Republican Drama Queens: The attack on Move on...
What started off as a cheap political trick by the freak of New York Rudy Giuliani; the Republican orchestrated attack on move on.org over their critical ad of Genral Petraeus has escalated to the point where the GOP wasted time in the Senate on an amendment by Senator Cornyn (Republican-Tx) to defend the "honor and integrity" of the General and all members of the military. This act of pure political theatre states:
"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and
all members of the United States Armed Forces.
It is quite interesting that the half of the democrats voted for this amendment. At first I was agitated by their decision, but after weighing it all out one can conclude that the Dems who went along with this were kind of "squashing the talking point". Knowing the way Republicans love to question the patriotism of others, they figured this would be a way to avoid a dramatic "the democrats voted against ending personal attacks on our troops" rhetoric. From a political perspective I understand why they did it, but the argument that this amendment
is an direct attack on free speech is quite valid.
Keep in mind this was political theatre, which was started by a presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani designed to link Hillary Clinton to Move on. That whiny little drama queen of a right wing hack, MarkLevin, came up with this initial political stunt, when Levin and Rudy met at a Sean Hannity "freedom concert". Before you knew it John McCain was talking about move on being "thrown out of the country", Cheney joined in on the fun, and Rep Davis (R-Va) suggested to open an investigation into the NY Times charging a discount rate to "liberal groups", such as move on. This is a false charge as we previously discussed. Even the president was handed a softball question about move on at the end of his recent press conference!!!
What a bunch of drama queens.
The original criticism by move on, in the N.Y Times focused on the methodology used by the General for counting counting deaths in Iraq. Originally the Times and the Washington post pointed out the methodology; through anonymous sources; to be "bizarre"and that questionable methods were used to determine if a death was sectarian or not. The Move on ad quoted those articles and it turns out the articles were correct. The methodology used to come to the conclusion of "decreased violence" are indeed designed to discount a lot of deaths, to lower the number for the great presentation by General Petraeus. In the presentation he touted the drop in sectarian violence but the methodology was designed to discount sectarian violence! By a freedom of information act request TPM Muckracker reporter Spencer Ackerman got to examine the actual methodology the Pentagon and the General used for the report! We learn all the criticism by move on and others is indeed extremely valid.
Highlights of the methodology used:
A. Attacks against "same-sect civilians," U.S. forces, the Iraqi government or Iraqi security forces "are excluded and not defined as sectarian attacks.
Note: attacks on the Iraqi government and security forces can indeed be sectarian
B. The methodology identifies a number of factors, necessarily subjective, that help analysts determine whether an attack or a death should be considered sectarian. Ethno-sectarian violence is defined as violence "conducted by one ethnic/religious group against another ethnic/religious group, where the primary motivation for the event is based on ethnic or religious reasons." MNF-I analysts consider the location of the attack -- whether it took place in a mixed area or a homogeneous one -- and the type of attack in order to
determine ethnic or sectarian violence.
Note: The Articles that move on. referenced, described that the report took into account the way a victim was shot (whether in the front or back of the head to determine if the killing was sectarian) . So these articles were correct.
You can read the entire document in detail here thanks to TPM muckraker.
The attack on Move on is nothing cheap political stunt, typical of the drama queens in the Republican party. As we can see the criticism of the methodology used to determine sectarian deaths is totally valid. With all this selling of the "progress" and the Generals report, the American people are not buying it. CNN reports on a recent CBS poll which showed that after the Bush speech and the Petreus report report only 31% of the people feel we are making things better in Iraq. The executive director of move on, explains the obvious here.
all members of the United States Armed Forces.
It is quite interesting that the half of the democrats voted for this amendment. At first I was agitated by their decision, but after weighing it all out one can conclude that the Dems who went along with this were kind of "squashing the talking point". Knowing the way Republicans love to question the patriotism of others, they figured this would be a way to avoid a dramatic "the democrats voted against ending personal attacks on our troops" rhetoric. From a political perspective I understand why they did it, but the argument that this amendment
is an direct attack on free speech is quite valid.
Keep in mind this was political theatre, which was started by a presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani designed to link Hillary Clinton to Move on. That whiny little drama queen of a right wing hack, MarkLevin, came up with this initial political stunt, when Levin and Rudy met at a Sean Hannity "freedom concert". Before you knew it John McCain was talking about move on being "thrown out of the country", Cheney joined in on the fun, and Rep Davis (R-Va) suggested to open an investigation into the NY Times charging a discount rate to "liberal groups", such as move on. This is a false charge as we previously discussed. Even the president was handed a softball question about move on at the end of his recent press conference!!!
What a bunch of drama queens.
The original criticism by move on, in the N.Y Times focused on the methodology used by the General for counting counting deaths in Iraq. Originally the Times and the Washington post pointed out the methodology; through anonymous sources; to be "bizarre"and that questionable methods were used to determine if a death was sectarian or not. The Move on ad quoted those articles and it turns out the articles were correct. The methodology used to come to the conclusion of "decreased violence" are indeed designed to discount a lot of deaths, to lower the number for the great presentation by General Petraeus. In the presentation he touted the drop in sectarian violence but the methodology was designed to discount sectarian violence! By a freedom of information act request TPM Muckracker reporter Spencer Ackerman got to examine the actual methodology the Pentagon and the General used for the report! We learn all the criticism by move on and others is indeed extremely valid.
Highlights of the methodology used:
A. Attacks against "same-sect civilians," U.S. forces, the Iraqi government or Iraqi security forces "are excluded and not defined as sectarian attacks.
Note: attacks on the Iraqi government and security forces can indeed be sectarian
B. The methodology identifies a number of factors, necessarily subjective, that help analysts determine whether an attack or a death should be considered sectarian. Ethno-sectarian violence is defined as violence "conducted by one ethnic/religious group against another ethnic/religious group, where the primary motivation for the event is based on ethnic or religious reasons." MNF-I analysts consider the location of the attack -- whether it took place in a mixed area or a homogeneous one -- and the type of attack in order to
determine ethnic or sectarian violence.
Note: The Articles that move on. referenced, described that the report took into account the way a victim was shot (whether in the front or back of the head to determine if the killing was sectarian) . So these articles were correct.
You can read the entire document in detail here thanks to TPM muckraker.
The attack on Move on is nothing cheap political stunt, typical of the drama queens in the Republican party. As we can see the criticism of the methodology used to determine sectarian deaths is totally valid. With all this selling of the "progress" and the Generals report, the American people are not buying it. CNN reports on a recent CBS poll which showed that after the Bush speech and the Petreus report report only 31% of the people feel we are making things better in Iraq. The executive director of move on, explains the obvious here.
posted by Minister of Propaganda @ 9/23/2007 09:21:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home