It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Classic Case of Liberal Hypocrisy

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I wouldn't bother even posting this if I didn't see it happen before my very eyes. This is so blatant that it has become comical. I remember this ad very well when it first ran and I'm sure many of you do as well.


MoveOn.org Removes 'General Betray Us' Ad From Website


In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial "General Betray Us" ad from its website.

For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March's troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn.


Just so we are all on the same page. This is Same General that served under Bush. Same General different boss now.


Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune.

With that in mind, the ad, which has been at MoveOn's website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday as reported by our friends at Weasel Zippers:

It was there the last time Google cache took a screen shot of it (June 18th), so it was scrubbed sometime between then and today. If you try the link now (pol.moveon.org...) it goes to MoveOn's default page.

I guess MoveOn couldn't possibly bash this General now that he's working for Obama.

To give readers an idea of the firestorm this created at the time, here are some NewsBusters articles published after this ad hit:

*
CBS and NBC Morning Shows Ignore Dem Embarrassment Over MoveOn Ad
*
Parroting MoveOn, Matthews Accuses Bush of 'Betrayal'
*
Keith Olbermann Coined General ‘Betray Us’ Not MoveOn
*
Senator Hatch Lashes Out at MoveOn and ‘Nutroots’
*
MRC's Bozell Slams NYT's MoveOn.org 'Betray Us' Ad Discount
*
NYT Shares Plunge While It Deeply Discounts MoveOn's Ad Space
*
NYT-MoveOn.org's 'Petraeus -- Betray Us' Ad Cited NYT's Own Reporting Wrongly
*
NYT Rejected Advocacy Ads Like MoveOn’s From Conservative Groups
*
How Will Media Report Senate Vote Condemning MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad?
*
Michael Kinsley Defends MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad
*
Senate Condemnation of MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad Receives Mixed Coverage
*
NYT's Public Editor Says Paper Made Mistake Running MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad
*
Russert Lets Hillary Off Hook Concerning MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad
*
New York Times Admits Discount Rate for Moveon.Org (Blogosphere Roundup)
*
NYT Confesses: Mistake to Grant MoveOn.org Deep Discount

With Petraeus now part of the Obama administration, it's going to be fascinating watching all of the media members and outlets that supported MoveOn's ad now backtrack and gush over the General they once despised.

newsbusters.org...

Oh, some will just say that this is just a bizarre coincidence. I say NOT. Let's see if the ad magically reappears or if they replace it with an Anti Gen. Stanley McChrystal ad.

Surely Move On.org does not want to stir the placid waters of Lake Obama. Just drink up and enjoy the hypocrisy.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
It would be you who would notice this Jibeho. You're a sharp guy and not much gets by you. The sad thing here is that if you were to show this to one of the Obamabots they would say something like "we have to stand behind the President"

Sure, as long as it's THEIR President.
You can't faze these people with any information, they simply disregard it just like I remember the Bush supporters doing when you asked them about the illegality of the War in Iraq. "IF we don;t fight them there, we'll be fighting them over here".
The 2 party system will be the death of America



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I wondered what they were going to do about that little thing.

Another thing to watch for, Gen. McCrystal getting a job at Fox News.

Watch for it.... it'll happen.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
War is a liberal engine of the State.

Democrats have started and maintained every war in our history with the exception of the revolutionary war and the gulf wars.

I count Bush and the neo-cons as democrats though, because they expanded government to three times it size and haven't looked back once. They are a bunch of fascists, just as bad as the democrats.

It took republicans (real conservatives, not the fake neo-con kind) to get us out of all the previous wars.

War is the health of the State.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


He just may end up on Fox as a regular contributor when he retires. Personally, McChrystal's comments may have been out of line for a General of his caliber and position. However, there may have been a deeper motivation for his statements and for speaking so candidly to Rolling Stone magazine of all rags. Interesting demographic for Rolling Stone readers compared to that of the Wall Street Journal.

Perhaps he wanted show the general distrust and lack of respect that our servicemen and women have for Obama.

Petraeus just announced a general change/clarification of the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.


A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy, though a Petraeus spokesman pushed back on the claim.

Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules -- aimed at preventing civilian casualties -- have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

The military source who has talked with Petraeus said the general will make those changes. Other sources were not so sure, but said they wouldn't be surprised to see that happen once Petraeus takes command.

www.foxnews.com...

This move is classic Petraeus and it was what made him successful and controversial in Iraq. Let's see if the good folks at MoveOn.org have the stones to cast outrage at the General and the Boss that just hired him.

