With bogus "benchmarks" exhausted...all Bush/Cheney and the NeoCons can do is hide behind military leaders who have more medals than old Soviet Politburo members. Sadly, the trick is working...and our train wreck policy in Iraq will continue "as is" until Jan. 2009....dooming another 1,500 more troops to dying in Iraq. The next successor will do exactly as Nixon did when he took office in 1969...continue the same policy for the sake of "continuity of foreign policy," so there goes another 1,500 troops and an untold number of dead Iraqis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Behind the endless talk about 'benchmarks' and 'success' and 'our interests in the region' are the two central factors: control of Middle East oil, and the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq as the method of control.

Really, that's the geopolitical-economic plan. As oil grows more scarce and dear, the political-economic leadership of the US - the ones who buy elections and own the corporate press, as well as all the oil corporatiuons - have decided they can no longer rely on puppet dictators of questionable loyalty to control the oil reserves and the region, and that's why the permanent military bases are being built in the region.

Neither the oil nor the base construction are topics that any politician, Democratic or Republican, will touch. They're not even in the frame - they are not acceptable topics for domestic political consumption.

Read Hersh at the New Yorker:
Where is the Iraq war headed next? 2005

One Pentagon adviser told me, “There are always contingency plans, but why withdraw and take a chance? I don’t think the President will go for it”—until the insurgency is broken. “He’s not going to back off. This is bigger than domestic politics.”

Odd, isn't it, that US foreign policy is deemed to be 'bigger than domestic politics' by the military-industrial complex?

What happened to the notion of government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Just a quaint, old-fashioned notion? Now its all for big finance, big pharma, and big oil...Corporato Uber Alles...

Even the oil issue is too touchy. The New York Times is trying to spin the story into "What Greenspan really meant to say is that Saddam was a serious threat to the region, and had to be removed!".

Mr. Greenspan also spelled out his own views about the war in Iraq: he supported the invasion, he says, not because Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction, but because Saddam had shown a clear desire to capture the Middle East’s oil fields.

“I supported taking out Saddam, because he was moving inexorably toward taking the world’s oil resources,” he said. “Iraq was a far greater threat than Iran to the world scene.

Yeah - he was about to invade Saudia Arabia and Iran and Kuwait! We stopped him just in time! His armies were massing on the border! With nukes and stuff! Really!

I will never, ever take that rotten rag seriously again. What a farce! What a total betrayal of journalistic integrity! What a collection of propaganda monkeys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To state that the war in Iraq is solely about oil is a major oversimplification.

While oil is certainly a major factor, it was also about the potential for profiteering by Bush's cronies and others in industry (Haliburton). Further, since war economies are typically "hot", it could have the added side-effect of boosting us out of our post-internet bubble "slump".

It was also about upholding the Bush "legacy" and silencing the critics who continued to uphold that his dad stopped the first Gulf War too soon. And it would be a major demonstration of US military power (shock and awe), and a dire warning to others not to mess with the US. Not only that, but by maintaining the US in a perpetual state of war, it allowed Bush to continue upon his pet project of extending executive privilege.

Finally, it allowed Bush and the Republican party to continually demonstrate to the American public that they and they alone were "winning" the war on terror.

With so many potential "benefits", how could we NOT go to war? How could the mere truth about Iraq's non-existent role in 9/11, or their actual lack of WMDs stand in the way of what needed to be done? To paraphrase a favorite author, "What we need right now is a short victorious little war. And I think we all know just where to find one, don't we?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is everyone so insulted? We were lied into a war, didn't they think that sooner or later we'd really get mad. Neither the administration nor anyone else has any idea how to get us out if Iraq. They don't know what to do if we stay. So more lies to drag it out. Moveon might not be perfect but until someone comes up with a better idea, I like their style. "Return on Success"? Bull---t! These people have no shame. Moveon, keep Movin'on. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I saw a clip of John "I betray for Bush" McCain saying that MoveOn.org ought to be banished from our country for its Petraeus ad. How about exiling McCain for his trashing of our Constitution's 1st Amendment. And you want to be our president, John, shame on you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think a war with Iran will be the final BETRAYAL nail in the coffin for all the wars this country LOST since WWII be it Korean, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia/Serbia to some degree, Afghanistan, let me know if I missed one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I personally think the moveon ad will hurt the democrats more than help.

Interesting how Pelosi and some other democrats came out and "kind of criticized" the ad while non of the democrat candidates did.

Moveon pours quite a bit of money their way, much like other special interest groups we would like to ban (NRA etc.). The best thing to come out of this is major FREE PR for moveon.

