More Americans Agree With "Betray Us" Accusation — In A Fox News Poll!

Comments (12)

Daniel wrote on September 13, 2007 4:17 PM:

With Democrats running after each other on the Iraq issue, they are also becoming bolder in their stances on Iraq. Finally. This will prevent the Administration from continuing to lie to the public.

Perry wrote on September 13, 2007 4:26 PM:

The President and his trolls will continue to lie to the public and the Democrats will continue to snivel and whimper about it and do nothing substantive to correct it. They will cap this year of ineffectiveness by nominating Hillary Clinton and giving the Presidency to Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. We don't have an effective two-party system anymore: the treacherous Joe Lieberman proves that.

DonnaG wrote on September 13, 2007 4:30 PM:

I think the ad was a jugular hit in its word play on Petreaus' name. But, more importantly, that word play was the 'two-by-four up against the head' that finally got coverage and opened up some wide and lasting attention to the ad's text. Because we needed something to break through the Bush spin on Iraq, I think that ad was brilliant.

After the swift-boating of Kerry who had served in dangerous combat, I don't believe that the republicans have any standing at all to criticize the Move-On ad.

R H White wrote on September 13, 2007 4:35 PM:

The ill-prepared Bush administration failed to protect us on 9/11, they gave us the war in Iraq, they left our citizens to die in New Orleans, and they purposely outed a CIA agent in order to punish her husband. They whine about the Moveon.org ad which is what a party full of Larry Craig's do. I suggest we dismiss them for the hypocrites they are.

Bob wrote on September 13, 2007 4:51 PM:

I disagree that people who said that Petraeus' testimony is slanted would agree that a full-page ad essentially calling him a traitor is justified. I think the two are mutually-exclusive.

Hopefully our political discourse hasn't become so low that people believe we have to resort to calling members of our armed services traitors to make their point. If that's true then I can only be sad about what's become of our national character.

Steve wrote on September 13, 2007 5:01 PM:

I disagree that people who said that Petraeus' testimony is slanted would agree that a full-page ad essentially calling him a traitor is justified.

He's being accused of being a yes-man for the Bush Administration, contrary to the will of the people who want to see the war end. He's not being accused of being a traitor to America, for the love of God.

Bob wrote on September 13, 2007 5:18 PM:

Steve, I disagree. Saying he is betraying us, the people, is saying he is a traitor to the country, to "we the people". Why else use the word betray. It's despicable behavior and completely uncalled for. State your positions but don't resort to such low-brow tactics. Could you imagine this type of tactic being used in the 30's, 40's or even the 80's and not being roundly condemned as shameful? It's a sad commentary on our times and the character of the people who created it, funded and published it. Note, of course, the NY Times conlusion with Soros & co.: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1332355120070913?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true.

Shame on all of them.

Eric Kleefeld wrote on September 13, 2007 5:24 PM:

Was the MoveOn ad over the top? Perhaps. But the viewpoint offered in it was in fact a perfectly mainstream view.

And even if they'd toned it down a little, the Republicans would still be screaming about it.

Roberta wrote on September 13, 2007 6:35 PM:

Bob, I have to disagree with your take on the definition of the betrayal attached to Petraeus. He is not being accused of being a traitor to the country, which would mean that his actions as a general have been traitorous. I see the accusation focusing on his report to Congress. Many people hoped that because of the reputation Petraeus has as a military leader and a man who cannot be manipulated by politics, his report to Congress would not equivocate, play games with data, or generally toe the WH line while dismissing conflicting but reliable reports about Iraq. This is the betrayal, because he did all of these things.

That said, I have been uncomfortable with the "Betray Us" thing since I first heard about it, because it feels like too much, like an ad hominem attack.

But then, especially after reading Eric Kleefeld's 5:24 comment, I realized that if MoveOn.org had "toned it down a little," the Republicans might not have screamed this much, and many, many people would know nothing about it. And all this brouhaha has broadened the debate and given those who seldom bother to think about these things pause to reflect--even if only for a moment. And since this is exactly what the WH has NOT wanted for four-plus years, it is a good thing.

I don't want to resort to the "Swift Boat-ing" tactics of the right, but this is too important to lose an opportunity for change by staying above all that. It's past time we got dirty, if that's what it takes to effect change.

nikto wrote on September 13, 2007 6:43 PM:

It all means nothing ofcourse.

Why?

Because Michael Moore is fat and
Nancy Pelosi wears jewelry.

See?

Conservatives win!!!!!!!

Roberta wrote on September 13, 2007 6:46 PM:

And Bob, did you read the whole article you linked?

there were over 30 different categories of ads with varying rates.

"Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis denied the rate charged indicated a political bias and said it was the paper's policy not to disclose the rate paid by any advertiser. ... Mathis confirmed the open rate for an ad of that size and type was around $181,000. Among reasons for lower rates are advertisers buying in bulk or taking a standby rate, she said. ...

"Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor who blogs on media at buzzmachine.com, said the key question for the Times was could any other political or advocacy group get the same rate under the same circumstances.

"'The quandary the Times gets stuck in is they don't want to admit you can buy an ad for that rate, no matter who you are,' Jarvis said, noting that with print advertising revenues in decline newspapers generally did offer big discounts."

I don't think this shows "collusion" between MoveOn.org and the NWT; I believe it shows that a savvy negotiator can get a low price when the vendor doesn't want to lose the business.

And lastly, I have to laugh whenever the NYT of today gets accused of having a "liberal" bias. With their editorial POV? Not likely.

Donald wrote on September 21, 2007 11:45 AM:

Here is something Americans agree on also: www.AmericansAgree.com

Post a comment

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