This will soon get very interesting as our troops get more engaged with the enemy as the general mission escalates. Perhaps Petraeus will finally seal the deal in Afghanistan so that our troops can finally come home.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by jibeho]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Seriously OP, is that all you do is troll neocon websites like Hot Air-Michelle Malkin, NewsBusters-Brent Bozell, Brietbart,Newsmax and Drudge et al and then bring their blatant smear jobs here to ATS?

Thanks for continuing to lower the Standards of ATS.
Beck and Lindbaugh will be proud. One trick pony.









[edit on 25-6-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The problem with Republicans and their sympathizers is that they believe in a Republican Party with a history of scaling back government. The only time they ever talk about scaling back government is when they are not in power.

Conservatism, as people know it on the Right, does not exist and should not.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The problem with Republicans and their sympathizers is that they believe in a Republican Party with a history of scaling back government. The only time they ever talk about scaling back government is when they are not in power.

Conservatism, as people know it on the Right, does not exist and should not.


Well, I suppose it depends on how you define conservatism.

Typically conservatism was defined as being a strict constitutionalist because it means to "conserve" the original intent of the constitution.

That kind of conservatism is desperately needed these days.

There is not one single portion of the constitution that the federal government doesn't grossly violate on a daily basis.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Seriously OP, is that all you do is troll neocon websites like Hot Air-Michelle Malkin, NewsBusters-Brent Bozell, Brietbart,Newsmax and Drudge et al and then bring their blatant smear jobs here to ATS?

Thanks for continuing to lower the Standards of ATS.
Beck and Lindbaugh will be proud.


One trick pony.






[edit on 25-6-2010 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by kinda kurious]


So, no opinion beyond your sour grapes. No surprise.

I call it staying informed and being aware of a blatant double standard that exists among Obama's die hard lemmings. The truth hurts. Just spray a little Bactine on your wounds today and wait for another thread that challenges Obama's fable.

Cheers and keep your eyes on the Prize!! KK

edit add:
I see you brought your tough looking avatar back as opposed to your stellar Karl logo. I hope this thread had something to do with it.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by jibeho]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Me thinks it is merely a distraction amplified by the right to change the real recent news headlines.

Joe Barton and the GOP mainstream




Responsible Republicans ought to stand up and admit that the world is more complicated that the “government bad, private sector good” mentality suggests. It won’t be easy. Mr. Barton has already drawn support from such party darlings as Minnesota’s Rep. Michele Bachmann and talk show host Rush Limbaugh. They think Mr. Barton did good.


Source: A "blog" back at ya

Keep trying. BGOP. Birds of an oil soaked feather.

ETA: Speaking of Avatars. Nice to see you wear your bias on your sleeve.


ETA #2. Thread specific Avatar revision completed.


[edit on 25-6-2010 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 25-6-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Well the anti-war movement was always targeted towards the war in Iraq and while there were many liberals who also opposed the Afganistan war, most supported it. There was never much opposition against going into Afganistan by both sides and I cannot say I am surprised that the transference of General David Petraeus has lightened up MoveON.org so to say.

I am not much of a fan of General David Petraeus but the fact he is being put to better use in Afganistan, cannot say I don't support that, neither do i see it as hypocrisy. The Iraq war had no legitimate reasoning in the first place but the consensus among most liberals at the time was that the move into Afganistan was. Hence also the fact of Obama's promise to withdraw troops from Iraq by 2011 and to increase troops into Afganistant, and the same focus from Hillary Clinton.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The criminal Obama has no intention of withdrawing troops from Iraq and has every intention of destroying Iran to prevent them from selling oil outside the dollar system.


If you want the full background on Afghanistan, read this:
fascistsoup.com...

Particularly the last part about the ISI controlling the border region, and about how Petraeus is all buddy buddy with them.

This war will go on forever because the power elite want it that way.

They are intentionally working to topple this country through financial bankruptcy.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




Typically conservatism was defined as being a strict constitutionalist because it means to "conserve" the original intent of the constitution.


But that is a failed ideology. The constitution did not do exactly what it was meant. It existed only to empower government and give the people a fake safety net. The very same people who wrote the Constitution did not follow it.

The Constitution is just a pretext for the government to do whatever it wants as long as it maintains a facade of restraint.



That kind of conservatism is desperately needed these days.


A Constitutionalist ideology takes people 95% of the way to freedom.... the last 5% are the hardest to get to and the most life altering. The problem with this type of Conservatism is that it is intellectually bankrupt. It is not reasonable to believe that a government will be created that will restrain its own nature. It is not reasonable to believe that a government is somehow made up of super human altruistic do-gooders that actually care about the rights of the people at all times.

Even the 'checks and balance' idea is a lie. The same monkeys controlling the system of violence are controlling the 'balance'. One cannot honestly expect anyone to restrain oneself if given absolute power.... the same is true of a group of people. Luckily for us, the group of people make a bureaucracy and bureaucracies are hilariously inefficient.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


I quote Tom Woods.

"I have two hats when it comes to the Constitution. When I'm talking with Hillary Clinton, I'm extremely pro-constitution... When I'm talking with this crowd, bah who needs it?"

Rothbard was fond of supporting any steps toward more liberty, no matter how small.

If we ever reached true constitutional government, the last step would be fairly easy. At least that's my belief.

Of course, I agree with Spooner's arguments. Its just a lot easier to use the Constitution as a tool to bash government.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




Of course, I agree with Spooner's arguments. Its just a lot easier to use the Constitution as a tool to bash government.


Nice, you picked up on my Spooner-esque style statement.



If we ever reached true constitutional government, the last step would be fairly easy. At least that's my belief.


the only issue I have with this statement is that a constitution, for a government, is a pretext to take freedom away. I believe that a constitution has a counterintuitive effect on government. It is intended to restrain government power, but it seems to give the government legitimacy such that it can dance around the restrictions until they are moot.

Though the restraints do work at restraining some of the violence inherent in the system, it does not restrain all of it, while simultaneously giving the government legitimacy.

This is exactly why we are where we are.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DINSTAAR
 


I agree, the Constitution at this point is little more than a sideshow.

I mean look at this:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"


LOL


HAHAHHAHAHAHAH


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

LSKDFJLSKJF HAHAHAHAHAHAH


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

DEAD! ROFLMAO



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I appreciate your thoughtful response. War is war they all suck but we are stuck with them and back in 2007 when move on. org ran the "betray us" ad, they were attacking him and his surge strategy that actually proved to be effective. That ad ran continually until just a couple of days ago. Did they pull the ad now that he is working for Obama? Afghanistan is going to get much worse before it gets better. Sadly, it is a war that can't be won in a conventional sense. No one has ever succeeded in combat there.

Now, Petraeus es expected to change the rules of engagement in Afghanistan in his classic style. He will give soldiers a clearer path to engage the enemy when threatened and this will escalate this particular war with certainty. It will also hopefully save the lives of our soldiers as well.

Given the circumstances in Afghanistan I would prefer to pull every soldier out of there and wash our hands of the mess completely. I have friends who have served their time in that cesspool and luckily for them their commitment has ended.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I agree that is pretty hypocritical. At least liberal hypocrisy doesn't take the "Wide Stance" which conservative hypocrisy does in public restrooms of all places.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
The idea that Democrats get us into wars is a bit of an oversimplification.

What started WWI? An over-reliance of mutual defense pacts and an assassination by Serbian nationalists. No Democrats involved there.

What started WW II? Japan invading Manchuria in 1931 and Germany invading Poland in 1939. No Democrats involved there.

What started the Korean War? North Korea invading South Korea. No Democrats there.

How did the U.S. get involved in the Vietnam debacle? President's Truman and Eisenhower giving in to the French, until they were defeated at Dien Bien Phu. The resulting power vacuum caused President Eisenhower to send in American military advisors. Kennedy was trying to get us out of Vietnam, until his death, but Johnson went headlong into Vietnam. That one was proximally caused by a Democrat.

Granada? Reagan

Panama? Bush

First Gulf War? Bush (Kuwait invaded by Iraq)

Somalia? Bush

Bosnia? Clinton

Afghanistan and the Second Gulf War? Bush (following the 9/11 attack)


I would say it was fairly evenly divided. I don't really see any American political agendas to create war.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Maybe you could clear up my confusion.

You are proposing:

(a) that MoveOn.org is an unfailing supporter of President Obama.
(b) That they had an ad up on the website deriding General Petraeus..calling him "General Betray Us" etc. up until June 18th.

I am unfamiliar with the ad but follow you thus far...OK

(c) When General Patraeus was appointed to head the Afgan war on the ground...they took it down?

Thus proving their hypocracy?

My question is...if they were worried about a message counter to the POTUS's...then why did they have the ad running all this time when General Patraeus has been serving under President Obama as Commander of US Central Command overseeing all US Military Operations around the globe? His recent appointment to Afghanistan was on paper a demotion.

So Moveon.org ...by your own account...has been running an insulting ad directed at President Obama's Head of the Military for a year and a half...and this mean they are a political lapdog?

Confused....Does not add up.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join