MoveOn.org should not be forgotten - 10.2.2007.1

For all the talk and condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad personally attacking Gen. Petraeus, what affect does this all have on the Average Joe? Where does this entire fluster shake out? The Presidential election and the effects on the nation.

After 2 weeks of denials, the New York Times has finally admitted they broke their rules. This is a big deal. It’s not that the NY Times dropped the price of the ad some $70,000. MoveOn is funded by billionaire George Soros, they can afford whatever price the Times makes up. The question is whether the news organization is impartial, which this proves it is not. The paper broke rules against favoring a political party, running an attack ad, and several other regulations that the Times has in place for themselves. That’s a blatant move, and thus a virtually explicit declaration of ultra-liberal political affiliation.

Some could say that it’s not a big deal. News organizations tend to be liberal anyway. I disagree. Writers may or may not be liberal; a news organization should be neutral. This apparent declaration, which the Times tried to justify for 2 weeks, shows that they are not neutral and thus lie to the American people, as I conclude. It’s a strong conclusion I have come to, and if I am correct it means that every item reported about the President, national policies and international interactions may have been tainted. Imagine that, everything that the Times has said has been altered from the truth, either through omission of facts or editing of those facts, to make readers act in one manner or another.

Add to this the fact that not one of the Democratic Presidential candidates has made a single statement to condemn the ad and the problem grows. It’s not that they are breaking political ranks, this issue is beyond that. The Untied States Armed Forces are in place to protect EVERYONE, without regard to political affiliation or individual thoughts. Our soldiers die for the right to have ads, like the despicable MoveOn ad, to be able to appear without someone dying for it. A mere handful of countries can claim the same thing.

The ad attacked not just the General, but every American military person. To say that Gen Petraeus lied or betrayed the nation is to say that every soldier in his command did the same. It is to say that a temporary political point in time is more important than the lives and constitution he has sworn to uphold and protect. Considering his positive and well supported (by both parties) appointment, this questioning of loyalty is deeply misplaced.

What does it say when the potential next Commander-and-Chief has so little respect for the troops under their command that they will allow any attack upon them individually and as a whole. Yes, disrespect for the whole military. Gen. Petraeus did not leak out information or aide the enemy. He did not put our soldiers in harms way, or intentionally cause them to be killed. He has not reported lies or information that has not been confirmed and understood. He has not acted in any manner other than professionally and respectfully, even while his report given to Congress was questioned in its complete truth to his face.

I feel that a vote to not condemn personal attacks against our Armed Forces is a negative signal of what will come in the future. To vote against condemnation is to vote for the MoveOn ad. It’s a statement of no confidence in the military and a Commander-and –Chief must have faith in the military to command. Especially if that Commander has never spent one second in the Armed Forces.

Equally, the failure to vote either way is an act of cowardice in my opinion. Some issues are black & white. You either agree or disagree. To opt out is merely an attempt to play political games, seeking to keep funding without angering the general populace.

We need our leaders, and those who hope to become a leader, to state what they believe and to be accountable for that decision. If money, and political extremism, are the issues that they feel are most important we need to know that prior to an election. The repercussions are too dire to find out after the fact.

And to know that our news media organizations are being honest to us is no less important. If they are equally biased, what is to stop them from creating a new McCarthy, rather than exposing one? Where does the slippery slope begin that leads to a news media that is merely the tool of the government as opposed to reporting on it? It may sound implausible in America, but if our rules and standards falter how can we be sure it cannot happen?

The MoveOn.org ad is more than just an ad. The controversy and reactions are far reaching. And Average Joe should keep in mind what this means and can lead to. If we don’t we may not be able to get back from the road it takes us down.