Moveon.org wants you to raise your sons to be wimps. Check out their attack ad on John McCain below.
Moveon.org Ad
This ad really got under my skin. I don’t know if that’s the reason moveon.org made the ad, to irritate people like me. I think they probably made the commercial to pull on the heart strings of all mothers out there and make it appear that John McCain wants to take their sons. These commercials that try to use emotion rather than reality to sway votes are just irritating.
I wonder about the actress (I doubt she’s really the mother of the baby because she’s obviously acting) saying that John McCain can’t have her son. Does that mean she’d rather her son live in a terrorist state or under the constant threat of acts of terrorism? Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world?
Actually, I can relate to what she’s saying. I can’t imagine my son being off in a foreign land being shot at by people who are trying to kill him. Its horrific to even contemplate. Its a reality that many of us have to live with day in and day out as our sons do their duty for the country. Its an unimaginable and untenable thing … to have your son ‘over there’ and to know that at any moment something horrible can happen. You don’t go for a second not knowing that. Not for a second for the entire time he’s deployed.
But what would this little actress, or moveon.org, have us do? As a mother, I have learned that I have to let my children grow up and make their choices in life, just as I made mine. I respect the choices my children have made and I support them 100%. I am proud of my son. His deployment changed him, but mostly in good ways. He is definitely a man now. He has a self-confidence and personal strength he never had before. That doesn’t mean I wanted him to go to Iraq. It just means that I understand that at some point a mother has to stand aside and allow her son to become a man.
I would rather do it than send my son to do it, but that’s not how it works. People like moveon.org would rather we surrender and appease than stand up to danger. By doing that, they put our sons in more danger.
Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere. This commercial makes me angry. What she is saying is that she is not willing to do her part. She’ll put us all in more danger to hide herself and her child in a corner. I love my son as much as she loves hers. I held him in my lap when he was a baby. I watched him take his first steps and go to school for the first time. I sat with him when he was sick and listened to him when he was confused. I waited in terror the first time he took the car out for a drive by himself.
The hardest thing I have ever done is spend 15 months knowing that he was in imminent danger half-way around the world and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.
This woman should get used to it. That’s what its like to raise kids.
See another view at Southern Sass on Crime.
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
It is sad to see the constant lie about the Iraq War being spread by the moveon crowd. The lie is that President Bush Lied - This has been proven false many times. You need to read things other than the moveon talking points. Take time to read the ENTIRE Senate Commission report (including the amendments), in which your tax dollars were spent to try to prove that President Bush lied, and you will find:
(U) Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates
(U) Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information. Intelligence assessments from the late I990s through early 2003 consistently stated that Iraq retained biological warfare agent and the capability to produce more.
(U) Conclusion 3: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information. Intelligence assessments, including the December 2000 ICA stated that Iraq had retained up to 100 metric tons of its chemical weapons stockpile. The October 2002 NIE provided a range of 100 to 500 metric tons of chemical weapons.
Conclusion 4: Statements by senior policymakers regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities were all substantiated by intelligence information.
(U) Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information
Conclusion 6: The Secretary of Defense’s statement that Iraqi WMD facilities were not all vulnerable to attack from the air was substantiated by available intelligence information
(U) Conclusion 7: Statements in the major speeches and additional statements analyzed regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence.
(U) Conclusion 8: Statements by the President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information
(U) Conclusion 9: The President’s suggestion that the Iraqi government was considering using UAVs to attack the United States was substantiated by intelligence judgments available at the time
(U) Conclusion 10: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information. The intelligence community reported regularly on Iraq’s safe harbor and financial support for Palestinian rejectionist groups, the Abu Nidal Organization, and others. The February 2002 NIE fully supported the claim that Iraq had, and would continue, to support terrorist groups.
(U) Conclusion 11: Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi’s presence in the country.
Conclusion 12: Statements by the President and Secretary Powell that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training were supported by the intelligence. Numerous intelligence assessments stated that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training and specifically training in poisons and gases.
(U) Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information.
Lets end with a quote from the Chairman of the Senate report:
“I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks and we should not minimize the risks we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. There has been some debate over how “imminent†a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.”
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Beth–not sure if you’re out to use an ad hominem attack there with the last bit of your post regarding my first one. I’d like to assume you’re not, otherwise you’re playing perfectly into the stereotype of the uneducated follower. As to your central claim, that soldiers on the ground help you determine how much the war was or was not necessary, I’d be helpful if you’d explain exactly how. In some ways, this is like arguing that ducks in a pond have the best idea how the pond fits into the overall ecology of the surrounding region.
And to the Enforcer, I understand how nice it would to be able to boil foreign policy down to tight phrases, but no evidence has been put forward to demonstrate the Saddam and Al-Qaeda, out of joint membership in the I-Hate-America Club, ever worked or would work together. Or that Saddam helped any other similar terrorist organizations.
