-
September 12, 2007 6:10 AM
The Petraeus Conundrum
Two days ago MoveOn ran its now infamously controversial ad anticipating the Petraeus testimony to Congress. At the time, I praised them for the guts to pick that fight. I have become increasingly frustrated, if not disgusted, with the Congress that was elected to change the course of this war and hasn't; and I was dismayed (and impressed) by the moves of what should be a lame duck President to extend his war: put up a decorated face, ask for six more months, get everyone from both sides of the aisle to vouch for this General...and then know full well that six months later, nobody would be able to stand up and challenge this endless war.
Which is, more or less, what we're seeing.
So MoveOn decided to challenge the credibility of this General --unorthodox to go after the military commander, perhaps; but no more unorthodox than this military man penning op-eds weeks before the '04 election.
They decided to tell the public that Petraeus was cooking the books -- and they did it in the New York Times with this image:
Catchy? No doubt. Sensational? Yes. Accurate? That's the thing: nobody who actually reads it can legitimately dispute it...but, then, who actually reads.
I knew the response to this would be, "This will chase away the moderates! How will this play in conservative areas?" -- but those fears didn't impress me. I saw it as an undoing of the pernicious effect of men like Tom Friedman and Colin Powell, two "respected" figures who led a moderate, Democratic, educated, coast-living, suburban population to support the invasion in the first place. The people who were convinced by the five years ago needed to be unconvinced now. So take the question of Petraeus's credibility to the paper they read: The Times. And get them to push the supposedly anti-war Senators and Reps from their states.
Well, the blowback has been everywhere, and in the last couple days I have repeatedly heard, "MoveOn went to far" and "How can you attack the man in uniform?" And these responses are from the people I thought the ad would most target.
I heard something more: "On 9/11, seeing memorials to men and women who would sacrifice their lives for strangers, how can you attack a General who would do the same -- who would risk his life for people like the MoveOn staff?"
The last complaint I heard: "On the news, there was coverage of protestors accusing Bush of orchestrating 9/11; next there was a story about MoveOn; I know they're not the same, but to many people, those two both become extremist groups and become one."
These responses are infuriating. But they are the honest reactions of these people -- friends, who oppose the war, read the papers, an deven probably participate in some armchair advocacy.
Is it the media's fault for giving Petraeus the free pass all along or mis-representing the ad? The Dem leadership for not having made this case sooner and therefore leaving it to MoveOn to step up? Ours fault for falling for hype and spin again and again?
Some would say, from a strategic standpoint, don't make an ad that becomes the story. MoveOn knew that -- and knew what the blowback would be -- and made the ad anyway. At least it's getting us talking..and maybe that's the point.
What do you think? Strategic wonder or tactical blunder?
Either way -- at least MoveOn is doing something to end this war.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
Recent CREDO Blog entries
-
This Modern World
-
November 5, 2009 -
October 29, 2009 -
October 22, 2009 -
October 15, 2009 -
October 7, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
There are two possibilities here--one is that MoveOn has been infiltrated by Rovian agents who have set out to destroy it from the inside. There are still plenty of those folks around from the old FBI.
The second possibility is that MoveOn has succumbed to the EGO virus and came down with a huge case of stupid.
Doesn't matter if they are trying to be "brave" or "true". Perception is reality, and as sixth-grade-clever as it was to rhyme something with Petraeus, the public will only think about the so-called attack on a military man.
Really dumb. And not worth it. Poorly thought out. You get the idea...
It was outstandingly bad timing for the ad.
The Dems needed to make the case sooner, and MoveOn should have aired the ad sooner, far enough in advance that it wouldn't be tied to 9-11 or shortly after Petraeus' report so it would be tied to the report and not to 9-11.
They should have looked at the calendar and figured that the Republicans and the corporate media would try something to tie it into the 9-11 angstfest.
As retired military, I am well aware of the drastic change in the command climate starting January 2001. Most people aren't aware of the Rumsfeldian change in the military climate, and still misguidedly see the current crop of high ranking generals as competent professionals who are non-political.
Sorry about that people, but the competent professionals got fired (forced into retirement) in 2002 for telling Rumsfeld and the Bushiato that going into Iraq was a bad idea.
Petraeus is a yes-man, and is going to echo whatever party line the Bushiato tells him to echo. Bottom line.
While I question the sloganeering, which seems to inject emotion into the argument, I am very glad to see someone questioning the report General Petraeus made. In the congressional testimony I have heard I didn’t hear very many lawmakers question his figures, or how they were produced. The previous post of Senator Feingold’s questioning was one of the few I saw or heard questioning General Petraeus’ facts and figures. Saying you shouldn’t question a military man is like saying you shouldn’t question the president. We should question everyone, especially when they want to sacrifice more people to a cause that is making everyone less safe. In a year or 18 months will we be sitting around, counting the dead, and lamenting that we let General Petraeus lie us into an extionsion of the war? Will we be complaining that the new’s media didn’t do its job and just accepted the administration line?
The biggest mistake will be to let the rightwing dictate the framing of the debate. Kowtowing to a person in a position of authority will not stop the killing. Moveon.org has given us an opportunity to get the correct information out. Let’s not blow it.
how was it that the leadership in the senate allowed petraeus' testimony be scheduled for 9/11?
the white house is politicizing the military. and petraeus is leading the propaganda charge. it's cynical white house operatives who should be feeling the heat - both from inside the pentagon and from anti-war protesters - not moveon.
bbond - while i agree with you, i do see the concern others raise about whether this ad was well targeted: if the White House should feel the heat, why not focus the ad on the White House
meanwhile, over at HuffPo, Jon Robin Baitz agrees with Moveon (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-baitz/pack-up-the-moon-and-dism_b_64053.html ):
"I rather liked the MoveOn ad from the Times. It was crass, but these are crass times. It was simplistic, but these are simplistic problems, basic ones -- after all -- the American people have been treated as foolish consumers of a product -- in this case a war -- by an administration that hovers in a bipolar helix between hapless fervor and rank cynicism. Depending on the day. I wrote MoveOn a check, like a lot of people did -- back when we were going to war in Iraq -- for the first ads. There should have been ads and protests and actions every single day from then on."
The ad needed to be focused on guilty parties, the rubber-stamp Congress as well as the White House and the Republi-lite sell-outs as well as the Republicans and responsible for this fiasco.
The Congress is the entity with the power to stop the runaway administration, why isn't it doing so?
Those who criticize the ad need to realize something: you can't shift the dialog towards the left (or the right) if you only push in the middle. The Republicans figured this out years ago and its high time the Democrats learn it as well.
I don't like the MoveOn ad. I wouldn't use the language they use. But the ad was a bomb directed right at the PR wall erected by the White House and its enablers. If progressives want to change the dialog they have to learn how to take advantage of the breaches such bombs create. You don't have to like the bombs. But you only make the damage worse by scurrying away from the very opening you need to make your case.
Those who criticize the ad need to realize something: you can't shift the dialog towards the left (or the right) if you only push in the middle. The Republicans figured this out years ago and its high time the Democrats learn it as well.
I don't like the MoveOn ad. I wouldn't use the language they use. But the ad was a bomb directed right at the PR wall erected by the White House and its enablers. If progressives want to change the dialog they have to learn how to take advantage of the breaches such bombs create. You don't have to like the bombs. But you only make the damage worse by scurrying away from the very opening you need to make your case.
Join the Discussion