Is the President right to call Moveon.org "disgusting"?
Is it now 'disgusting' to tell the truth about Iraq?
Shouldn't the word 'disgusting' be used on people who sent the troops to die in Iraq on a lie?
- deiracefan_219Lv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
As usual, well said/written!!!
And I agree....It's a little too late to be calling anyone other than GWB, "disgusting", because fact is, his unsupported invasion of Iraq should have never happened. What GWB did was disgusting, to hide behind our troops for a personal agenda that now has cost a lot of young men and women of our military, their lives, and for what, an invasion based on nothing and I do mean nothing at all.
Truth be told, the mess GWB has made in Iraq will last for many generations, and while good ole GWB sits back in his rocking chair with beers in both hands, more innocent ppl will die because of his actions.
It's a shame there are still hard nosed Reps siding with GWB even though they truly know what they're doing is completely and 100% wrong by not approving a timeline for our troops to start exiting Iraq. How many more of our troops have to die to satisfy the ignorance of the countless Reps who refuse to do the right thing and agree our troops need to leave Iraq ASAP!!
And God forbid if dog face Rudy gets into office, it will further this nightmare that GWB has created for at least four more years.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
He didn't call moveon disgusting. He called the ad disgusting. But that's just a detail.
When you sift through all the crap, the fact is, politicians and interests groups are perfectly within their rights to question or criticize the conduct of and or report of a general that has been charged with the task of using the sword and the gun boats to execute the foreign policy of the head politician.
However, when you go on a ranting rampage calling the guy a liar before he even opened his mouth, your credibility is in the toilet.
That the NY times discounted the rate for moveon and moved from observer of, to participant in, the political process is disgusting and their credibility is in the same toilet.
- 1 decade ago
I am sorry you are not going to find my answer to be the right one.
Anyone in this country has the right to use the word 'disgusting' anytime. that's why I chose to live here.
Politicians are famous for using empty words, especially if those words are going to help their personal interests, and that is what politicians are all about... Personal Interest, and that's why I find them all 'disgusting'
I let it go a few years ago.
- sagacious_nessLv 71 decade ago
It's a sad state of affairs when the President of the United States, who twice swore an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution, uses his First Amendment right of free speech to condemn free speech... but only for those with whom he, and Senate Republicans, disagree.
Shortly after Bush's "disgusting" speech, an eager bunch of myopic sycophants, who previously rejected wording to also condemn the 'swiftboat' attacks on John Kerry and Max Cleland, introduced a resolution to condemn the ad.
The hypocrisy goes deeper though because independent reports (GAO) and news sources back up the MoveOn ad with facts. Yet no condemnation of Freedom's Watch was voiced, even though General Patraeus' own testimony disputes their claim. Instead of 'knee jerk' reactions and political 'grandstanding', a bit of critical analysis could have been exercised, specifically:
-- Taking a hard look at the ad and the information used as a basis for the ad text:
-- Closely examining the numbers. For example, US sources say 165 died in Baghdad; Iraqi Int. Ministry says 428 (from morgue and hospital records). A significant reduction in violence is possible when one does not count sectarian violence or car bombings. Using the entry point of a bullet to the head (back vs. front) to determine if a body is included in the death toll... is that "cooking the books" or just 'war math'?
--- GAO Report (non-partisan):
--- Testimony, recent reports not always on same page
--- Another side of the civil war in Anbar:
-- Skelton condemned the 'MoveOn' ad on the first day of testimony, but did nothing to lessen the controversy and doubt surrounding the Patraeus report. Instead, he had former CIA analyst Ray McGovern arrested after McGovern shouted out a request that Petraeus and Crocker be sworn in before testifying. The testimonies of Petraeus and Crocker were NOT under oath. Why not?
-- Bush drew parallels to Vietnam, let's draw another one: General Westmoreland testified before Congress in 1967, to report on the status of the Vietnam War, and he did so under oath:
'Pro-war' TV Ads (Freedom's Watch)
-- A paraplegic vet says "they attacked us on 9/11". Yet even Gen. Petraeus stated that he's not aware of that connection. When asked by Sen. Byrd if there was any connection between 9/11 and Iraq, Petraeus replied, "Not that I am aware of, Senator."
-- "Ari Fleischer, President Bush’s former press secretary, is now a spokesman for the Freedom's Watch, a new group of prominent conservatives behind the $15 million ad campaign . Mr. Fleischer said the central message of Freedom’s Watch is that “the war in Iraq can be won and Congress must not surrender.” Fleischer couldn't even remember the soldier's name when asked on Hardball.
-- Apparently Freedom's Watch had enough 'lead time' on the content of Petraeus' report to create the ads and get them on the air beginning Aug.22... just in time to 'remind' members of Congress returning from vacation. MSNBC and CNBC refused to run the ads; FOX and CNN had no such qualms about taking some of that $15 million.
I suppose it should come as no surprise since some of these same 'representatives of the public trust' buckled to Bush before. Most recently, trading our civil liberties as a commodity to ensure their vacations started on time.Source(s): -- For those who haven't seen the 'pro-war' ads, I think this link to Freedom's Watch links to them: http://www.freedomswatch.org/ -- Petraeus Ad, this link in turn links to the sources used as basis for ad text: http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
He can say what he wants. IF the ad is dishonest then there are laws. I cant believe that the Senate that never seems to get all their work done has time to state a position on this issue.
- 1 decade ago
Well it certainly isn't very PC to say out his mouth- while he has a right to express his "opinion", he is held to a higher ethical standard- but what do you expect of those poorly educated who are placed into positions of privilege and power based on the merits of those around them.
- fangtaiyangLv 71 decade ago
The president and you are both entitled to hold an opinion. Those opinions may be different. To Bush the moveon.org ad is disgusting, to moveon.org, the president's opinion and the report of the general are disgusting.
- fairly smartLv 71 decade ago
Well, you see, since what was on there is not his opinion, or what people tell him is his opinion, it HAS to be wrong & disgusting!
War is disgusting, & war mongers are even moreso. When we see ourselves in a bad light, we usually don't like what we see. Hence he saw himself, & didn't like it, so he has to throw it off.
- ?Lv 61 decade ago
It's a scurrilous and ludicrous attack from the prez.
The Moveon ad was stupid - because it was so frikkin' lame! It was just a pun, people, and not a good one - but it's not treasonous in the slightest.
- Kacy HLv 51 decade ago
I laugh at the fact that with all the problems in our country, our senate is wasting time to vote on condeming moveon.org for their add about general betray us.
I wish these guys would discuss the real problems in this country, and not waste our tax payers money by talking about petty partisan bs.
That is what is really disgusting.Source(s): RonPaul2008.com