Please answer objectively, rather than in defense or opposition to the war. Do you think this ad likely had any effect at all on the two sides (the "hang in there" side, or the "withdraw quickly" side)? And if so, which side do you think it most strongly affected, and whether it affected it favorably or adversely... and why?
2007-09-12 05:24:00 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
To "Army Retired Guy" -- Didn't they teach you to read in the Army? Look again at the question. I was referring to an **AD**. It ran in an NYC newspaper.
2007-09-12 06:21:41 · update #1
This ad will go down as one of the great blunders in political marketing. It demonstrates (and will be seen as such by the independents such as myself, and middle America) the despicable measures "moveon,org" will use to assail the character of an honorable man of integrity.
While I doubt there were many citizens that actually watched his report to Congress, not even the media will directly assail the character of this man. It is obvious to anyone that watched any amount of it that the man steered as far away from politics as the presidential candidates sitting in the chairs of senators would allow him.
They played their hands early and ignorantly by making known before his testimony that they would not accept the report that they demanded him to leave his job in Baghdad to give them. One (Obama) ranted for 6 minutes of his 8, before complaining that he actually had no time to actually even ask the General any questions, to which another (Biden) gleefully agreed with him.
In short, all of those that chose to attack the General's character are in for the backlash of the American public which polls show trust him more than the politicians to present an accurate account, and for good reason: He has nothing to gain by lying, whereas politicians are *known* to lie constantly.
2007-09-12 05:52:50 · answer #1 · answered by John T 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It'll have an effect on both sides.
The hang in there side will be more resolute, and criticize the article for trying to be clever with Petraeus' name. The idea of accusing the General of our army that he is a traitor is purely unbelievable to me.
The withdraw quickly side will use their newly coined word "Betrayeus" to no end and cite articles and polls that coincide with this article in order to support their position.
If anything, it will only make the debate more heated. I don't think it has any chance of making anyone flip flop their position.
2007-09-12 12:43:05 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think Moveon.org got a little whap on the snout with a rolled up newspaper from previous sympathizers in the liberal camp. Lots of disavowing and a$$ covering yesterday. They still don't have a good sense of the strike zone with normal Americans.
2007-09-12 12:44:58 · answer #3 · answered by nileslad 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neither. He just said what was going on there. Both side can make a case from his report.
PS
I have meet the man. There is no way he would lie or change his story for his superiors.
2007-09-12 12:32:09 · answer #4 · answered by Chris 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I think the lack of respect and civility of that ad hurt the left. When it comes down to it, many people don't like the negative ads, and insulting one of our top military leaders in such a disrespectful way crossed the line in my opinion.
2007-09-12 12:32:15 · answer #5 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 9⤊ 0⤋
The general is not running for re-election and has nothing to gain or lose by what's in his report.
He gave his report to a group of people who have a lot to gain or lose based on what's in the report, --being re-elected-- and if it says good things, how can they blame this on George Bush???????
So,the credibility of congress slips even more/.
2007-09-12 12:41:19 · answer #6 · answered by TedEx 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yawn, how yesterday, bet you think you thought up that name yourself aye Einstein?
2007-09-12 12:28:39 · answer #7 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