General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

It strikes me that Moveon has fallen into hip-speak marketing manipulation tactics. Sadly, those tactics, however odious, work. Like renaming war as 'conflict'. In this era of apathy and info-overload, the snappier the catch-line, the more likely the message is to get attention.

I agree that it is wrong in this case, but it's not particularly surprising.

The word Betrayal in regards to a service person has pangs of Treason, and I think that's an unfair lob.

Considering that the Bush Administration has lobbed insinuations of treason [please note: I did NOT say that the administration made outright accusations of treason] at non-military citizens who simply disagreed, in a vocal and public manner, with administration policy, I can't bring myself to feel bad about a pre-emptive silly nickname that was based merely on the stroke of good luck of "Petraeus" rhyming with "betray us."

But GEN Petraeus is not part of the Bush Administration.

(eta: which is why I don't like it. but i'm done with work and off to the dr. so I'll see you all later.)

But GEN Petraeus is not part of the Bush Administration.

I know, and I apologize if I gave the impression that he is.

But it's not as though he's able to act independently of the White House, either.

I just meant....eh, you know what? Fuck it. I'm tired, it's just a silly rhyme-y nickname that made me giggle because I'm 12 and possibly treasonous.

It's my understanding Officers, especially ranking ones, can have difficulties in voicing differing opinions against the administration. My BiL, finally retired, USMC Gunnery Sgt, at one point was offered to mustang up to Lt. He refused, one of the reasons being, "If I wanna bitch about the idiot on Penn ave, I don't want a Court Martial about it".

But GEN Petraeus is not part of the Bush Administration.

I think that line's a lot blurrier than is healthy anymore. Not with the Armed Forces in general, but Petraeus, and some of the others who've been closely tied with them? I'm not sure how to articulate it, but I think Petraeus is not not part of the Administration.

wow, in the time it took to write my last comment, like 3 more popped up.

Sorry for opening a firestorm Bitches.

In an effort to change the topic....

--> LOOK ! WEATHER !

shit. It's Southern California here. There is no weather.

um. SEX! CORSETS! Ya! We are doing a show with a bunch of cute women in corsets! And..and...and.. o! and I ordered 500 condoms! (will it work? Think they are distracted?)

I mentioned a couple of years ago, when I was organizing the military law office, about the Lt. who wrote emails to his wife about his actual experience in Iraq. He has suffered mightily...just for telling the truth.

I think that line's a lot blurrier than is healthy anymore. Not with the Armed Forces in general, but Petraeus, and some of the others who've been closely tied with them? I'm not sure how to articulate it, but I think Petraeus is not not part of the Administration.

This administration has put a lot of work into breaking down the separation of powers. I don't think its much of a leap to believe they've aggressively blurred the lines between themselves and the armed forces as well.

I think the tone was set when prior to the Iraq invasion, a general gave an honest, accurate assessment of the number of troops required to occupy the country. His numbers were much higher than Rumsfeld thought would be necessary. The general was publicly ridiculed and essentially fired, which sent a strong message to the military on what would happen to you if you didn't give the administration what it wanted.