Wash. Post suggested pro-Iraq war ad campaign is an "attack" on Democrats, despite its reported GOP focus
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article reported that the pro-Iraq war campaign by the nonprofit organization Freedom's Watch is part of a "burst of effort" that "has been striking, if only because Democrats left for their August recess confident that Republicans would be on the defensive by now. Instead, the GOP has gone on the attack." However, two analyses of the Freedom's Watch ad buy concluded that some 90 percent of those members of Congress targeted by the campaign are Republicans.
An August 22 Washington Post article by Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut reported that Freedom's Watch, a pro-Iraq war nonprofit organization, "will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for [President] Bush's policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress." The Post went on to report: "The burst of effort has been striking, if only because Democrats left for their August recess confident that Republicans would be on the defensive by now. Instead, the GOP has gone on the attack. The new privately funded ad campaign, to run in 20 states, features a gut-level appeal from Iraq war veterans and the families of fallen soldiers." However, two analyses of the Freedom's Watch ad buy concluded that some 90 percent of those members of Congress targeted by the campaign are Republicans, evidence rebutting the Post's suggestion that the GOP is "on the attack" against Democrats and not "on the defensive."
The Post reported:
Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.
And now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom's Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush's policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress. The first installment of Petraeus's testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.
[...]
The burst of effort has been striking, if only because Democrats left for their August recess confident that Republicans would be on the defensive by now. Instead, the GOP has gone on the attack. The new privately funded ad campaign, to run in 20 states, features a gut-level appeal from Iraq war veterans and the families of fallen soldiers, pleading: "It's no time to quit. It's no time for politics."
"For people who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming," said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush White House press secretary who is helping to head Freedom's Watch.
However, in an August 22 entry on the Chicago Tribune blog The Swamp, reporter Frank James wrote that the Freedom's Watch ad campaign is aimed at the same "vulnerable" Republican lawmakers who have been targeted by anti-Iraq war groups:
Anti-Iraq War groups have been attempting to pressure Republican lawmakers seen as vulnerable politically, lawmakers who have also questioned progress to date in Iraq, in order to win more votes in Congress for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq sooner rather than later.
But a new conservative group called Freedom's Watch is attempting a counterstrike, launching ads today to pressure those same lawmakers to stick with President Bush who refuses to accept a timetable for withdrawal. Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher is a strategist for the organization.
James cited a press release from the progressive group Americans United for Change that broke down the Freedom's Watch ad buy by candidate. According to the press release, as quoted by James: "A close examination of the ad buy shows that Freedom [sic] Watch is targeting congressional Republicans with a direct message -- stand with Bush's failed Iraq war strategy." A list of the group's ad buys reproduced in James' entry identified 32 Republican members of Congress, and only two Democrats -- Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Rep. John Barrow (D-GA).
In an August 22 Americablog entry, Tom Matzzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org Political Action, produced an expanded list of Freedom's Watch ad buys, which identified 37 Republican lawmakers and only four Democrats -- Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD), Pryor, and Barrow. Matzzie cited MoveOn.org researchers for the data.
I see the Prophit Ari Fleischer has signed on. Wonder if Grover Nordquist & money are under a nearby woodpile. Some thought this is a sign of nervousness on the part of the prowar folks. If so they have a lot of money to be nervous with.
I was watching Hardball the other night, Mike Barnacle was filling in for Matthews. He had Ari Fleischer on as a guest. Fleischer is involved with Freedom's Watch & was there to discuss it. They showed one of the ads that had a young solider that had lost his leg in Iraq asking...paraphrasing here: that we not give up the fight in Iraq or his sacrifice would have been in vain.
When the ad was over Barnacle asked Fleischer the young soldiers name. I don't believe he was doing it to trip old Ari up, he seemed genuinely interested. Fleischer didn't stutter, but the guy looked like a deer caught in the headlights for a half a beat. He didn't know the name of the young man. He said he didn't happen to have that info with him.
Here's this guy pushing to continue the war by trying to influence lawmakers to continue to support it, & part of a group using wounded soldiers, or parents of soldiers that paid the ultimate sacrifice for this effort...and they are anonymous to him. Pawns in a propaganda campaign.
I find this deplorable.
I saw the exact same thing and I was absolutely disgusted. I wish, someone would post the clp of that on the web somewhere.
Monk,
Click on this link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
Then go down the list till you find:
Fleischer on Vietnam-Iraq in Bush speech
Click on that for the video of Fleicher discussing Freedom's Watch with Barnacle & the ad.Of all the bogus arguments in support of this War, I find that one the most vile. The idea that getting more people killed somehow justifies the sacrifices of those already dead and wounded is....sick.
This romantic fallacy that all deaths in War must be glorious and justified is based on jingoistic fantasy. It's a delusion as old as organized warfare itself, and its persistence in the face of contradicting reality is one of the reasons we've been plagued by war throughout history. We never learn.
I agree Nerzog. And while we're waiting for the Is The Surge Working report soldiers keep dying. Fourteen went down in a helicopter yesterday. I've yet to hear an argument that justifies our invasion/war/occupation of Iraq. So sadly they were just 14 more lives wasted.
I agree that it is not a rational reason to argue in favor of continuing. I also can't help but empathize with the soldiers and their families that use this argument. These soldiers were told they were going on a mission to protect us and make us more secure. They made many sacrifices and gave up alot. Many made the ultimate sacrifice. How do you tell them it was a mistake, that it didn't protect us and it didn't make us more secure (in fact made us less secure according to the analysts). How do you ask that young man to accept that he gave up his leg for no justifiable purpose. It is a very hard thing to ask those that have sacrificed and lost to accept. I am not sure that all will be able to handle that truth. Honestly I am not comfotable with the idea of taking that away from him or others who have lost so much. Having said that, I think it is shameful and disgusting that the Right is exploiting their emotional well-being and their losses in this way.
I agree that we must honor and respect those who have fallen, even if the war is unjustified. They have fulfilled their obligation and their pledge, it's not their fault if their leaders are dumbsh*ts.
I also think we owe them the truth, even if it's painful. Wasted deaths are not limited to this war, or even unpopular wars. If you dig a little into the history of any war, even WWII, you'll find numerous accounts of soldiers who died needlessly, due to command mistakes, friendly fire, poor planning, etc. It doesn't diminish the larger truth that they all died in service to their country.
I mean, think about it. Are the Confederate war dead not still honored as heroes, even though their cause has been discredited by most historians? I know that some modern Southerners are still fighting that war, and will never accept the facts...but most have acknowledged the truth and put it in proper perspective.
I don't disagree with you. I guess I am talking from the emotional aspect of it. I agree that no matter what these soldiers signed up to serve and defend this country and that trumps anything else. I am just not sure that is going to hold much water for those that have lost so much. We are not talking about mistakes and accidents that happened. We are talking about the entire mission/war being a mistake that served no useful purpose. Are they owed the truth--of course. Do I want to argue with that soldier who lost his leg and tell him his sacrifice was in vain--because that is the truth of what we are saying. I don't think I can say that to him. I am angry that this administrations obstinence and the exploitation for political reasons is forcing us to do just that. I guess I am just thinking out-loud. I have been turning this over in my mind since I saw the ad last night. Let's be honest we are doing exactly what he is asking us not to tell him--he lost his leg in vain. We can pretty it up by speaking to larger picture of his honor to his country but I think if it was me I would find that cold comfort. I would be very angry and it would probably make accepting what happened to me that much harder. We take away from him the ability to believe that his sacrifice was for a higher purpose and with his sacrifice he has protected and made us more secure. I am not sure what your full position is to with respect to the war but I know that I though it was a mistake from the begining, I don't think it served any good purpose for us and I believe it has actually casued us harm. So it is very difficult for me to deal with the fact that yes I am telling this young man his sacrifice was in vain.
