Times Change

And sometimes, those changes are surely for the better.  If you examine the America of my childhood (50's and '60's) vis a vis minority civil rights, women's liberation, the advent of the computer revolution - surely what we have today is a tremendous improvement over half a decade ago.

Yet in other respects, some changes are for the worse.

When I was a child, most Americans were proud of our nation and the role we played around the world.  We fought Hitler.  We helped build a new Europe.  Our nation was a beacon of democracy, and, as John F. Kennedy said,

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Today, however, somehow we have The Paper of Record giving an enormous discount to run an ad in its pages that demeans one of our dedicated leaders and our nation.

This being a nation where speech is — or should be — absolutely free, moveon.org has every right to express its opinions. And the New York Times has just as much right to publish any opinion it wishes.

That said, there's an ugliness about this moveon.org advertisement that many Americans recognize immediately. And they no doubt agree with Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch who, in unusually blunt language on the Senate floor this week, said of its sponsors:

"These people are nuts."

The screed below the photograph of Petraeus isn't the work of a rational person or group making a cogent argument. It reads like the unhinged scrawling of someone suffering acutely from Bush Derangement Syndrome — the condition that has rendered much of the Democratic Party and most on the left incoherent.

Don't think that I believe that the New York Times should not have the right to run whatever articles, columns and ads they wish.  I surely do.

I cannot help but wonder, though.  During WWII, Hollywood, the media - everyone pitched in together to aid our country and democracy, and fight those who would endanger it throughout the world. 

What happened?

Comments

[Greg]

Can I ask a serious question here? Did you read what was under the headline or just the headline? If you read the facts behind the ad, you might see there is some credibility to what is behind the ad. For example here are some facts:

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” Washington Post, “Battling for Iraq,” by David H. Petraeus. 9/26/04

Last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq , said ”We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.” The Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan. 8/31/07

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed.
GAO report, 9/4/07
NIE report, 8/23/07
Jones report, CSIS, 9/6/07

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. “Time to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman. 9/7/07

The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front.
“Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07

According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there.
The Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07

National Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy Raz. 9/6/07

Associated Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.” 9/5/07

We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Newsweek, “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07

Ibid from the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad”

McClatchy, “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel. 8/15/07

The New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops.
The New York Times, “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, is Wary of Cuts,” by David Sanger and David Cloud, 9/7/07

The Washington Post, “Petraeus Open to Pullout of One Brigade,” by Robin Wright and Jonathan Weisman. 9/7/07.

But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
The Hill, “Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence,” by Patrick FitzGerald. 8/10/07

Now you may argue all that is true, and MoveOn could have made their point in a far more respectful manner. For those who argue that moveOn has this reply:

"The language of the ad was intended to be both hard-hitting and catchy. The truth about the mainstream media is that the kind of analyses with which some of us feel more comfortable don’t generate enough attention or news coverage to shift the debate.

Phrases like “General Betray Us” are “sticky”—that is, they get repeated again and again in the media—because they are so memorable. It was precisely because this ad was controversial and the language in it was “sticky” that the allegations at its core were widely discussed. Moreover, every word of the ad was entirely accurate—the General has in fact cooked the books, and in doing so, he betrayed the public trust."

Final point, you do not like or agree with the language MoveOn had with Petraeus, care to see what his immediate supervisor said and thinks of him? Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March. Fallon also told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickensh**" and "I hate people like that". That is somewhat more poignant to anything MoveOn said about Petraeus.