Right Wing Answer to MoveOn Rolls Out Pro-War Ads

Comments (37)

goethean wrote on August 22, 2007 11:39 AM:

"There are many members who are trying to figure out which way to go, and we want them to know that there is still a sizable group of Americans who are committed to victory in Iraq," Fleischer told the New York Times.

So jump on a plane and go over there, coward. ohiomeister wrote on August 22, 2007 11:48 AM:

Who is "they" who attacked us on 9/11? The ads don't say.

Vintage fearmongering at its best. Just what we've come to expect from the GOP, with an extra dollop of shamelessness this time by hiding behind disabled veterans.

You would think the VFW would have a better understanding as well, but judging from their convention, apparently not.

pgbach wrote on August 22, 2007 11:54 AM:

Just because one is a redneck vet doesn't mean you can't have your head up your ass. Poll after poll after poll demonstates these folks are in the minority among vets and active duty military. It doesn't help when they make claims with are demonstrably false. They seem to lack the brain power to discriminate the difference between facts and opinions. They are free to have their head-in-the-ass opinions, they are not free to create facts which are not true. Not even the military brass would make such wild-eyed assertions. God bless them one and all.

marcNYC wrote on August 22, 2007 11:54 AM:

This way, if you disagree with what these ads are advocating you are:

1. In favor of The Terrorists, and
2. Attacking the brave veterans who have served the country and sacrificed for their country in a way that chicken hawks Ari Fleischer, Dick Cheney, Rummy and the Decider would never dream of.

It's the wingnuts version of the daily double.

lj629 wrote on August 22, 2007 12:15 PM:

The opening line of the first ad, "Veteran", reads:

"Congress was right to vote to fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I think this opening line starts to lay the groundwork for a general election with Hillary as the Dem nominee.

The Republicans will repeat ad nauseum that Hillary Clinton was right to vote for the war in Iraq. From there they'll explain how she is wrong to flip flop on it now that it is unpopular. Like in 2004 when we had a Dem nominee who had voted for the authorization, it will mute the differences between the two candidates on the most powerful issue in the campaign. And, like 2004, we'll have a nominee who will try to nuance her way through it and it won't sell.

It works with Edwards as the nominee too, except that his brief honest contrition will play better than Hillary's long tortured self-defense in which she agrees with the Republicans that she was right to vote for the authorization.

While Obama will certainly be attacked by the Republicans, I think it's harder for them to mute the Iraq issue with a Dem nominee who openly opposed the war at its inception.

DCCyclone wrote on August 22, 2007 12:21 PM:

These ads are better than other recent ads by another pro-war group that aired "thanking" some pro-war Senators, including McConnell, for supporting Bush and the war.

But I still stand by what I've been saying: anytime Iraq is on the air HURTS Republicans and other war supporters. Things are going badly, most Americans see through the right-wing smokescreen, and they're not fooled anymore by lying spin. So anytime they're reminded of Iraq, in whatever way, they get angry at Bush and Republicans for the war's continuation.

lj629 wrote on August 22, 2007 12:21 PM:

From the 2nd ad "Jesse":

For Congress to switch votes for political reasons...

Get it? Hillary Clinton voted for the war and now she's changing her mind for political reasons. Works for John Edwards too.

vdomeras@gmail.com wrote on August 22, 2007 12:24 PM:

It does seem odd that the VFW is apparently so pro-stay the course. However, I imagine that you would have to listen to the speeches given to members by the leadership at the convention to understand why members appear to be so uniform in their stance.

The thing that struck me when listening to clips of members' opinions re the candidates is that they see pulling out to be making the sacrifices of service people, especially the dead and maimed, "in vain." Even the one pro-Hillary delegate referred used that phrase, so I suspect that that particular button is being pushed by the VFW leaders.

The VFW doesn't represent the opinions of all veterans, any more than the NEA represents the opinions of all teachers, but as an organization it must appear to, in order to maintain its status and clout. And you won't find a group of people who have a higher regard for loyalty to the team than VFW activists.

cscs wrote on August 22, 2007 12:28 PM:

The group's spokesman, none other than former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer...

