Skip to content removes “General Betray Us” ad from website

June 26, 2010

    Something is missing from’s website— the General “Betray Us” ad. It has been removed.

  Last week General McChrystal resigned as head of the war in Afghanistan after making some controversial remarks and the president replaced him with General Petraeus.

   We all remember General Petraeus.  To many of us he is a hero and the man that won the war in Iraq with his plan for “the surge,” but to the left he was nothing but a toadie for President Bush– a man with no integrity that would sit in front of congress and tell them whatever President Bush told him to say.

  When he testified in front of congress on the progress of his surge policy he was basically called a liar by Hillary Clinton, and ran the now infamous “General Betray Us” ad.

  That ad remained on MoveOn’s website right up until last Wednesday– the very day that the great general was named as General McChrystal’s replacement– when it suddenly and quietly vanished from the site.

 Hmmm!? Interesting, isn’t it?

  When the senate held a vote to show support for General Petraeus after the “General Betray Us” ad appeared in the New York Times, then senator Barack Obama didn’t even vote on the issue, (which was typical of him in those days), but in a time of crisis during the war– this time in Afghanistan– Barack Obama turned to the same man that President Bush once successfully turned to in Iraq. He may not have been willing to publicly support him then, but now that he is in charge of the war in Afghanistan he certainly supports him because he needs him. Barack Obama is learning the hard way that governing is much more harder than just sitting back and watching.

  And suddenly– now that General Petraeus is Barack Obama’s choice– it appears as if General Petraeus is worthy of more respect by those on the left that tried so hard to discredit him and call him a liar. MoveOn had such strong anti-Petraeus and anti-Bush sentiment that they never removed the despicable ad from their website; but suddenly the website decides that while they probably will not come out and support the general outright or vociferously, they will at least stop running the defaming advertisement and stop condemning him publicly. This is so transparent, their hypocrisy is in full view here.

  In all reality, it probably wasn’t General Petraeus that opposed, but President Bush. Now that Barack Obama has turned to the general, can support him, or at least ignore him, much the same way the media has been ignoring the war since Barack Obama became president.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

13 Comments leave one →
  1. The Georgia Yankee permalink
    June 26, 2010 9:58 am

    Geez, I’m surprised to learn it was still there. I thought that was all behind us.

    “The surge” was good strategy, but it came pretty late in the game – from the time we got involved in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration seemed intent on doing what John Kerry called “running a war on the cheap.” The idea of adding more troops came only after years of responsible people suggesting that we were stretched too thin. In fact, the invasion of Iraq took place with troops drawn from the Afghan operation, leaving it terribly undermanned until just recently.

    Mr. Obama is making a version of the same mistake, by the way – it does no good to have plenty of troops in theater and then impose on them onerously restrictive rules of engagement. I believe that it’s incumbent upon us to minimize civilian casualties, but not at the cost of American lives we’ve sent to protect those civilians and provide them with a better future.

    That is to say, if Johnny volunteers for the Army, and we ship him overseas, and then he’s killed while wrapped up in those restrictive rules of engagement, we had better have a damned good explanation for Johnny’s mother. If we’re not going to let them fight, then we shouldn’t send them over in the first place.


    • June 27, 2010 10:08 am

      I was also surprised to learn that the ad was still there. I agree with you, the surge should have come much earlier, I believe that “fighting the war on the cheap” was Donald Rumsfeld’s idea, he wanted to use a minimal amount of troops, we see how that worked out. We should have gone in there with the proper amount of troops, but finally in the end Bush did the right thing and sent in the troops.


  2. June 26, 2010 12:36 pm

    Anything the Kenyan in Chief does is OK with the moonbats at MoveOn, DU and Kos… He is their Messiah…


  3. June 26, 2010 12:46 pm

    I find this interesting. I wonder, however, if Patraeus will be allowed to “win” this war?


    • June 27, 2010 10:09 am

      I hope so, I saw a link about how Petraeus was going to make ROE changes, here is hoping he is allowed to do so.


  4. June 26, 2010 4:40 pm

    The left now sees the general as Obama’s boy and not Bush’s boy! I suspect however that the general is his own man and probably got some concessions from the Pussy-in-Chief, before accepting this new assignment. I know I’m right on this one and time will show that! Barack is in a poition now where it will be very difficult to remove another general!


    • June 27, 2010 10:10 am

      I heard he may change the ROE, I was thinking that was something he bargained for before accepting the position.


  5. June 26, 2010 7:48 pm

    Win the war? Here’s a quote from the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen.

    “Troops are being asked to risk their lives so the Obama administration can go through the motions. It will fight until it no longer feels it has to, and then it will bring the troops home. If American interests were truly at stake, it would wage unrestrained war — kill the enemy and anyone that gets between us and the enemy.”

    I think that says it all.


  6. June 27, 2010 1:25 pm

    Well, that’s not at all politically motivated, is it?


  7. lefty odoul permalink
    August 2, 2010 3:10 am

    General Petreus the great military genius is just as much of a lying asshole that he was last week. General “”Betray us” knows perfectly well this war is unwinnable. How can you win a modern war against an army that doesn’t exist, a people that want to live in the 8th century, a people that live in a tribal society that has never had a central government, and a people that have never been conquered . Furthermore, the Afghans know its only a matter of time before we pick-up our toys and go home. Bush was hands down the worst president we’ve ever had, but even he realized this war was unwinnable and not worth putting too much effort into. What is there to win, there is no oil and while Bin Laden lives in Afghanistan even Bush realized how irrelevant he was (the attacks of 9-11 were planned in germany and florida-in fact terrorist attacks can come from anywhere as the Times Square bomber proved). In conclusion, General “betray us” is a lying asshole who knows very well everything that I’ve said.

    The only way we could possibly “win” (control Afghanistan) is if we surged a million troops into the country. Moveon needs to realize President Obama will be gone by 2016 and they need to keep the pressure on General “Betray us” so this doesn’t happen, not back off. In that sense I agree with the author that Moveon is being hypocritical.



  1. Good Linkage and The Useful Idiot Poll | Conservative Hideout 2.0

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: