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.
Beth, I am still so angry over this I could just spit fire. I wanted to write a rebuttal and can’t find the words…but you summed up every feeling I have.
My now six year old grandson is Autistic…hi functioning, brilliant, yet he still has Autism. He announced the other day he was going to be a soldier when he is *big*. Midkid’s voice was shaking when she said, “well Z, you will be a soldier then, and the best soldier you can be. I am so proud of you “. At 6, he said: Hero’s are policemen, firemen and soldiers. Police help you, firemen save you and soldiers take care of everybody, because they have to watch the whole earth ” . I though how profound, coming from a little boy, in today’s political climate.
That whole ad implies that by allowing my grandson to be a soldier, his mom doesn’t care like Alex’s mom? What a freakin slap in the face.
Exactly. As if there is something WRONG with being a soldier or that the mother doesn’t care enough to stop it.
WHO will look after these ppl if they destroy our military? WHO will keep the wolves away so they can continue to live in denial and live their passive lives?
Why is it that they can’t understand that there is evil in the world and they are only free to behave and say the things they do because they live in this country and our military defends their rights to be complete idiots.
You Can’t Have Alex!: Moveon.org vs One Private Citizen…
Moveon.org has put out a political ad attacking John McCain on the Iraq War. Josh Schroeder, a private citizen, has responded to that ad. See both of the video ads below.
You Can’t Have Alex! – Video
The political ad above was put out by moveo…
…..”You can’t have him”.
MoveOn.org does has allot of nerve.
“blanks57″ a Canadjan eh, my “America’s Army” nickname, “don’t go there people”, and “witness” to 400 Taliban recent escape from a Kandahar prison, be “P.O’d”.
Who would gather the prisoners if Alex or Alexas won’t go because “You can’t”, have them?
Hopefully “we” won’t need “a hundred years” or MoveOn.org which I’m familiar with, to find out.
L feel tempted to cross the border and cast a vote when the time comes.
If I vote in St. Louise or Chicago I should get away with it, :>
HA Blanks on voting in Chicago or St. Louis – you certainly know where ‘dead people’ get their say in elections! lol
Its good to see you Blanks – its been a long time
Not My Wallet takes on Moveon.org…
Just yesterday I wrote about the political attack ad put out by moveon.org. You know the one, ‘Not Alex’. The ad is blatant scare tactics and implies that there is something intrinsically wrong with our military. Worse, it implies there is …
I think everyone is missing the point. Everyone except this mother in an identical situation: http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/18/john_mccain_meet_william_7204.php
Maybe you can’t have Alex, but you can take William Mr. McCain.
Liberal soccer mothers actually think that our nation’s blessed FREEDOMS over the last 232 years are… FREE? They would look wicked in a nice dark BURKA Beth. No more driving or self-employment or voting either under Sharia Law. Good thing for the men are FOUR WIVES per household? They even to swim in a seperate pool too. No more desperate housewives either. Beware of mercy killings like stoneing?
PS: Former inmate Mr. Gangsta Blanks in Barackoville has a mandatory urinalysis on Monday with his Probation & Parole officer! How’s Oprah?
That’s… a disgusting use of propaganda. Just makes me ill that the “two million members of moveon.org” are that mind numbingly stupid.
You’re all missing the point in your desire to see the worst in such groups as moveon.org. The point of the ad is that the mother doesn’t want her children to be offered as the sacrifice for a war that is not keeping “wolves at bay” or burkas off the shoulders of non-willing American women. Try to find a credible report that says the Iraq war was a necessary conflict in the War on Terror (e.g., Saddam hated Al-Qaeda and did not allow them safe harbor in his country–now the organization has several strongholds in country). So the woman is simply saying, “Look, you cannot count on families to offer their children up the more we learn this conflict was one of choice, not necessity.”
Adam – you are wrong. Where do you learn about the conflict? From move.org? If you learn about it from the soldiers on the ground you would have a different view of the necessity of the war.
The farther we have gotten from 9/11 the more we have heard from the weak and the cowardly.
Hey Adam:
“Saddam hated Al-Qaeda….”
Yeah!
But he hated Bush and the U.S. more.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”
By the way… 10 to one that “mother” is an actress and that is not her “son”
This just goes to show the selfishness of todays generation. They’ve had a life of an eternally good to great economy, money in their pockets, all because… well because… well because they are just “them”.
They don’t see themselves as lucky or blessed, they don’t see sacrifice as having anything to do with what makes their little world behave.
They are a bunch of selfish little jerks. If not your son, who’s? Why did my son volunteer to carry a rifle to protect the freedom of Alex? I don’t know. It probably has something to do with the way I raised him.
And buy the way, mom, It’s up to Alex whether or not he becomes a soldier. It’s an all volunteer military now a days.
I am a liberal, though not a soccer mom, and I never supported the war. However, both of my sons, raised in a liberal home, chose to enlist, one long before 9/11 and one after, in the Army, and in the Navy, because, in the words of my older son, they were raised to believe that the most honorable thing someone could was to serve their country, protect the weak and defend the rights that we enjoy that we so often take for granted. This is not a liberal or a conservative ideal, but an American ideal.