Hopefully we can promise him we will pay more attention to whom we elect to office and that we will be more critical of their push to take us into battle. It won't bring back the dead, nor lost limbs, but hopefully we can acknowledge our mistakes (as a country) and never put people like Bush back in office.
Face it, they're going to get their extension to continue the war. They still have the media in their pocket. They will be able to create the impression going into the report that 'progress' is being made. They've been doing this for years. Remember the Daily Show running a consecutive stream of clips with Bush saying we're 'turning the corner' in Iraq repeatedly over the course of several blood-soaked years. I think even that bit now is well over a year old. This time won't be any different. There are enough people of good conscience who initially opposed the war who are now torn about the prospect of causing more harm than good by ending it. These people combined with the war whores who just love it for its own sake will keep the thing going until it is a tragedy well beyond anything we've seen yet. And then we'll have to pull out anyway. I mean, what point is Bush making now comparing it to Vietnam? That if we'd stayed in Vietnam for another ten years eventually it would have accomplished goodness? This is all a result of the Reagan years re-working of history to erase the lessons of Vietnam with the myth that the only thing we did wrong was not blow enough people up. How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake? Again.
I saw one of these commercials (mother of the dead soldier). I feel bad for the woman and her loss. But the commercial was basically all of Bush's talking points from the past four years rolled into 30 seconds (even ended with "we don't need another 9/11").
And although the commercial made me shake my head in disgust, my worry is that these talking points, along with the grieving yet "patriotic" mother, may be effective in rallying the base (especially since Freedom's Watch appears to be targeting republican areas like the western half of Michigan where I live).
Propaganda is a powerful thing.
The attacking field general faces the enemy.
This ad reflects a field general who is facing his OWN troops, trying to buck up their resolve and morale.
The Republicans are not "on the attack" with this ad series, they are doing desperation damage control, hoping to retain just enough support for Bush to allow this war to continue well into the future.
The bottom line is, if you REALLY support the troops, you will insist that BAD leadership be removed from positions of decision making. It's not sufficient to jettison "proxies" ... like Rumsfeld. Nothing will change until the decision-makers at the TOP ... Bush, Cheney ... are stopped.
Now that's an ad I want to see!
Am I getting this right? Has our society... I can't even really ask the question without my mind turning on itself, so bear with me here - Has our society....really....gotten to the point that we're......advertising for......war?
It's been so long since I read it, but is this something that even Orwell didn't foresee?
Gee you're right, I hadn't noticed that surreal aspect of it: these are advertisements for war!
A poster above, SUNDOG, made reference to the Vietnam comparison, and that works into this too, about "advertisements for war".
The single compelling and indisputable Justification for a Nation making War, is that Nation's Defense, and National Security.
[This is truth and fact; it is not opinion; it is universally agreed upon by rational people, and requires no argument; if you think you find fault with it, think some more... because it's a rather simple concept, that even beasts and low animals can understand, this concept of self-defense and the preservation of one's life... and I'm surprised at how rarely it is invoked, in the matter we are discussing here.]
Every Nation on this earth (and every individual man as well) is completely Justified in the use of War, and of Armed Force, when it is their National Security that is at risk: it's called DEFENSE, and every Nation and every individual man on this earth, may invoke it as his Justification, for making War and using Armed Force.
The thing called by everyone the Vietnam War, it ground to a tragic halt and would otherwise be characterized as a life-consuming nightmare and failure, for the single reason that there was no National Security objective to the American People, to Justify it.
North Vietnam (or any part of the population of South Vietnam) did not pose any National Security threat to the American People; therefore any War against those people was without Justification.
And a War like that, without the Justification of National Security and Defense, is either doomed to failure and tragedy, or might otherwise go recorded in history as the brutal and oppressive aggression of a nazi war machine.
A War without the Justification of National Security and Defense, can have no result in between or other than, the two results I just described.
That's what Vietnam was, and Iraq is.
As for advertisements:
When a Nation and its people's National Security is threatened, and their Defense therefore required; under which conditions their use of War, is absolutely Justified...