Thankfully the election is far enough away for voters to forget this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... things MoveOn has done that took balls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In that old story about the emporer who was sold a non-existent set of new clothes over which the salesmen ooh-ed and aah-ed?

Where no one dared to speak the truth? And when the child finally spoke aloud the fact that the emporer was buck nakit, remember how the courtiers got angry at the child?

Thank you Move On for the clearsightedness of the truthful child.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This makes no attempt to be comprehensive.

1999: The US Senate fails to uphold a single motion to challenge voting irregularities and widespread voter disenfranchisement in Florida.

Congress and Senate allow the Supreme Court to appoint a president, rather than counting the votes or holding a new election.

2001: The Bush admin cuts anti-terror funding.

Bush remains on vacation in Crawford, TX despite warning of impending bin Laden attack from CIA, and fails to raise alert levels for the FAA, Ports, major cities - anywhere. Claims the threat was "too vague" to be actionable.

The entire bin Laden family is escorted and flown out of the US without thorough questioning despite a no-fly condition.

Anthrax attacks on Democrats in the Congress and Senate and news media outlets while the US Patriot Act is hastily considered and passed - the first steps in gutting the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

2002: The Bush admin diverts the US towards attacking Iraq, and away from bin Laden.

2005: Despite warnings caught on AP video, Bush denies hearing warnings about potential Katrina aftermath, and remains on vacation even as New Orleans was drowning.

2006-2007: Newly elected Democratic Congress fails to show any more backbone than the previous, Republican-led Congress, and continues to enable the most corrupt administration in American history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lakoff is a well-respected linguist who makes much of the concept of framing. While much of what Lakoff discuss in regards to framing is compelling i.e., the mechanics of framing. However I think the real devil is in the detail: framing is determined moreso by those who have the most media access and political power (perceived or otherwise) and NOT so much by the "correctness" or the "skillful framing of a message" . . . sadly, in a modern, capitalist society, these things are determined by money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The right wants us to appologize. At what point did speaking the truth call for an appology? The answer is, never. This is again a neocon push to put us on the defensive. Remember, to win a game, you have to play offense. Anytime that a person says that this ad was offensive, we must speak the truth. Eventually, if you repeat it enough, others will catch on. Rather than backing down, stay your ground, always. I'm long past the time for polite discourse, I am damn tired of stupid people who continue to follow the neocon yellow brick road. THere's a saying, "no matter how far you go down the wrong fork in the road, turn back". Huh? Yes, turn back. Answer back. Make people think. Hold your ground, look them in the eye and tell the truth. If you do that, most people will not push and you just may get lucky and they will start to think about what you said. Takes courage, so even though our congress has lacked it, doesn't mean that we do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rudy giuliani's jab against moveon.org has backfired on that despicable gnome and his pathetic attempt to revive his dwindling poll numbers. This will also lead to a humiliating castration of the GOP. the republicans will start eating their own very soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no valid reason for us to invade and occupy another nation because of OIL. I suggest that the readers go to
www.youtube.com and search for the terms "air car" and
"water car." Then view several of these short videos and
ask yourself why we run our cars on OIL instead of air or water.

Why are we heating our homes with OIL and natural gas
instead of water?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, the debate now has focused everyone's attention on the facts we all knew up front. This is indeed about who will have strategic access to a very large oil reserve.

But... knowing what we do about how the world works, how US politicians have all sold their souls to the devil, and how volitale religious nonsense is, we're forgetting some very very important things.

We're not dumping huge amounts of R&D $$ into alternate energy sources. Just last night I saw a re-run of a Modern Marvels, which pointed out that a very tiny percentage of land can be used to gather solar and wind power resources in the US. Enough to easily start weeding ourselves out of the friggin' Middle East.

No, we won't be able to completely dump MidEast oil any time soon. That's more about foot dragging than anything else. But the very fact that technology ALREADY exists to get us the f**k out of the Middle East - slowly but surely - and that that technology isn't being exploited like it really matters is the real killer here. Our politicians are lazy and already paid off. Our super 'business-creative' leaders are hobbled because the R&D money isn't forthcoming. We own too many SUVs still. It all adds up.

There is no Manhattan project for alternate energy. Not yet. Not in the foreseeable future.

But if we HAD a freakin' Manhattan project for this issue we wouldn't be talking about kids dying for oil, or generals betraying us, or moronic presidents who can't think straight because of being a dry drunk - or ANY of those things.

Does anyone get what I'm driving at here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Manahattan Project was run by Major General Leslie Groves who had one assistant, a Colonel.

If you tried to do a similarly big project today...first, a commitee of 13, or 17, or 23, or...Then, appoint a huge staff...Do you think anything of such magnitude would ever get done today?

Let's look a some huge organizations and see how they don't get anything done.