That being said, I have a large number of friends, supporters of the war from the beginning, who would not allow their kids to enlist – irony of ironies to me. They, like Alex’s mom and so many others, want and depend on someone else’s children to protect them.
How lucky they are that our children are not so selfish.
Kristol balsts MoveOn.Org Ad…
I’ve actually ignored MoveOn.org’s “Baby Alex” ad, and hadn’t thought to comment on it. After all, after being raised by his emasculating mother, lacking any strong male presence as a string of sex partners move in and out of baby-mama’s……
Gee, you read quite a bit into that ad didn’t you? What I saw was a woman/actress saying that she didn’t want her son being sent to Iraq. She was quite specific,she mentioned only Iraq, the country where we’re fighting a war based on lies that has nothing to do with our freedom or security. We are, however, fighting a necessary, just war in Afghanistan. She didn’t express any opinion on that one or on serving in the military. For all you know, she could be a veteran herself. Yes, right now we have a volunteer military, but all young males have to sign up for the selective service, it wouldn’t take long for the draft to be reinstated. Electing John McCain President could make that a reality.
Stop impugning the patriotism and motives of people who disagree with you and love America as much as you do!!!!
Beth congrats on the NYT citation – you’re doing an excellent job
John, perhaps you’re reading quite a bit into :”all young males have to sign up for the selective service, it wouldn’t take long for the draft to be reinstated. Electing John McCain President could make that a reality.” – just saying…If that’s really how you perceive reality then I’m shocked. No, really. I’m quite shocked that it’s now John McCain who will swoop in to take the baby Alexes of the world via the draft, and not the Great Satan GWB ( here’s a reality check – the war has been ongoing since 2003 and yet no draft! I know, just crazy, with a Repub in the oval office and all).
Oh, and BTW, dear John T. Allen – the Iraq War was not built on lies; you just choose to see it that way. As for injust or immoral and illegal (the Far Left War screed) – take it up with the congressional dems who supported the war in Iraq and former pres. Bill Clinton who unequivocally believed the same info the Bush administration was presented with in regards to Iraq.
John — oddly enough, the only folks proposing a reinstatement of the draft are liberal Democrats. Republicans continue to support an all-volunteer military that is meeting its recruitment and retention goals, despite liberal claims to the contrary.
To Adam and John T. Allen, the war was not based upon lies, and it is a myth that a secular Saddam would never work with Islamic terrorists.
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.”
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.
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.
Well said, Adrian.
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.
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.
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
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….
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.
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…
None of us are over there in Iraq. We get to type and be armchair quarterbacks from the comforts of our home or library about whats right and wrong.
If youre not personally there and its not your own child, then you dont know the heartache of 4000 plus mothers whose children will never come home.
Of course that was a dramatization to us who are obviously not heart broken and secretly happy we wont be going there….If you feel so strongly that war is necessary and now then they are still taking enlistments….Damn your excuses take your bon bons over there get suited up and SERVE THE COUNTRY YOU LOVE!
I am sure they will share their oil profits with you and your family when you get maimed. When you get back here and the country you served doesnt give a job,etc….Yeh America treats the war heros well….You get a flag when one of the family members dies…..Pretty cool exchange….right?
I’ve been out of political campaigns for over 35 years. That was the most distorted ad I have ever had the misfortune to view. You may have achieved an unwanted result, a galvanizing of the people who support our enlisted men & woman and to quote a popular movie “Hello boys, I’m back”.
“The farther we have gotten from 9/11 the more we have heard from the weak and the cowardly.”
Yeah, I hear that dipsh*t Bush almost every day on the radio. Remember, it’s
O: Operation
I: Iraqi
L: Liberation
Hey Slaughter –
Yeah, I hear that dipsh*t Bush almost every day on the radio. Remember, it’s
O: Operation
I: Iraqi
L: Liberation
So that would be why oil is so cheap right now, right?
Wordsmith said:
“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.”
I don’t know, Wordsmith, asking someone if we should have invaded Iraq is a pretty straightforward question. And over one-third of the military personnel answering felt comfortable with a simple “no.”
Wordsmith: You make a good point. It would not be proper for soldiers to desert every time they were sent to a war they disagreed with. There are some wars, though, that are so manifestly unjust that they do justify this behavior. I think it would have been best for Nazi soldiers to desert, for example. But I don’t think the Iraq war falls into that category, so I agree that soldiers who have enlisted already should keep to the terms of their contracts and not desert.
But what should ordinary citizens who oppose the war do? Not enlisting is a way of sending a message to the government. Let’s suppose that every eligible civilian chose not to enlist. Then, the armed forces would tell the president that there were no new soldiers coming, and this would force the president to end the war. I understand that you may reasonably disagree with me about the moral correctness of the Iraq war, but I’m curious if you think that this is a sensible position for someone who opposes the war to take.