...I'd ask: Don't you think those people are bright enough, and concerned enough for their own lives, to know that?
I mean, if it is their National Security and their Defense threatened, wouldn't they just know that?
Wouldn't they know it in their hearts, and their guts, like an animal knows when it's being hunted, when it's being tracked and when it's about to be killed?
Don't we as people know whether or not our National Security is threatened, and whether or not we need the recourse of War?
Or do we require television advertisements, 30 and 60 second commercials, to tell us so... to prod us to our own Defense, and to War?
It is surreal.
Neon heres another question...if in fact these are advertisements for war what is the motivation, goal, endgame, behind such effort? Conspiracy theories aside and a dose of sodium penathol with a hit of ammonia clear thinking people could come to few conclusions. The effort is real, just based on intel available and a plan for far into the future.... The effort is purely evil, political???? The effort is from Satan himself for financial gain for those who are in a position to take advantage of that end?
You don't sniff glue, do you?
Because if you do, you shouldn't... it makes your thoughts a scrambled mess; and were you too right them down, it would simply read like a bad dream.
"too right" should be "to write"... I left the cap off the glue momentarily.
Come on you can do better than that.......glue? .....lame at best. Is the question to hard for you OR is the answer to scary?
We'll probably never know, since the Press and the Congress refuse to investigate the reasons we went there.
There are numerous possibilities, ranging from geopolitical maneuvering to outright war profiteering. Maybe it's a combination of several, maybe it's totally above board, though I doubt it.
However, most of these possible explanations are more credible than the line of bullsh*t fed to us by the Bush administration.
TwinkTrollboy,
Motives? How about an the misconception of oil supply tied to national security, due to the short-sighted and limited energy requirement prognostications of our oh-so sage politicians? How about simply saving face for an administration that has proven itself inept at nearly everything (excluding propaganda) it has attempted? How about the drive of those who supply the materials of war to see the gravy train extended? How about a permanent base of operations to assist Israel? None of these are conspiracy theories in that they don't require cooperation beyond your normal everyday political organization, and none are based on anything other than selfishness, greed and ignorance - historically prerequisites of our politicians. But the combination of a little piece of each of them makes for more than adequate motivation for unscrupulous politicians to risk soldiers' lives and spend the Homeland into economic trouble. Think it's beyond them to do it? Cunningham and Jefferson are only two examples of those who were willing to risk their careers and prison for far less.
Anyone who thinks the Iraq war was based in nobility, or even still considers it a war, is a partisan loon, clinging to the hope that paradise - or at least livable conditions - will develop to validate George the Terrible and themselves. It's an occupation of choice, and those who still defend it are ignorant, in denial or willfully untruthful. And you're just the kind of guy that the warmongers are looking for to work on his own time raising and spending money to advertise for thier benefit.
Do you really have that much trouble figuring this stuff out for yourself? Are your false dichotomies really the only options in your mind? Is your mind so simple that the world really full of only good and evil for you? Or were you just checking to see if I could be easily derailed by limpaugh/hannity talking points?
Good job Neon.....an honest and enlighten answer....don't have a clue what Limbaugh or Hannity have to say....never listen. So had you left out the personal attack at the end your grade would have been an A but the inability to control the urge leaves you with a B none the less which is still above average....
Look up PNAC between shots of glue. There's your answer.
Just for fun, call the phone number that is included in that ad. They say that the phone number will allow you to get in touch with your Congressman, but it doesn't. It gets you in touch with a call center where they pay minimum wage to script readers. If you answer the questions "incorrectly", they tell you that they won't connect you to a Congressman.
They asked me if I wanted to be transferred to my Congressman to tell him to fight back against the "cut 'n runners". When I told him that I didn't think my Congressman was a supporter of "cut 'n runners", he told me that he was going to end my call before he sent me forward.
I think everyone should call this number just to see what they say. I find it really offensive that an ad campaign would be pushing this false talking point.
It's 1-877-222-8001.
The Big Lie just got bigger.
Here's an interesting quote from a column on the Huffington Post:
"Occupiers never win because the occupied will always outfight them and out-die them and outlast them."
[link to www.huffingtonpost.com]
If Bush had ever bothered to crack a history book other than the Bible, he might be aware of this fact.
About the ad campaign, and who it might be aimed at, whether Democrats or Republicans in Congress (or more specifically their constituents):
If you click the AmericaBlog link, you get a listing of the markets those ads are being run in, and that is telling information.
The ads are being run in Bangor and Portland Maine: I say those ads are aimed at Republican Senators Collins and Snowe, and not at the two House members from Maine, both Democrats: because for those two House members to "get on board" with Iraq, is not only ridiculous to work for, but wouldn't make a spit of difference... but as for Senators Collins and Snowe's votes on the matter, in the Senate where the Defense Appropriations is yet to be passed? Their votes are invaluable right now, and coveted.
Not a single ad is running in the entire state of California. Can you believe that? Further, no ads in the Boston market... I'd say if Democrats were being meant to see these ads, then Boston and California (the whole state!) would be a target. Also, while ads are being run in Syracuse and Rochester, they are not being run in the single biggest media market in the Universe: New York City.
I think those facts alone, are enough to conclude that it is not Democrats, but Republicans (or more specifically, their constituents) who are being targeted by these ads.
There is another possible conclusion to reach here: that indeed Democrats are being targeted, but those who are running the ads are brain-dead.
Because I'm pretty sure if you wanted Democrats to see a television ad, then you'd run it on a Boston or NYC television station... not to mention at least one ad, on any station or market, in the state of California.
(The whole state! California is almost the biggest country in the world!
If California ever fell into the sea, the whole earth would tip over, and fling everybody else into outer space!
True! I'm not exaggerating!
That's how danged big that Democratic state is!)
Disgusting. I feel like I have been shot.
Advertising for war, it just makes me want to vomit.
Well, it is, after all, quite profitable for some. I'm sure they consider this money well spent.
I sent this to friends and family in Feb. 2006 and I share it with you because I think it is appropriate;
I recently visited Boca Raton, Florida,specifically, the Boca Raton Resort and Club. In the heart of Palm Beach County, Boca Raton is, by my estimatian, one of the wealthiest places in the US. At the resort I admittadly got lost and found myself walking down a hallway off the beaten path. In this hallway were a row of doors that had very understated signs on the doors. The signs read Halliburton, Kerr-McGee, Kellogg Brown and Root, "KBR" and interstlyingly enough Bank of America.
Later, I had dinner in one of the resorts restaurants. It is important to note that prior to going to dinner I washed up and on the nightly news was a report that five (5) Marines had died that day in an ambush.
At a neighboring table I could hear two gentlemen in suits talking. One of the gentleman said, quite proudly, how he couldn't get what he wanted so "we got an executive order". People were laughing and cheering at a large gathering, perhaps thirty, at what had to be $300 a plate. I was amazed at the sheer arrogance, the sense of entitlement and detachment from everything going on around them. Five US Marines died this particular day. And when I tell you these people did not care...THEY DID NOT CARE. They do not care about anything or anybody other than themselves and their pursuit of money.
THEY DO NOT CARE.
As a vetean I do not use the word lightly but what I felt in those halls and in that restaurant was TREASON...This experience informs me every day about these people and I hope it helps to inform you too."THEY DID NOT CARE. They do not care about anything or anybody other than themselves and their pursuit of money."
Why is this message so hard for the average person to comprehend? Have we so dramatized that attitude in literature and media to the extent that it seems purely fictional anymore? Our corporate and political hucksters have gotten fabulously wealthy and powerful off unrealistic optimism in the compassion of their fellow citizens by the general public.
Yours is a sad story and too common.
"Just because you don't believe thieves conspire, does that mean that they don't or they won't to get higher"
Raygon Gaddy, Clean Air