The MoveOn.org ad controversy began when the U.S.
anti-warliberaladvocacy groupMoveOn.org published a full-page ad in The New York Times on September 10, 2007, accusing General
David H. Petraeus of "
cooking the books for the
White House". The
ad also labeled him "General Betray Us".[1] The organization created the ad in response to Petraeus'
Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq. MoveOn hosted pages on its website about the ad and their reasons behind it from 2007 to June 23, 2010. On June 23, 2010, after President Obama nominated General Petraeus to be the new top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan (taking over the position from retiring General
Stanley McChrystal), MoveOn erased these webpages and any reference to them from its website.[2]
The group later cited the
GAO,[4]NIE,[5] and Jones[6] reports published for
Congress around the same time as Petraeus' report. USA Today compared the four reports' findings.[7]The New York Times also did so.[8] The group referred to an
Associated Press study finding that the civilian death toll in
August 2007 was the second highest since the surge began. The study found as well that "monthly death tolls began to decline after the
new security plan was launched" and that "Deaths went down in
Baghdad during August".[9] The group also referred to a Los Angeles Times article stating that "the U.S. troop increase has had little effect."[10]
"Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the
New York Times,
the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by
car bombs don’t count."
"According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there."
The group later cited an
Associated Press story stating that "This year’s U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in
Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from
sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago." The story also stated that "The U.S. military did not get all the additional American forces into Iraq until June 15, so it would be premature to draw a final statistical picture of the effect of the added troops."[14] The group also cited an
NPR article quoting former
ArmyColonelDoug MacGregor calling Petraeus' statistics "an illusion created by the
White House". The article concluded by stating that "So is the surge working? The short answer is that no one can know for certain because statistics only tell a small part of the story."[15]
"We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been
ethnically cleansed."
The group later cited a Newsweek story stating that "When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in
insurgent attacks in
Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the
Shiitemilitias' cleansing of
Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won."[16]
The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" stated that the General's report of "sharply declining Iraqi casualty rates is certainly open to analysis, debate, and challenge" but that "MoveOn.org does not provide adequate factual support for its larger assertion that Petraeus is 'constantly at war with the facts' and is 'cooking the books' for the White House".[19]
Controversies
Payment controversy
The New York Times initially charged
MoveOn.org $65,000 for the ad using its "standby rate." The Washington Post has stated that the full one-time rate is $142,000 for an ad receiving guaranteed placement on a specific day.[20]Timespublic editor and
Pulitzer Prize-winner
Clark Hoyt later stated in an
editorial that the organization was mistakenly charged a rate to which it was not entitled under the newspaper's policies.[21] Moveon.org repaid the difference to the Times on September 25, 2007.[22]The New York Post quoted a Timespublic relations director saying the full one-time rate was $182,000, an additional $40,000 above what has been paid back.[23]
Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communication at the Times, said she could not discuss specific advertisers, but said the rate for a special advocacy, full-page, black and white, standby ad is $64,575. At that rate, an advertiser can request that an ad run on a specific date, but cannot be guaranteed such placement.[24]
ConservativecolumnistGeorge Will argued that "the paper made a huge and patently illegal contribution to MoveOn.org's issue advocacy ad." He also stated that "The Times' performance in this matter confirms an axiom: There can be unseemly exposure of mind as well as of body."[25]
Copyright controversy
Google and MoveOn were accused of selective adherence to trademark law for removing ads from
Google Adwords for Maine Senator
Susan Collins, citing infringement of MoveOn trademarks.[26][27]Wired stated on October 15, 2007 that the "left-leaning political advocacy group, MoveOn.org, is backing down" and will allow Google to show the ads. "We don't want to support a policy that denies people freedom of expression," Moveon.org communications director Jennifer Lindenauer said.[28]
Former President
