This anti-McCain ad is unfair
June 21st, 2008 at 08:58am Pat Cunningham
There’s a lot of buzz of late about this 30-second spot sponsored by MoveOn and AFSCME and currently airing in Wisconsin and certain other states and on CNN and MSNBC.
The ad is effective on an emotional level, but it’s a distortion in terms of the political facts of the matter. It implies, for example, that we now have a military draft and likely will have one in decades to come.
In short, the ad is powerful but unfair:
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sq30lapbC9c" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
15 Comments Add your own
1. Menlo Bob | June 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Move On is an unregulated 527 political organization–a function of the legislation engineered in part by John McCain. He deserves to suffer the consequences of this misbegotten legislation.
2. Menlo Bob | June 21st, 2008 at 9:36 am
Funny thing, Move On as well as major potions of Michael Moore Democrats, truly believe that parent\’s are expected to sign their adult children up for military service. Not being able to handle simple concepts is the sign of mental retardation.
3. Pat Cunningham | June 21st, 2008 at 9:46 am
Two things, Bob: 1) MoveOn has shut down its 527 (in favor of just operating its political action committee), and 2) 527s are, in fact, regulated, and the regulations have become a little tighter in this election cycle.
4. Jack O'Brien | June 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am
Hey “Menlo Bob”:
Nice attempt with the low-blow implication that “potions” [sic] of liberals are mentally retarded, but I’m pretty sure that nobody, whether liberally or conservative, believes they have to sign their “adult children” up for anything, let alone military service.
As for the MoveOn.org ad, I don’t it’s too much of a distortion of the “political facts” (if that’s not an oxymoron). Senator McCain has repeatedly said that we should remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future and did even go so far as to say “100 years” during one public event (though I assume he was carelessly exaggerating and I’m sure he wishes he could take that comment back). Iraq is a quagmire - why shouldn’t MoveOn make such an ad that emphasizes the multi-generational facet of the mess that the Bush Administration has gotten the country into? I would hardly call a blog post that suggests otherwise “unabashedly liberal.”
5. Menlo Bob | June 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
If those wishing to make a point off the McCain 100 years remark want to back it up with a similar attempt to remove all troops from Germany, England, Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, and Italy–then by all means let’s hear it. As it stands, they’re content with cheap stunt messages that refuse to acknowledge the context of McCain’s quote.
Portion/potion…whatever.
6. Jack O'Brien | June 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 am
Menlo Bob:
You have obfuscated the argument with your most recent post and completely missed the point. U.S. troops are not in the countries you mentioned due to negligently and/or purposefully falsified intelligence that was concocted in a context of heightened post-9/11 patriotism and publicized to the American people to make a case for war based on lies. We did not invade the countries you mentioned, remove their leader (who we previously put in power after removing their prior leader), lie to the American people about their possession of WMDs, and present fraudulent evidence to the U.N. to make a fake case for international approval of our military force only to result in a greater hotbed of terrorist activity than when we entered and the death of over 100,000 civilians and 4,000 U.S. troops. That is the difference between Iraq and “England, Afghanistan (where the real perpetrators of the 9/11 tragedy remain), Japan, South Korea and Italy.”
Senator McCain’s remark that we should remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future is demonstrative of his ignorance of the Iraq situation and, thus, highly relevant to the voting public in the current electoral period. While I am not for an immediate removal of all U.S. forces in Iraq (we can’t make a mess this big and leave it for someone else to clean up), I do find the foregone conclusions of Senator McCain to be of great discomfort.
7. Kaus | June 22nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Jack? Hello? Earth to Jack? “We did not invade the countries you mentioned, remove their leader (who we previously put in power after removing their prior leader)”
Japan’s Tojo was…uhhh….removed by US forces. I will leave the credit to removing Hitler to your own amusement.
8. Jack O'Brien | June 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 am
Kaus:
I sympathize with your inability to understand complex sentences, but your post actually emphasizes my argument. Comparing Iraq with any of the listed countries is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Earth to Kaus.
9. Henry | June 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Jack -
Nice try, but Kaus is unable to understand the comparisons you make between Germany, Korea, etc.. to Iraq. You are getting a little too complicated for the knuckledraggers.
10. Kaus | June 22nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Jack,
Japan, Germany and and Iraq indeed have one similarity. The leaders were replaced by the US and/or its allies, and we remain as occupiers. Disagree? Can you justify why we are still in Japan and Germany and Korea? I think you can use the same justification for Iraq. Provided we don’t lose American lives for stability in the region, it seems like a good reason to stay.
I don’t wish to argue how these wars started, nor does McCain when he talks about 100 years as occupier if brings peace to the region. You write very well and I appologize for causing you to write your counterpoint to explain your point to a knuckledragger.
11. Jack O'Brien | June 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Kaus:
I agree that the U.S. should maintain a peacekeeping presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future (assuming that peace can ever be brought to the region), not unlike Germany, Japan, etc. The only thing more irresponsible than starting a war based on falsified intelligence in an attempt to secure greater oil reserves that has resulted in over 100,000 innocent deaths, would be to pack up and leave the region in the shambled, violent state of disrepair it currently suffers.
Iraq is a failure of dynamic proportions. Even most conservatives would have to agree with that. The most important thing, moving forward, is trying to come up with a solution that stabilizes the region without denying the Iraqi people of their cultural and religious identities. Any solution to Iraq will require humanitarian bipartisanship and facilitation from diplomatic partners. The Bush administration has unfortunately polarized both of those resources that American democracy once so thoroughly enjoyed.
You will see that throughout my posts, I have not over-emphasized Senator McCain’s “100 years” comment. I believe he partially misspoke, and that it has largely been taken out of context and over-emphasized by the rare liberal components of the media. I will say, however, that Senator Obama’s plan for Iraq seems much more promising than Senator McCain’s - who comes across as disgruntled and out-of-touch.
12. Kaus | June 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Jack - well stated….except I disagree on Obama’s plan. I have noticed him flipping on a timetable for Iraq. THAT needs clarification.
13. Bob Lehr | June 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
I’m from AZ and “me too McCain” is a lousy Senator, has done nothing for the State, unless you’re a billionaire from Scotsdale or La Quinta. Barry Goldwater didn’t like him and I don’t either.
I am a member of Move-On and think the add is totally fair and quite good. McCain says the surge is working, the 17 familes of the Americans killed in Iraqnam in May, might not agree, as the join the other 4100+ families who sacrificed their beloved because two stinking cowards wanted to play war.
Unless we plan to occupy the Middle East indefinitely (100 years or so) we should do as Ungreat Britain did in India and let them sort thinngs out themselves. Of course a map of 100 years ago would’nt even show a country called Iraq, as it is at best an ersatz collection of disparate areas created as England and France “drew lines in the sand” destroying the old Ottoman Empire.
How sad!
14. kaus | June 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 am
I suppose we should give Spain back to the Moors as well eh Lehr? And I see Pakistan and India have sorted out their differences too.
15. bobjohnny | June 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Giving Spain back to the Moors??? Better it would be to give Palestince back to the Palestinians, or return the land we stole from the Native Americans to them. None of these are of course moot, just like the so-called Iraq is a meaningless area. Their first King, the one imposed upon them by Ungreat Britain was a Hashmite. Of course the English Kings (Queens) are German so I suppose the Engs. thought it was perfectly OK.
As to Iraq, the Kurds should be allowed to form their own ruling state, which in essence is what they are already doing, the Shiias, are the real dilemma, for they are Arabs, not Persians, but I suppose some sort of lose alliance with Iran would work. The Suni Arabs would probably be happiest with Syria. After-all the only reason they, Suni Arabs, were divided up was so that a new Calaphite could not be created, and so the French could have a buffer for their control of Lebanon. Also, both the French and English were against allowing the new Turkey too much control in the area, they were still out of sorts over the durbbing the Turks gave them at Gallopli in 1914 and again in 1920 when the English tried to recreate the old Byzantine Empire with the help of the Greeks, they got badly defeated by Ataturk and their hope of controlling the Dardanelles vanished. You rarely here this side of the conflicts in the mid-east that occurred between 1912 and the early 1920’s as unfortunately our understanding of the history of this area is totally one sided.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed