be able to rationally deal
politically with Milosevic or not. I don’t know if that’s possible to do. But right now, I don’t think
there’s much support for ground troops. I mean, I don’t see it here, and I didn’t see it in Europe. So
we’re going to have to try to find the best way to solve the problem without inserting ground troops.”
[National Public Radio, 4/7/99]
→April 8, 1999 -- The New York Times quoted then-Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO) as saying, “A
lackluster air campaign has given the Serb dictator Milosevic time to achieve most of his strategic
goals in Kosovo.” [New York Times, 4/8/99]
→April 8, 1999 -- The New York Times quoted Senator Chuck Hagel (R-N) as saying, “We've got a
butcher loose in the backyard of NATO. If NATO can't deal with this, are we living a charade that
there's peace and stability in Europe?” [New York Times, 4/8/99]
→April 9, 1999 -- The Washington Post quoted Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) as saying, “Now that you see
this refugee crisis, we really have to find a strategy to win in some way, whatever that means. We're
all having trouble figuring out what a win is.” [Washington Post, 4/9/99]
→April 13, 1999 -- In a speech, Representative Tom Campbell(R-CA) denounced the military campaign
in Kosovo and said, “We are presently at war and it is an unconstitutional war.” (R-CA) [New York
Times, 4/14/99]
→April 13, 1999 -- Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK) criticized Clinton and said,
“I think he’s gotten us into a mess. I don’t think you can bomb a country into signing a peace
agreement.”- [Washington Post, 4/13/99]
→April 15, 1999 – In an interview on “Inside Politics,” then-GOP Presidential candidate Rep. John
Kasich (R-OH) discussed the military situation in the Balkans and said, “I don’t understand what [the
Administration’s] goals are. ... I am opposed to ground troops. I am for keeping the pressure on
Milosevich but frankly I think we need to look for mediation. I don’t think we ought to look at
opportunities to raise the level of violence there. I think we ought to look for opportunities to be able
to mediate a solution.” [“Inside Politics,” CNN, 4/15/99]
→April 17, 1999 -- GOP Presidential candidate Gary Bauer stated his opposition to the military
campaign in Kosovo. “The President has not demonstrated he’s got a way to solve a crisis or conflict
that literally has been raging since 1350,” Bauer said. “They treated each other with an incredible
amount of inhumanity. That’s a terrible thing. It offends our conscience. But how in the world are
American boys flying over Kosovo dropping bombs going to somehow stop something that’s been
going on for 600 years?” [Des Moines Register, 4/17/99]
→April 18, 1999 -- In an appearance on “Meet the Press,” Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) said, “I don’t
believe that a ground war in Kosovo using American troops is going to be very successful.” [NBC,
“Meet the Press,” 4/18/99]
→April 19, 1999 -- Senator Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) questioned funding the war in Kosovo. “We have
increased deployments by 300% under this President while cutting funding for the armed services by a
third. So I am probably going to vote for it,” Hutchinson said. “But at the rate that we’re spending,
$6 billion will not get us through this fiscal year to pay for this war.” [“Crossfire,” CNN, 4/19/99]
→April 19, 1999 -- Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) said, “We have literally planted the flag in the Balkan
swamp, I do think its in our national interest, after talking with NATO Ambassadors, after taking a
good hard look. It’s the future of NATO, it’s the credibility of NATO. ... I hope it works, I have my
doubts.” [CNN, “Inside Politics,” 4/19/99]
→April 20, 1999 -- Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) denounced the war in Kosovo and argued, “The
Administration has told us the U.S. has agreed to pay for 25 percent of the cost for rebuilding what we
are now destroying in terms of a mini-Marshall Plan. I object to that. I do not think it’s appropriate
for us to come in an rebuild that part of Europe when the European Union is healthy economically and
certainly can do that job.” [Washington Times, 4/20/99]
→April 21, 1999 -- Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) criticized the Clinton administration’s cooperation with
NATO in Kosovo and said, “The Administration, and NATO as a whole, greatly miscalculated the
response Slobodan Milosevic would have to a bombing campaign. As I predicted, the Administration
has escalated what was guerilla warfare into a much more serious conflict. The bombings have
unleashed an evil reign and resulted in a humanitarian disaster.” [Senator Don Nickles, Press Release,
4/21/99]
→April 24, 1999 -- In an appearance on “Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields,” Senator Richard Shelby (R
AL) said, “I don't believe we're winning it today. I don't believe that the Serbs are winning it either,
but our air war has intensified some, especially this week, and if we'll keep it up for another two or
three more weeks and not let the politicians decide what targets to hit or veto the ones that the Army
wants go at, it could make a difference. I'm dubious, I'm not sure, I don't know of any air war that has
decided a conflict by itself.” [“Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields,” CNN, 4/24/99]
→April 25, 1999 -- Then-GOP Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said, “And what are we doing
bombing and attacking this tiny country that has never attacked the United States to rip away
from them a province that does not belong to us? I believe it is an unjust war. I think we have
failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a
war to save NATO’s credibility and NATO’s face. And that does not justify sending in an army of
100,000 American ground troops into the Balkans.” [NBC, “Meet the Press,” 4/25/99, emphasis added]
→April 28, 1999 -- House Republicans undermined U.S. foreign policy by rejecting a resolution
(S.Con.Res.21) authorizing the ongoing NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia. A Washington Post
editorial said of the vote, “The Republican leadership has shown an amazing lack of leadership.
Cowardice triumphed over principle. ... Those who will more likely suffer from this abdication are the
NATO alliance, its military campaign, the Kosovars and, in the long run, the Republican Party itself.”
House Republicans defeated the resolution 213 to 213. [House CQ Vote #103, 4/28/99; Editorial, Washington
Post, 4/30/99]
→April 28, 1999 – Then-GOP Presidential candidate Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) was skeptical of
NATO’s military campaign in Kosovo and said, “The fact is the civil war in Kosovo has been raging
since 1389. The fact is, our intervening in the middle of an ethnic civil war that has been going on for
six centuries is not likely to be successful.” [New York Times, 4/29/99]
→April 28, 1999 -- Speaking on the House floor, then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX)
criticized Clinton’s decision to bomb in Kosovo and said, “Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech
for me to give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that
they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. … But before we get deeper
embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy
so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S.
military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new
military/foreign policy precedent. … Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has
been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.” [Congressional Record, “Removal of United States Armed
Forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” 4/28/99, emphasis added]
→April 28, 1999 -- Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) criticized the Clinton administration and
said, “This is the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States.” [Washington Times,
4/29/99]
→April 30, 1999 -- Commenting on the rejection of a bill that would have authorized force in the
Balkans, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) said, “The President is not supported by the
House, and the military is supported by the House.” [USA Today, 4/30/99]
→April 30, 1999 -- The Washington Times quoted Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) as saying, “How can we
vote next week to fund a mission that we voted against this week?” [Washington Times, 4/30/99]
→May 2, 1999 -- Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX) criticized Clinton’s policies in
Kosovo and said, “The president said that if we did nothing, there would be a instability in the region.
There would be a flood of refugees, Kosovars would die, and the credibility of NATO would be
undermined. Well, Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode.”
[CNN, “Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, 5/2/99, emphasis added]
→May 2, 1999 -- Then-GOP Presidential candidate Bob Smith (NH) questioned the fate of the Kosovo
military conflict and said, “I’m opposed to saying, ‘Let’s go in and win it,’ because I don’t know what
win means. Do we go in and flatten it? ... I don’t want another Vietnam. I don’t want to have people
say we’ve wasted a thousand lives for nothing.” [Portsmouth Herald, 5/2/99]
→May 2, 1999 -- Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (R-OK) criticized the war process in
Kosovo and called for an end to the military campaign. “We need to try and achieve a compromise,”
Nickles said. “We need a diplomatic resolution. Whether he personally meets with him or not, I hope
this administration really aggressively pursues a diplomatic solution. This war is not going well.”-
[NBC “Meet the Press,” 5/2/99]
→May 3, 1999 -- Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) criticized the Clinton administration and NATO’s military
campaign in Kosovo and said, “I want NATO to be credible, but for crying out loud, when you are so
arrogant to say here is our wisdom, here is this accord, we determined this is in your best interest and
you must sign it or else we are going to bomb you--I stated in my speech on the bombing resolution
that I don't think you can bomb a country into submission or into signing an agreement. I doubted
then that Mr. Milosevic, after the bombs were going to fall, was going to raise the white flag and say:
Now I see the wisdom. That didn't happen in Bosnia. It got his attention in Bosnia. In fact, the
Croatian army was ethnically cleansing their own, and he was losing the war. He decided to be more
interested in a peace agreement.” [Congressional Record, Senator Don Nickles, 5/3/99]
→May 3, 1999 -- During an interview, GOP House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX) said, “We’re not
paying for the air war. We’re paying to rebuild our defenses, which this Administration has gutted.”
[Associated Press, 5/3/99]
→May 3, 1999 -- Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) placed all responsibility of the Kosovo military
engagement on the Clinton administration. “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on
his face, that’s his problem,” Lugar said. [New York Times, 5/4/99]
→May 4, 1999 -- In an interview with the Washington Post, DeLay was quoted as saying, “I had the
utmost confidence in President Bush. He had laid the groundwork, and our national interest in the
Middle East was clear. In the gulf we had a country that was invaded [Kuwait], and an oil interest to
defend. … [In the Balkans] we have a president I don’t trust, who has proven my reason for not
trusting him: had no plan. We have a civil war that was falsely described as a huge humanitarian
problem, when in comparison to other places, it was nothing.” [Washington Post, 5/4/99]
→May 4, 1999 -- The Scotsman reported, “The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, said at the weekend:
‘I think that, as Jesse Jackson would say, give peace a chance here. There seems to be some
momentum. There seems to be an opportunity - we should seize this moment. As a matter of fact,
you know, I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had
done enough in the diplomatic area.’” [Scotsman, 5/4/99, emphasis added]
May 5, 1999 -- Two American Apache crew members were killed in Albania. The American soldiers
were the only NATO casualties during the air strikes. [Associated Press, 5/5/99]
→May 5, 1999 -- The New York Times quoted Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) as saying, “We should
not use Social Security to pay for a war in the Balkans.” [New York Times, 5/21/99]
→May 7, 1999 – Speaking on the House floor, then-GOP Presidential candidate and House Budget
Committee Chairman Rep. John Kasich (R-OH) criticized the Clinton administration’s policy in
Kosovo and said, “Escalating this war doesn’t make any sense because starting this war did not make
any sense.” [Washington Times, 5/7/99]
→May 7, 1999 -- The Washington Post quoted GOP House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (TX) as saying,
“While we may not support the President’s ill-advised war, we do support our troops. … Without any
coherent international blueprint, the White House has bombed its way around the globe while
dropping troops far and wide for ill-defined peacemaking duties. This policy has gutted the American
military, which now must be rebuilt.” [Washington Post, 5/7/99]
→May 19, 1999 -- GOP members of the House Armed Services Committee voted to prevent the use of
any of the funds in the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization to fund NATO’s efforts -- combat or
peacekeeping -- in Yugoslavia. Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor (TX) offered an amendment to remove
the Yugoslavia funding restriction, but Republican committee members defeated the measure 27 to
31. [CQ House Committee Coverage, 5/20/99]
→May 20, 1999 -- While speaking on the floor of the Senate Banking Committee about funding air
assaults in the Balkans, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) said, “I don’t see how we are going to save Social
Security if we keep spending the surplus.” [Washington Times, 5/21/99]
June 10, 1999 -- NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo ended with signing of peace accord. [Associated
Press, 6/10/99]

[TheEschaton]

Damn, nigga, please!

[Gan]

Oh shit, Ganalon. What was that sound? That was you sucking the wall of text.
<screen vomit>

Link asshole. I prefer to read it in its original form.

10:1 its a moveon.org link...

[Gan]

→April 4, 1999 -- Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) said, “We should not be in Kosovo, as we should not
have been in Bosnia. Our concern is we should be able to defend America in the event something
happens where our strategic interests are at stake, such as in Iraq or in North Korea. And this is just
depleting and diluting our resources.” [New York Times, 4/8/99] I thought this one was an interesting quote.

Edited to add:
Many of the quotes above I find repugnant and reflective of whats being said now. That I dont support.
So the Democrats are just voicing the same play that the GOP used in the early 2000's. Grats for being a bastion of change. :clap:

[Warriorbird]

There you go.

:)

Edit: Not from MoveOn. Congress is pretty much Congress.

[Gan]

There you go.

:)

Link = web address stuipd.

where

is

it

located

on

the

world

wide

web...

Is that understood?

[Warriorbird]

I dunno. I got it from a friend who said it was originally made up for Wesley Clark campaign material. Not unbiased of course...but most of the quotes are pretty direct.

[Gan]

I dunno. I got it from a friend who said it was originally made up for Wesley Clark campaign material. Not unbiased of course...but most of the quotes are pretty direct.

hahahahahahahaha

Nice to pass along propeganda without a verified source. Thats rich.

Do you have that screen printed on your pillowcase or something?

:lol:

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles: Whatever. Go hunt in the Congressional record for me. Go be my research assistant.

EDIT:

Located it pretty easily off the DNC's website.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf

[Gan]

.
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/warf.gif

[Warriorbird]

Go on...check that Congressional record.