And all of this is corollary to the central argument about that dumb MoveOn ad. I think it’s ridiculous because it panders to emotionally-based lines of argument. That said, I posted here originally simply to try and help you all understand that your interpretation seems to be off and in broadcasting your misinterpretation of the ad (as dumb an ad as it may be) so loudly, you’re doing yourselves a disservice.
As a final note, I’d also like to add that I’m disheartened by the seeming intolerance to non-orthodox opinions on this thread. Seems to me your brave children, and my brother, serve our country precisely to protect such an exchange of opinion.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I think the ad’s message is ambiguous. One the one hand, it could be interpreted in just the way Beth’s post described: discouraging military service and implying that mothers who care about their children don’t want them to enlist.
But here’s another interpretation. Three points:
a) Alex’s life (should he choose not to enlist) may involve patriotic service and productivity (not “a life of complete narcissism”).
b) The mother may think that the Iraq war does not serve American interests, and therefore that it is not helping “keep the wolves at bay.”
c) If the U.S. was in a war that grown-up Alex thought was just and necessary, then maybe he would enlist! And his mother–if she also thought that this hypothetical war were just and necessary–might support his decision, despite her concern for his safety.
So I think that the ad can be read as being anti-military, unpatriotic, and unrealistic; but it can also be read in more reasonable way. The most important information that is left out is Alex’s mom’s reason for not wanting him to serve. Is it because she wants other people’s sons to fight instead of Alex, or is it because she does not support the Iraq war?
I think all of us are filling in the missing information differently.
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Well said, Adrian.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I think the real message MoveOn is sending is that of a citizen telling a future President, “you can’t have him”.
Those words are a statement of themselves.
“Alex” should be ‘of age’ to join or be conscripted in to the military.
Mom would have no say literally and for Moveon.org to put in that Mom’s words “you cant have him” says more about Moveon.org than any thing about War or “children”.
Saddam Hussien was a Eerrorist supporter, maybe not of al Quieda specifically but of Yasser Arafat and Yasser Arafat was a (T)errorist and I would add “the Mother of all Terrorists”.
Bin Laden is a wannabe “piker” compared to Arrafat.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Good to be back thanx beth if i can call u that and
since the smiley is lost on me.
Hyper when it comes to “Liberals” my apology to any “Southern friends” and I bite my lip to keep from saying allot of things likely a result of living in this, bite, backward land.
MoveOn.org is a terrorist my friends. I have never heard such crap except from some of the hyper left here in Canada.
Some that might support such efforts as “partial birth” abortion and “GAI” - you haven’t heard of “GAI”, yet, my “young American” friend.
Oh the ‘Liberal American’ you think you know but some may know even more than you.
John Kerry would have been crowned a king had he run for office in this country.
Maybe the Swifty’s gave you MoveOn.org,in a manner of speaking,but this country may have given you G.A.I. and that doesn’t stand for Good American Ingenuity.
Canada has a god too it’s called “The Public Trough” and Liberal’s P’own it.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
beth said:
“If you learn about it from the soldiers on the ground you would have a different view of the necessity of the war.”
Actually Beth, somebody did ask the soldiers who are or have been on the ground, and less than half think the war was necessary. Over a third don’t think we should have gone to Iraq at all.
Military Times poll
June 24th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Adam wrote:
Adam, no disrespect or vitriol intended here. Just honest disagreement. Earlier, I linked to my post which itself links to information regarding the Pentagon-funded Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism, which examines some of the documents in the HARMONY Database. I strongly urge you to check it out, along with the relevant links in my post.
As for Adrian’s comment, it gets me thinking how there are those who aren’t anti-war, just anti-THIS-war.
The problem with this sort of mentality, that you can simply choose and pick which wars you wish to fight in and believe in as an enlisted soldier, would be disastrous.
People insert adjectives like “illegal” and “lied into” when referring to the Iraq war, as if they are automatic givens. But they are arguable opinions. And if they are opinions that are actually false yet held to be true by soldiers…and those soldiers act upon such opinions in an unprofessional way….
June 24th, 2008 at 2:02 am
zuzu wrote:
According to the poll conducted, 46.1% say “yes” when asked in question 9, should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq, while 34.2% say no.
Question 19 is problematic, as there’s no way to conclude motive for answering the question. I support the decision to remove Saddam from power, but depending on how I decide to read the question, I could answer either way.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Masculinity moves on [Darleen Click]…
A perfect illustration of how the Left feels about the American military is the 30 second YouTube jewel from Moveon.org called Not Alex. A young, uncombed actress/mom bounces a baby on her knee and says:
“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s…