<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: General Petraeus and the MoveOn Ad</title>
	<atom:link href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125</link>
	<description>Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:44:09 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ron Chusid</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125&#038;cpage=1#comment-115082</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Chusid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125#comment-115082</guid>
		<description>The ad does not call Bush a traitor but does offer legitimate criticism.

Perhaps the conduct shown in the ad does make Bush a traitor, but that&#039;s your spin on it, not what MoveOn says.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The ad does not call Bush a traitor but does offer legitimate criticism.</p>
<p>Perhaps the conduct shown in the ad does make Bush a traitor, but that&#8217;s your spin on it, not what MoveOn says.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Johnson</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125&#038;cpage=1#comment-115079</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:13:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125#comment-115079</guid>
		<description>Hi,

Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:

NEW moveon,org TV ad coming out on monday sept 17th...basically calling president bush a traitor.

Catch it here:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/2007/09/14/908/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;MoveOn.org TV Ad&lt;/a&gt;


For general david betray us fans or not:
&lt;a href=&quot;http://davidbetrayus.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;General David Betray Us&lt;/a&gt;


Have a great weekend!
Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Thought this news might be of some interest to your readers:</p>
<p>NEW moveon,org TV ad coming out on monday sept 17th&#8230;basically calling president bush a traitor.</p>
<p>Catch it here:<br />
<a href="http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/2007/09/14/908/" rel="nofollow">MoveOn.org TV Ad</a></p>
<p>For general david betray us fans or not:<br />
<a href="http://davidbetrayus.com/" rel="nofollow">General David Betray Us</a></p>
<p>Have a great weekend!<br />
Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Chusid</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125&#038;cpage=1#comment-113728</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Chusid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125#comment-113728</guid>
		<description>&quot;Prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I asserted that, if John Kerry were elected, we could actually have more warfare and military interventionism than if Bush were to be re-elected.&quot;

If you asserted that, you were wrong. Kerry spoke frequently about using military force only as a last resort, and of course opposed Bush&#039;s war in Iraq. Bush both got us into Iraq and is continuing the war.

There are some pro-war Democrats but the votes this year to attempt to put an end to the war show quite clearly that for the most part the Democrats oppose the war and the Republicans support the war.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I asserted that, if John Kerry were elected, we could actually have more warfare and military interventionism than if Bush were to be re-elected.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you asserted that, you were wrong. Kerry spoke frequently about using military force only as a last resort, and of course opposed Bush&#8217;s war in Iraq. Bush both got us into Iraq and is continuing the war.</p>
<p>There are some pro-war Democrats but the votes this year to attempt to put an end to the war show quite clearly that for the most part the Democrats oppose the war and the Republicans support the war.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Chusid</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125&#038;cpage=1#comment-113727</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Chusid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125#comment-113727</guid>
		<description>&quot;I actually think this makes the left look bad in this situation.&quot;

Yes it does. However we must keep this in perspective. If the left looks bad when one group puts out an ad such as this, the right should also look bad for their more frequent attacks of this nature. Turn on talk radio any day of the week and you&#039;ll hear far worse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I actually think this makes the left look bad in this situation.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes it does. However we must keep this in perspective. If the left looks bad when one group puts out an ad such as this, the right should also look bad for their more frequent attacks of this nature. Turn on talk radio any day of the week and you&#8217;ll hear far worse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aakash</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125&#038;cpage=1#comment-113672</link>
		<dc:creator>Aakash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125#comment-113672</guid>
		<description>I think paying so much attention to MoveOn.org is a waste of our time. Plus, I think that many people are framing this argument the wrong way... The Democrats are not, and have never been, the anti-war party - it&#039;s been the opposite, in fact. U.S. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the current Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is a San Francisco liberal. He is also perhaps &lt;b&gt;the most pro-war person in Congress&lt;/b&gt;, of any party.

His Republican counterpart (before the Democrats took control of Congress), the highly-esteemed U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), opposed the Iraq war, and opposed the neoliberal and neoconservative foreign policy vision, that got us into this mess.


What MoveOn.org is doing is disrespectful... and I definitely oppose that organization.


However, I am skeptical about much of what is in the General&#039;s report.

As I &lt;a href=&quot;http://uis.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html#116537767856976705&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;have pointed out&lt;/a&gt; numerous &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&amp;fr=slv1-ccle&amp;p=Aakash%20%22liberal%20internationalism%22&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;times&lt;/a&gt; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu9BluORG6ssA7kxXNyoA?p=Aakash+%22liberal+hawks%22&amp;y=Search&amp;fr=slv1-ccle&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;past&lt;/a&gt;... The top Democrats in America today are not truly anti-war... far from it, in fact.

Prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I asserted that, if John Kerry were elected, &lt;a href=&quot;http://uis.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_archive.html#109133309941325229&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;we could actually &lt;i&gt;have more warfare&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt; and military interventionism than if Bush were to be re-elected. Several others [including both supporters and opponents of the Iraq war, and of President Bush], agreed with this.

And before the 2006 Congressional elections, &lt;a href=&quot;http://uis.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html#116168060368646519&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;I made the same type of argument&lt;/a&gt;, regarding the Democrats and the Republicans.

And now, I just saw an article featured at &lt;i&gt;The Hill&lt;/i&gt;, showing that several of the hawkish Democrats, who have gotten Chairmanships, due to their party&#039;s takeover of Congress, and who I named &lt;a href=&quot;http://uis.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html#116168060368646519&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;there&lt;/a&gt;, were the same ones &lt;a href=&quot;http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-heap-praise-on-petraeus-crocker-2007-09-10.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;heaping lavish praise&lt;/a&gt;, earlier today, on General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

The &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Hawk&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;pro-war&lt;/a&gt;, anti-war, and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2004/12/16/the_rise_of_reactionary_liberalism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;partisan reactionary&lt;/a&gt; segments of the American Left can attempt to pursue their destructive policies - many of which have been seized up, and even embraced, but today&#039;s &quot;conservatives,&quot; along with the present White House, and much of the GOP leadership. Thankfully though, there are many on the Right, and in the Republican Party, who do not support these policies.

Ultimately, &lt;a href=&quot;http://uis.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html#111704804051539366&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;it may be the battle on the Right&lt;/a&gt;, over these vital contemporary foreign and domestic policy issues, that determines what direction our nation will go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think paying so much attention to MoveOn.org is a waste of our time. Plus, I think that many people are framing this argument the wrong way&#8230; The Democrats are not, and have never been, the anti-war party &#8211; it&#8217;s been the opposite, in fact. U.S. Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the current Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is a San Francisco liberal. He is also perhaps <b>the most pro-war person in Congress</b>, of any party.</p>
<p>His Republican counterpart (before the Democrats took control of Congress), the highly-esteemed U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL), opposed the Iraq war, and opposed the neoliberal and neoconservative foreign policy vision, that got us into this mess.</p>
<p>What MoveOn.org is doing is disrespectful&#8230; and I definitely oppose that organization.</p>
<p>However, I am skeptical about much of what is in the General&#8217;s report.</p>
<p>As I <a href="http://uis.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html#116537767856976705" rel="nofollow">have pointed out</a> numerous <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&amp;fr=slv1-ccle&amp;p=Aakash%20%22liberal%20internationalism%22" rel="nofollow">times</a> in the <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu9BluORG6ssA7kxXNyoA?p=Aakash+%22liberal+hawks%22&amp;y=Search&amp;fr=slv1-ccle" rel="nofollow">past</a>&#8230; The top Democrats in America today are not truly anti-war&#8230; far from it, in fact.</p>
<p>Prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I asserted that, if John Kerry were elected, <a href="http://uis.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_archive.html#109133309941325229" rel="nofollow">we could actually <i>have more warfare</i></a> and military interventionism than if Bush were to be re-elected. Several others [including both supporters and opponents of the Iraq war, and of President Bush], agreed with this.</p>
<p>And before the 2006 Congressional elections, <a href="http://uis.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html#116168060368646519" rel="nofollow">I made the same type of argument</a>, regarding the Democrats and the Republicans.</p>
<p>And now, I just saw an article featured at <i>The Hill</i>, showing that several of the hawkish Democrats, who have gotten Chairmanships, due to their party&#8217;s takeover of Congress, and who I named <a href="http://uis.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html#116168060368646519" rel="nofollow">there</a>, were the same ones <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-heap-praise-on-petraeus-crocker-2007-09-10.html" rel="nofollow">heaping lavish praise</a>, earlier today, on General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Hawk" rel="nofollow">pro-war</a>, anti-war, and <a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2004/12/16/the_rise_of_reactionary_liberalism" rel="nofollow">partisan reactionary</a> segments of the American Left can attempt to pursue their destructive policies &#8211; many of which have been seized up, and even embraced, but today&#8217;s &#8220;conservatives,&#8221; along with the present White House, and much of the GOP leadership. Thankfully though, there are many on the Right, and in the Republican Party, who do not support these policies.</p>
<p>Ultimately, <a href="http://uis.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_archive.html#111704804051539366" rel="nofollow">it may be the battle on the Right</a>, over these vital contemporary foreign and domestic policy issues, that determines what direction our nation will go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amare</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125&#038;cpage=1#comment-113668</link>
		<dc:creator>Amare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125#comment-113668</guid>
		<description>I actually think this makes the left look bad in this situation. I consider myself somewhat of a centrist, and the ad was offensive to me. It screamed of immaturity. I would think the same if it was the reverse, if this was something the GOP was pulling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually think this makes the left look bad in this situation. I consider myself somewhat of a centrist, and the ad was offensive to me. It screamed of immaturity. I would think the same if it was the reverse, if this was something the GOP was pulling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: absent observer</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125&#038;cpage=1#comment-113602</link>
		<dc:creator>absent observer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:44:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2125#comment-113602</guid>
		<description>The MoveOn people should not have attacked a weakness.  They should have attacked a strength... like: 
&quot;Protecting us from Terrorism -- You Michael Landon-Wannabe motherfuckers.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The MoveOn people should not have attacked a weakness.  They should have attacked a strength&#8230; like:<br />
&#8220;Protecting us from Terrorism &#8212; You Michael Landon-Wannabe motherfuckers.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