I'm waiting.

(I pulled up three database wise...all correct.)

[Gan]

Be sure you wait up for a response...

[sst]

So you're literally telling me that fanatical psychotic asshats who are willing to blow themselves up in order to obtain heaven are encouraged or discouraged based on how much the American public rah-rah behind the war?

Grow up. In one breath you say how unable to be swayed these people are in their fanaticism, in the next you would say they're huddling somewhere reading the NY Times and taking heart that the American public is questioning the war.

And aren't you the one who says never to trust Wiki?

-TheE-

American Papers are used for propaganda purposes over here.
Sorry TheE you know little about what goes on.

[Warriorbird]

If we were in other valid hotspots... would it be an issue?

[sst]

http://www.flicklife.com/7b849d6f013ba46489d6/Very_Close_Call_In_Iraq.html

Just thought idd add this a pretty cool video of a miss

I has nothing to do with the topic

[Warriorbird]

As another totally off topic note? We had a JAG thing at the law school recently...and the Army looked really good. They showed up in force. Every single other branch was late or didn't show (though the Marine dude theoretically had an out for actually fighting or some such.)

[thefarmer]

Here's a question.

When is it ok to criticize a general?

When the conflict/war is over?

What about during a horrible mistake during the conflict/war?

When they retire from active military service and try to enter politics?

Is it ever ok?

[sst]

WB check your PM's

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.flicklife.com/7b849d6f013ba46489d6/Very_Close_Call_In_Iraq.html

Just thought idd add this a pretty cool video of a miss

I has nothing to do with the topic

Would that kill you if you were driving under it at the time? Or just flip over your vehicle or something.

[sst]

Would that kill you if you were driving under it at the time? Or just flip over your vehicle or something.

Depends. That one appeared to be buried pretty deep, so in that case it most likely would have thrown it in the air and flipped it killing the gunner and maybe somebody inside of a HMMWV.
The big threat from the Sunni over here are bombs like that... HME, a home made explosive buried underground, some of the bigger ones I've witnessed were in over 1000 pounds of explosives. We had a HMMWV that decided to pass us driving down a dirt road in Salmon Pak it hit one that tore the truck apart killing everyone inside, the engine block was about 100meters from the site of the IED.

Strykers can take bigger hits than a Hmmwv, but shit like that would still fuck it up and probably throw it on its side.

[TheEschaton]

American Papers are used for propaganda purposes over here.
Sorry TheE you know little about what goes on.

Dave, you have continually proven you can't even think properly, and thus make suspect your already very limited viewpoint of Iraq.

-TheE-

[Jesuit]

I think what sst and Gan are trying to say is the terrorists know they can't beat America militarily. The only way they know they can win is if they create more dissent against the war and eventually get America to quit. They use propaganda web sites like this http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/ and others to show that what they're doing is working and all they have to do is keep it up.

[Gan]

Here's a question.

When is it ok to criticize a general?

When the conflict/war is over?

What about during a horrible mistake during the conflict/war?

When they retire from active military service and try to enter politics?

Is it ever ok?

1. When he's not in theater, not in command of an active conflict.

2. See 1.

3. He can be criticized to hell and back after he's removed from command.

4. Retirement and entrance into the political arena is also fair game for criticism.

[Gan]

I think what sst and Gan are trying to say is the terrorists know they can't beat America militarily. The only way they know they can win is if they create more dissent against the war and eventually get America to quit. They use propaganda web sites like this http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/ and others to show that what they're doing is working and all they have to do is keep it up.

**Winner**

:clap:

[sst]

Dave, you have continually proven you can't even think properly, and thus make suspect your already very limited viewpoint of Iraq.

-TheE-

You're right TheE, considering one of the things I do on a regular basis over here is collecting enemy propaganda and working with people to counter it, I have no clue what I am talking about.

You think you know so much but my friend you are completely clueless. I want to remind you, Africa is not the middle east.

[sst]

I think what sst and Gan are trying to say is the terrorists know they can't beat America militarily. The only way they know they can win is if they create more dissent against the war and eventually get America to quit. They use propaganda web sites like this http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/ and others to show that what they're doing is working and all they have to do is keep it up.

:yeahthat:

[Celephais]

http://www.flicklife.com/7b849d6f013ba46489d6/Very_Close_Call_In_Iraq.html

Just thought idd add this a pretty cool video of a miss

I has nothing to do with the topic
Wow that's awesome... looks like a fucking sand worm surfacing... I mean, it is the desert, figure Shai'Halud is over there somewhere.

[Gan]

Wow that's awesome... looks like a fucking sand worm surfacing... I mean, it is the desert, figure Shai'Halud is over there somewhere.

You feel a rumble come from beneath your feet.
Dirt and rock explode from the ground beneath you as a roa'ter erupts from underground and crashes onto the surface!
Rocks and dirt pelt you as you are thrown into the air!
... 50 points of damage!

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i3/3strangedays/roater.jpg

[Warriorbird]

:grins: So...you can't criticize the general and you can't criticize the war. Way to have free speech there, Ganalon. Right American of you.

[TheEschaton]

You're right TheE, considering one of the things I do on a regular basis over here is collecting enemy propaganda and working with people to counter it, I have no clue what I am talking about.

You think you know so much but my friend you are completely clueless. I want to remind you, Africa is not the middle east.

You're right, Dave, considering one of the things I do on a regular basis over here is collecting enemy propoganda and working with people to counter it, I have no clue what I am talking about.

You think you know so much, but, my friend, you are completely clueless. I want to remind you, holding a gun doesn't allow you to get to "know" a society of people.

Funny how that works both ways.
-TheE-

[Gan]

:grins: So...you can't criticize the general and you can't criticize the war. Way to have free speech there, Ganalon. Right American of you.

Grats:

You have now been demoted:

Reading comprehension: F


Go back and read what I said about protesting again, better yet, have someone read it to you and explain what the funny little lines mean.

[Warriorbird]

So explain it to me...

You can't criticize a general...
Criticizing the war clearly supports the terrorists...

Whoops! No more of that pesky dissent stuff. Woo hoo nationalism!

[TheEschaton]

Yeah, so, according to Gan, if the State keeps us in a state of perpetual war, we should just shut up and like it.

So, estimates are we'll be in Iraq for another 10 years. So for 10 years, we can't criticize our efforts there at all lest it embolden the enemy?

At least now we know the Republican strategy, and it actually gives me hope. It implies that there may be people who are vehemently against the President's policies, but because they're good Americans, they just blindly support him.

You consider me religiously fanatic, but your jingoism is blinding you, Gan. Blind faith in the military is ridiculous.

-TheE-

[Jesuit]

Yeah, so, according to Gan, if the State keeps us in a state of perpetual war, we should just shut up and like it.

So, estimates are we'll be in Iraq for another 10 years. So for 10 years, we can't criticize our efforts there at all lest it embolden the enemy?

At least now we know the Republican strategy, and it actually gives me hope. It implies that there may be people who are vehemently against the President's policies, but because they're good Americans, they just blindly support him.

You consider me religiously fanatic, but your jingoism is blinding you, Gan. Blind faith in the military is ridiculous.

-TheE-

Nobody is telling anyone not to criticize but a New York Times ad against an American general during a time of war is just over the top. I can't seem to find anything critical of the fact that American troops are still in Kosovo.

Speaking of 10 years, how long have American soldiers been in Kosovo? Someone refresh my memory please.

And while we're on the subject of strategies, what is the Democratic strategy for bringing troops home from Kosovo?

[Gan]

So explain it to me...

You can't criticize a general...
Criticizing the war clearly supports the terrorists...

Whoops! No more of that pesky dissent stuff. Woo hoo nationalism!


Yeah, so, according to Gan, if the State keeps us in a state of perpetual war, we should just shut up and like it.

So, estimates are we'll be in Iraq for another 10 years. So for 10 years, we can't criticize our efforts there at all lest it embolden the enemy?

At least now we know the Republican strategy, and it actually gives me hope. It implies that there may be people who are vehemently against the President's policies, but because they're good Americans, they just blindly support him.

You consider me religiously fanatic, but your jingoism is blinding you, Gan. Blind faith in the military is ridiculous.

-TheE-

Please understand, for the umpthteenth time, my position on protesting with regards to a)general protests involving violence and how it affects those actually doing the fighting and b)general protests without violence. The former shouldnt happen, period. The latter needs to be enacted with some regard or responsibility to what is said and how the boys who are doing the fighting are being portrayed.

Secondly, with regards to the moveon.org ad and criticizing a high ranking military commander (general in this case) while he's in command in theater... see below.


While I agree that its your right to agree or disagree, there comes a time when the words you say affect what goes on in the front lines. It affects not just someone's day job, it affects someone's life. That someone may or may not support the war, but its their job to fight in it. And with how critical an impact media is today, conflicts, wars, battles, are now fought on the media front as much as they are fought with bombs and bullets.


Because what they do here can directly affect what happens on the front line. It can directly affect whether johnny soldier comes home on two feet or in a box. While I firmly support freedom of speech, I also support responsibility with speech.


1. Glad you think an advertisement attacking the integrity of a General who's plans and policies responsible for thousands of lives during wartime is humorous and just a political stunt. I can agree with it being a stunt, but I dont find it humorous nor do I find it appropriate.


Second, consider how ads such as this impact the war effort, especially when its about a command general currently in theater.


Again, for the third time. When protests harm other people or when they indirectly increase the risk or cause harm to the people actually doing the fighting on our side, then I see the protest as wrong. I'm not saying all forms of protest are wrong, just what I described in the previous sentence. Furthermore I classify the ad that this thread is discussing as the latter in my opinion.
The best move would have been not to run the ad. Period.


1. When he's not in theater, not in command of an active conflict.

2. See 1.

3. He can be criticized to hell and back after he's removed from command.

4. Retirement and entrance into the political arena is also fair game for criticism.

The squiggly little lines above represent my view on protesting during a war. Please note the consistency and how it blatantly a) refutes with either TheE or WB are trying to assert in that I think all protests are bad and should not happen and b) points out the lack of reading comprehension of both TheE and WB when they have their blinders on.

Yay blinders! :rah:

:banghead:

[Stanley Burrell]

I've witnessed were in over 1000 pounds of explosives. We had a HMMWV that decided to pass us driving down a dirt road in Salmon Pak it hit one that tore the truck apart killing everyone inside, the engine block was about 100meters from the site of the IED.

How does someone stash 1k of explosives underneath concrete like that? I always thought of roadside bombs as being tucked deep into the diggable ground or something? Why does the gunner have to be exposed? Wouldn't they open fire after seeing some suspicious activity from within an armored HMV, even?

I saw another huge-ass IED on youtube where it literally flips over a Bradley, but there was a shitload of flame and combustion going on.

Sorry your convoy was attacked like that :(

[sst]

How does someone stash 1k of explosives underneath concrete like that? I always thought of roadside bombs as being tucked deep into the digable ground or something? Why does the gunner have to be exposed? Wouldn't they open fire after seeing some suspicious activity from within an armored HMV, even?

I saw another huge-ass IED on youtube where it literally flips over a Bradley, but there was a shitload of flame and combustion going on.

Sorry your convoy was attacked like that :(

Easy, a road not commonly traveled a few hours of digging and a detonation system and you're good to go. You rarely see the people who set them off, more often than not they use copper wire, speaker wire or something like that which can easily be hidden and are 2-3-400 meters away, or they just use a pressure device so it goes off when you drive over it.

Gunners are exposed, because they are gunners, and stand out of a hatch, its just how it is. That one was buried to deep that's why you didn't see what you were thinking it looked like.

As to being attacked, we've been hit a bunch, I've personally lived though 7 IEDs that hit trucks i was riding on, its more common than you think.

[sst]

You're right, Dave, considering one of the things I do on a regular basis over here is collecting enemy propoganda and working with people to counter it, I have no clue what I am talking about.

You think you know so much, but, my friend, you are completely clueless. I want to remind you, holding a gun doesn't allow you to get to "know" a society of people.

Funny how that works both ways.
-TheE-

whatever man, if you are happy being ignorant to how things work and wish to continue to make yourself look like a fool to people who have a decent understanding the I wont stop you.

[Parkbandit]

Blind faith in the military is ridiculous.

-TheE-

Blind faith in your fantasy world is even more so.

[TheEschaton]

I don't have blind faith in it. Idiots like you prevent me from anything like that.

[Parkbandit]

I don't have blind faith in it. Idiots like you prevent me from anything like that.


Aw.. poor baby. I'm sorry reality ruins your fun in your imaginary land.

[TheEschaton]

I'm sorry nothing ruins your skewed view of reality.

[Gan]

I'm sorry nothing ruins your skewed view of reality.

That made... no sense. Whatsoever.

[Parkbandit]

That made... no sense. Whatsoever.

LOL.

I read that like 3 times before I gave up and chalked it up to him being stupid again.

[Gan]

LOL.

I read that like 3 times before I gave up and chalked it up to him being stupid again.

I almost feel sorry for TheE, this thread has been kinda rough on him.

almost...

:lol:

[Daniel]

I think it's pretty stupid to hold those who have thousands of lives in their hands responsible for their actions.

In fact, In war I think it's fatally stupid.