Because nothing says "military strength" better than Ari Fleischer. 

 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

RLAdlof wrote on August 22, 2007 12:35 PM:

Actually, we do not know what the 'red-neck' believes . . . We only see what he is paid to say.

Considering that 1/3 of vets are returning 'home' to homelessness and no jobs . . . Who could blame a guy for grabbing a few bucks to feed his kids.

vdomeras@gmail.com wrote on August 22, 2007 12:36 PM:

Forget Hillary, Edwards and Obama for a second. Congress means all those who are having second thoughts, Democrats and Republicans. This group doesn't want the war to be old news fourteen months from now. They want everyone back on board by then.

RLAdlof wrote on August 22, 2007 12:43 PM:

Is your point:

Dennis Kucinich in 2008

?

gonzone wrote on August 22, 2007 12:46 PM:

And define sizeable please.

More than 2?

stlounick wrote on August 22, 2007 12:49 PM:

The VFW has supported every war, including Vietnam. And they are to be found in rural and small town areas throughout the country. As far as I can tell, the VFW has been reliably pro-War and pro-GOP for decades.

CT Voter wrote on August 22, 2007 12:49 PM:

and we want them to know that there is still a sizable group of Americans who are committed to victory in Iraq," Fleischer told the New York Times

Could someone ask that smarmy bastard what, precisely, is "victory in Iraq"?

CT Voter wrote on August 22, 2007 12:50 PM:

LOL!

stlounick wrote on August 22, 2007 12:51 PM:

Nothing wrong with two goals--one short-term to prevent Congresional Reps from changing votes on the war and one long-term as a reminder of the Dem flip-flopping as a "See, we'll hit the Dems with this in 2008".

stlounick wrote on August 22, 2007 12:53 PM:

Obama would be my choice. Clear difference and matching what Pelosi did with the House Democrats and the 21 Dem Senators who voted correctly from the beginning.

Kucinich even pointed out how the Democrat Senators could have STOPPED the war resolution in 2002--and four of those Senators who voted "yes" were on the stage with him in the last debate.

Obama's argument matched Pelosi's. What is yours?

lj629 wrote on August 22, 2007 12:57 PM:

I happen to like Dennis Kucinich. And he's clearly the most pure of the anti-war candidates. He's the only person running who voted against the war. And I applaud him for that vote.

But he's simply not viable as a presidential candidate. The media says so and the media control what information and impressions trickle down to the voters. Dennis Kucinich will never be president.

My point is that Obama is the only viable candidate with anti-war creditials. Clinton's vote and the absurd way she's dealt with it taint her on the Iraq issue and I expect the Republicans to exploit her vote at least as effectively as they did Kerry's.

goethean wrote on August 22, 2007 1:08 PM:

If Hillary was right to vote for the war, why did they have to lie about WMDs in order to get her to do so?

hadenough wrote on August 22, 2007 1:12 PM:

"$15 million ad buy across the country"

Amazing! ultra-wealthly repubs have more money than they no what to do with.

And that might be getting a tax break on top. This from their donate now page:
"DONATE NOW
Freedom’s Watch is currently in its organizational stage. Please check this page later for details on how to donate. Note that contributions to Freedom’s Watch will not be tax-deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes."

If they organize with 90% of the members being vets it's tax deductable:

Deductibility of donations to 501(c)(4) organizations

Unlike donations to the more prevalent 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, donations to a section 501(c)(4) organization are not deductible by the donor under section 170 of the code unless the recipient organization is a volunteer fire department as described in revenue ruling 80-77 or veteran organizations with at least 90% of its membership consisting of war veterans as described in IRS Revenue Ruling 84-140.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)#Deductibility_of_donations_to_501.28c.29.284.29_organizations

concerntroll wrote on August 22, 2007 1:40 PM:

15 mils. They still got claws. And teeth. I also find it interesting that in the end, it seems to be more out of loyalty to Bush than anything else.
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

gonzone wrote on August 22, 2007 2:01 PM:

He's Jeff Gannon tough!