Bill Clinton criticized what he called the "disingenuous" "feigned outrage" of the Republicans on
CNN'sThe Situation Room.[38]MinnesotaSenatorial candidateAl Franken argued in a Star Tribune editorial "It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end."[39]
LinguistGeorge Lakoff argued that the "ad has raised vital questions that need a thorough and open discussion. The ad worked brilliantly to reveal, via its framing, an essential but previously hidden truth: the Bush Administration and its active supporters have betrayed the trust of the troops and the American people."[40]LiberalbloggerArianna Huffington argued that "Was the MoveOn ad blunt? Yes. Did it go for the
jugular? No doubt. But while the way it chose to make its points can be debated, the accuracy of those points cannot."[41]Anti-war activist and
Congressional candidateCindy Sheehan stated that "I have often been critical of MoveOn.org, basically because I feel, for the most part that they support Democrats to the detriment of democracy... The occupation of Iraq is a disaster and I applaud MoveOn for moving a little closer to the true '
anti-war' movement and encourage them to come with us farther."[42]
Council of Foreign Relations fellow
Peter Beinart argued that "It is terribly unfortunate that MoveOn.org is essentially calling Petraeus a Republican hack, but it’s the logical result of the position the
Bush administration has put him in." Fellow
Max Boot accused Moveon.org of "desperate attempts to besmirch one of the most admired soldiers in the entire American armed forces" and argued that the ad will "backfire".[43]
Pete Hegseth, an Iraq War veteran and executive director of
Vets for Freedom, published an article in the Weekly Standard calling the ad "utterly shameful." He argued that "It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do."[44]Time magazine
bloggerJoe Klein posted that "It is no small thing to accuse a military man of betraying his country. It is also palpably untrue in this case. Whoever cooked up this ad is guilty of a disgraceful act of malicious
puerility." He also posted that "This is a distraction from the main event."[45]
MoveOn.org stood by their ad, stating that the General "offered a twisted version of the truth designed to support prolonging the war" and that "the public needs to know that Petraeus is neither objective nor trustworthy when it comes to assessing progress in Iraq". The organization also stated that the ad had been targeted by a "concerted right-wing
smear campaign".[46]The Politico has stated that Moveon.org "welcomes the controversy." Eli Pariser has said, "Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, even if it’s a respected general".[47] They have since deleted all reference to the ad from their web site.
Legislative response
On September 20, the Senate passed an amendment by
RepublicanJohn Cornyn of
Texas designed to "strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus". All 49 Republican Senators and 22 Democratic Senators voted in support.[48][49]Democratic Presidential candidatesHillary Clinton and
Chris Dodd voted against the amendment while
Barack Obama and
Joseph Biden did not vote.[50] Obama issued a statement calling the resolution, put forward by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, "a stunt. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against these empty politics."[50] The
House passed an amendment to a continuing budget resolution which condemned the ad "in the strongest terms" by a 341–79 vote on September 26.[51][52][53]
The Washington Post wrote on September 20 that "Democrats blamed the group
MoveOn.org for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war".[58] Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, stated that "It is unconscionable and outrageous that instead of doing the people's work and ending this war, Congress chooses meaningless and distracting gestures.[59]
Popular response
A
Rasmussen Reports survey found that 23% of Americans approved of the ad while 58% disapproved.[60]The Economist stated on September 27 that "the group had raised $500,000 the day the Senate voted, its biggest one-day fundraising total all year. Over four days, in the midst of the row, it took in $1.6m[illion]."[61]
MoveOn hosted pages on its website about the ad and their reasons behind it from 2007 to June 23, 2010. On June 23, 2010, MoveOn erased these webpages and any reference to them from its website. The change took place in the aftermath of President Obama's nomination of Petraeus to be the new top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan upon General
Stanley McChrystal's retirement. Commentator Jon Bershad of
Mediaite stated, "Since MoveOn is an advocacy group with no claims to unbiased content, there’s nothing unethical about scrubbing the site. However, it is pretty darn funny imagining them hastily running to their computers in the aftermath of Obama’s announcement"[2]
^"Archived copy"(PDF). Archived from
the original(PDF) on October 4, 2007. Retrieved September 29, 2007.{{
cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
link)