I’d like to apologize to Shaun if I came off too harsh or personal, which it seems I did. Sorry, Shaun. I tend to write forcefully, and today I didn’t pause to check if I was going over a line. Reading over my comments, I can see how people interpret them as calling you stupid, when I was criticizing your argument. I’ll try to make that clearer in the future. And the meds thing was a joke, I don’t think you actually need meds. Even if you do, I’m sure you’re still a good person.

That is all.

MoveOn.org is not the Democratic Party. Their advertisements are not important. How about we actually worry about Iraq and all the people we’re killing.

I have been puzzled about this too. While some comedians at the Huffington Post might argue (a few weeks back) that generals can disobey orders and arrest presidents at will…a basic principle of the Republic is that civilian leaders – good or bad – call the shots.

I suspect the animus of MoveOn – and of the NYT that subsidized the ads with a “family discount” – for Petraeus stems from the underlying hatred many on the Left have for the military in any form. Combine this with BDS…and you have the view that expects the officer corps of the United States to resign en masse rather than accept the orders of Chimpybushitlerburton.

But, its evident that he is being asked to sell the continuation of an unpopular war because the architects of that war have failed so miserably, and have deceived the public about the overall picture for 4 1/2 years. Petraeus can bring temporary stability to parts of Iraq, but he can’t force political reconciliation or restore economic prosperity.

Again, who is to blame? General Betrayus? Look, in our system of government, military officers have no say on policy, and for good reason. The critics of Petraeus seem to think he is obligated to oppose the policy in Iraq. Sorry, but that’s beyond his purview. His job is rather limited, which is why it’s so strange to me that so much attention is focused on Petreaus, especially when compared to Crocker.

If you want the policy on Iraq changed, then you need to look to Congress and no serving military officers.

To me, this is about an ad with a kindergarden mentality headline, name-calling a person. I despise smearing a person in ads, regardless of job description or party affilitation.

This is not about MoveOn (who would have been attacked no matter what the ad said), the Democrats, the Republicans or a rehash of what the fans of each side have done in the past or who contributes to whom.

This is not about deciphering the focus group successes or falures of ads. (If the ad had worked, it would have been okay?)
This is not about being a PAC or an individual advocate.

This is about how we, as a society, want to conduct public advocacy and debate.
Prior to this, I’ve read a lot of commentary defending negative ad campaigns on ‘but it works’
grounds.

No. It it’s not okay when it doesn’t work, it’s not okay when it works. That’s what this is about, Imo, at least.

Having said that, though, Petraeus became a target of the left the moment Bush realized that with almost no credibility left, he needed to give his war policy a new face, one that still had integrity, and who could not be attacked as a political hack. Petraeus is undoubtedly a stellar commander who has done his utmost to turn the dismal situation in Iraq around. His counterinsurgency tactics have had some success, no one is taking that away from him.

But, its evident that he is being asked to sell the continuation of an unpopular war because the architects of that war have failed so miserably, and have deceived the public about the overall picture for 4 1/2 years. Petraeus can bring temporary stability to parts of Iraq, but he can’t force political reconciliation or restore economic prosperity. Bush is hiding behind Petraeus’ reputation because his own has been fatally tarnished. Petraeus is the proxy for the Bush administration, and as such his report should be met with skepticism. His report should be compared with the GAO report and others and conflicts with them held up to the light of day.

Civilians lead the Pentagon- not the other way around. This has been reversed only because the civilian leadership has failed miserably.

Unfortunately he let himself down by allowing the Bush administration use his good name in their PR push. Giving Fox an exclusive was just the last in a long line of obvious partisan acts.

To state that he has betrayed us is too harsh for me, but I do have the strong feeling that in time he will come to realize that he might just have betrayed himself.

What was the reason for this decision, I wonder……

1. Their “advertising team” confined their focus-group testing to only the parking lot at Columbia University thinking it would be a good representative sample?

2. Their ad department is suffering the effects of nepotism……….Soros’ 11 year old grand-nephew is in charge of copy writing.

3. They have so much freakin’ money to blow, what’s $10M gone with absolutely nothing gained by it?

PWT you have a very good point………Move.on is greatly perceived by the public as a Democrat political “organization”, Coulter and Limbaugh are perceived as Republican supporting “individuals”……I think the distinction is notable in its effect.