Dworkin wrote on August 22, 2007 2:13 PM:

There IS a "sizable group" committed to "victory" in Iraq no matter what the cost (to others): 28%.

They're the 28% of Bush dead-enders. Meanwhile 72% either want to pull the troops out now or else immediately announce fixed timetables for withdrawal, regardless of whether the Iraqis can get their act together in time or not.

Of course the "serious people" inside the beltway are poised to do just the opposite, they are concluding that "the surge is working."

According to the straws in the wind like Carl Levin the Democratic cowards in Congress are about to cave-in to Bush again and "give our military more time to stabilize things in Iraq."

I can already tell that my own utterly useless senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo) will be on board the Bush-appeaser bandwagon.

concerntroll wrote on August 22, 2007 2:20 PM:

Think about it though. It is very likely that this propaganda campaign is highly coordinated with the White House. It will peak on September 11, when Petraeus testifies before Congress. Wounded vets, 9/11, Petraeus. This is geared to raise the support by like 5-10% by year's end, so that Bush can "finish the job" in Iraq and come out "victorious" in January 09...
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

illlich wrote on August 22, 2007 2:22 PM:

"We're starting to see results"-- oh really? we were told we were starting to see results 2 years ago. Why should we believe it this time?

"It's no time for politics"-- yeah, tell that to George Bush. Besides, WHAT is this ad except "politics"? It seems lying about "progress" is OK, but wanting to pull out because of a lack of progress is "politics."

I understand you lost a lot, but think of those soldiers and families who haven't lost anything yet, wouldn't you wish them to remain this way? Or would you prefer they lose a limb or loved one to try and prove your point.

Even if we "win" in Iraq (and "winning" has been redefined over the years there to essentially mean "saving face"), that won't stop "them" from trying to attack us in the USA. The idea that if we win in Iraq that will somehow prevent another 9-11 is a pipe dream.

RedshiftX wrote on August 22, 2007 2:30 PM:

Where does the idea that this is a right-wing "answer to MoveOn" come from, their press releases? This is yet another big-money backed Republican front group that is dishonest about their membership and motives (like the endless faux "citizens for..." industry groups.)

I would agree that their ads are an answer to MoveOn's, but buying ads appears to be the only thing the two have in common.

eric the red wrote on August 22, 2007 2:45 PM:

These sound like "advocacy" ads. If I recall, these will be rejected by all of the major networks, right?

ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox reject advocacy ads.

MTV rejects advocacy ads.

VIACOM rejects advocacy ads.

CBS in particular has explained that it has a, "longstanding policy against advocacy advertising. . . which designed to prevent those with means to produce and purchase network advertising from having undue influence on 'controversial issues of public importance.'"

Too bad we won't be seeing any of these ads on TV, --- right?

rpsagner wrote on August 22, 2007 3:36 PM:

From my friend Russ:

moveon should put together an ad that makes the gambling analogy explicit --

Open on man facing camera: by midnight I'd lost 200 bucks at the tables. I had to get that back, so I et more. By 3 am I'd lost 500 bucks. By now I've lost almost 4000 dollars. My wife wants me to stop -- but if I only bet a little more, I'm sure I can get it all back!"

Then fade out, with voiceover -- "Arguments made by supporters of the war have a familiar ring to them, don't they?". Then just a moveon logo or something.

Michael Lafferty wrote on August 22, 2007 4:09 PM:

As a Vietnam-era Army veteran and longtime opponent of that engagement and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I hope that somehow we can move away from the 'wasted lives' and 'sacrifice made in vain' if we disengage arguments.

Get this: ALL lives lost in Korea once we moved north across the border, ALL lives lost in Vietnam and those in Iraq have been wasted! That does not in any way say that these individuals who sacrificed life and limb, their families, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens should not be recognized for the what they have lost, and honored for being willing to suffer as they have. It is simply to say that by engaging in a non-defensive, elective conflict, our LEADERS—such as they are on both sides of the aisle—have sacrificed these lives, and needlessly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of other combatants and those of noncombatant civilians, in all of these misadventures.

To continue to march forward headlong into the abyss is simply to needlessly sacrifice more lives. We never should have engaged in these conflicts to begin with, and it is therefore long past time to leave Iraq. Nothing can justify the continued loss of life in that theater any more than we can justify the damage wrought by the Vietnam conflict.

To hell with the VFW, and all those who join the chorus of voices in these pathetic advertisements! Let them all saddle up for a change…

Cal Damage wrote on August 22, 2007 4:35 PM:

Freedom Swatch? - is that the new GOP Swatch watch? has Jeff Gannon returned as an interior decorator, (not to flog a stereotype,) or is this just more of the Freeper inability to parse the English language?
'Net axiom: Spell the organization's name the same way you'll spell it on the site name, and the same way you'll say it to those you want to tell about it.
GOP marketing missed this one...

Now I'll look at content, and see what else they got wrong, outside the reality-based world...

Ghost of Tom Joad wrote on August 22, 2007 6:19 PM:

Will Faux reject these ads? I wonder.

terryhallinan wrote on August 22, 2007 7:08 PM:

Get this: ALL lives lost in Korea once we moved north across the border, ALL lives lost in Vietnam and those in Iraq have been wasted!

Do they allow such truth to be spoken here?

Only Mike Gravel dared speak the obvious in the debates among Democrats.

That does not in any way say that these individuals who sacrificed life and limb, their families, friends, neighbors and fellow citizens should not be recognized for the what they have lost

We losers don't generally get much credit. We win when we're not blamed.

Thanks, guy.

Best, Terry

RLAdlof wrote on August 22, 2007 8:38 PM:

While Kucinich's platform overall matches my appetites and beliefs AND it is good to see someone whose good ideals are in alignment with his words and actions, I feel that the job (President) requires someone more pragmatic.

While Obama was not in the position to vote to allow war powers and his words remain consistant with avoiding entrance into Iraq, I feel less comfortable some of his other platform positions and he has chosen more agressive stances than I prefer in other cases.

Edwards remains a better fit for me platform-wise. While I personally would have chosen to stay outta Iraq . . . I remain convinced that the entrance into Afganastan was warranted by enacted by idiots. I prefer a person whose decission weigh on their soul. Edwards admits his short-sightness and has since had the opportunity to reflect on his choice and has been active in ways his opponents who are presently active in political life have not been.

This does not mean that Kucinich or Obama are not solid choices, especially while focusing Iraq. It means that I prefer Edwards in this matter and others.

terryhallinan wrote on August 23, 2007 12:47 AM:

My point is that Obama is the only viable candidate with anti-war creditials.

Don't you mean war credentials?

Obama didn't want to invade Iraq but now he doesn't want to get out even while Iraq is dissolving and most of the population think it's a fine thing to kill Americans.

Obama offers much that is refreshing and would be a wonderful change but on Iraq he is terrible IMO.

Best, Terry

hrebendorf wrote on August 23, 2007 8:05 AM:

I don't understand what this group has to do with MoveOn. Is there something I'm missing here? Why the reference to MoveOn?

goodgirlroxie wrote on January 21, 2008 1:56 PM:

I just sent the following letter to my representative, Lyyn Woolsey, and to my senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.

Dear Rep. Woolsey, Sen. Boxer, and Sen. Feinstein,

Re: Freedom's Watch

There is a new pro-war Republican party attack machine called Freedom's Watch which is heavily-funded by right-wing Bush supporters, using its resources to finance slick advertisements aimed at poorly-informed T.V.-watchers to discredit citizens and citizen-backed organizations such as MoveOn.org that oppose the policies and actions of the Bush/Cheney administration. I encourage you to speak out against the phony message Freedom's Watch is delivering during this pivotal campaign season. Freedom's Watch reminds me of the propaganda machines behind the Nazi party's rise to power in the 1930s.

We cannot and should not stop Freedom's Watch from delivering its false message of nationalism and prolonged war, but we can condemn it and expose it as what it actually is, a front group for various big-money donors for President Bush's past campaigns.

Thank-you.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)