FBI: Ted "Unibomber" Kahzinski. If his family had not turned him, the FBI would still be looking for him.
Eric Rudolf who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, bombed a gay nightclub in Atlanta, bombed a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Birmingham and killed a security guard. Huge FBI manhunt. Never came close to finding him. He was captured by a rookie local policeman who caught him "dumpster diving" for food.
The "Anthrax man." Sent anthrax packages to several Democratic members of Congress. Actually killed several Postal workers and an old woman in Oxford, CT. The FBI has never caught him. Maybe they're not even trying to find him!

The CIA. Never predicted the weakness and the end of the Soviet Union! Engineered the overthow of various elected leaders, which led to unintended consequences. Mossadech in Iran. Various elected leaders in Central and South America. The CIA supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The CIA never met a military junta they didn't like. Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile now have leaders that the US government is unhappy with. Those old junta leaders now live in Miami. Daniel Ortega (Reagan administration bete noir) is now President of Nicaragua. And earlier, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, various poisons plus exploding cigars in attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Fidel has now seen 10 US Presidents come and go. Well, the tenth is GWB.

Obviously, Bigger is NOT Better!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

General David Betray Us:

General David Betray Us

Please don't forget to be ' Intellectual Honesty' with yourself and view everything from top to bottom. After all you would not want to be miss informed on any subject matter.

Peace!
Dan

___
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a member of moveon. while I only get involved with what I feel is right and is important to this country, I will stand up with the org. since the majority of the population outside of the organization haven't woke up yet or don't seem to care, we will do what we have to.
I was bought up on the truth alone. no matter how bad you want something if you can't get it, than don't steal it. it's like I say you can run from the truth, but you cannot get away with it. sooner or later it will catch you with your pants down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lakoff: "The American people have been betrayed by the architects and apologists for the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

The elephant in Lakoff's living room of debate is the quiet support the Democratic leadership has for Western control over Middle Eastern oil reserves. So, it is not just the "apologists" we need to worry about.

The neoliberal and neoconservative agendas intersect in their view that control over oil supplies is critical to (1) Maintain the current economic world order; (2) Support U.S. and NATO military hegemony, and; (3) Proceed with their plans to replace nation states with regional governments that are, in the words of Trilateral founder Rockefeller, governed by "bankers and supranational elites" - essentially international fascism/corporistism.

There is irrefutable evidence, including an extensive paper trail that demonstrates these goals have been supported by the leadership of BOTH parties for several decades.

We knew exactly what to expect from Petraeus. The military selection process is such that only those who are blindly obedient and support the International Economic Order are choosen to move up the ranks. The few who don't completely ascribe to the doctrine are weeded out.

Focusing our ire on one person who is simply playing out his role as a military puppet smacks of the Orwellian hate sessions. We should be angry about the needless death and destruction in Iraq and the long range plans to reshape the Middle East at any cost, but we also need to make the debate one of transparency.

Get to the heart of the matter.

The world has reached its peak production of oil. From here on out, oil will become increasingly scarcer and vastly more expensive. No amount of alternative energy can ever fill the gap.

What is the alternative for Americans to resource wars? Are most Americans psychologically prepared to live in a state of near poverty and frequent blackouts in order to halt the prospect of perpetual war and allow the inhabitants of the Middle East a right to their self-determination? What happens to nuclear weapons production in the Middle East if we leave?

These are important questions being discussed in high levels of office and prominent think tanks, but they are not part of the public debate. The public is being left out of the loop with emotional distractions and a lot of divide and conquer tactics (e.g. pairing dissent over the war with lack of troop support; fanning the flames of religious discord with terms like "Islamofascism", etc.).

Oddly enough, it is some of the greatest purveyors of "disaster capitalism" who are now admitting what the occupation in Iraq and threats to attack Iran are really about. Greenspan and Kissinger are now publicly admitting that the war is all about securing Middle East oil for the global economy.

Interesting that Rockefeller guided Kissinger and Brzezinki in the formation of the Trilateralists (who are smaller in number and have more influence than the CFR). Brzezinki was Carter's Sec. of State and wrote The Grand Chessboard (the title alone speaks to the mindset). Virtually every member of Carter's cabinet was composed of Trilateralists. So, we come full circle, back to the start of support from both parties for America's current foreign policy agenda.

The sooner scholars like Lakoff make it crystal clear that high level policy decisions are not represented at the level of public debate, the sooner we can start work on a new road map that respects freedom and human dignity.

"It is patriotic to root out betrayal on grand scale wherever it occurs."

Absolutely!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...There is TRUTH in advertising....and the Bush gang and the Senate bought into it. See how quickly they moved to denounce the ad. Funny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]