It wasn't an ad in The New York Times. See the difference? Ads are worthy of Congressional time and Congressional debate and Congressional condemnation. Ads affect people's perceptions and beliefs -- as is shown by numerous academic studies.

Opinion pieces, such as Hunt's on Fox (hmmm, interesting convergence, but never mind), have no such effect, as is shown by all the endless prattle from the WaPo's ever-wrong Fred Hiatt. Or even better, the WaPo's Richard Cohen.

So they're really not the same thing at all, Glenn.

Ads=Affect perceptions and beliefs.

Opinion pieces=Enh?

Fox and their legions of goons have no fear of repercussions since the mainstream media by and large gives them a pass.

They, The Media, are part and parcel of the same corrupt corporate enterprise where the dollar is almighty and the truth is bought and sold.

The right controls the media as the republicans control congress,

if they can't buy them off they use intimidation and fear with masterly precision that stops serious debate in its tracks.

Need there be any more doubt after the MOve oN censure...

Have you ever grown Mong tomatos? I get my seeds from Underwood gardens,

http://underwoodgardens.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/452

Certified OG 90 days Indeterminate Sturdy plants full of 2 - 3 lb. tomatoes are an amazing sight. Very meaty, true-red fruits have small seed cavities and a mellow, sweet, fruity flavor. Mong could be short for Humongous as this is the largest tomato we have ever seen that hasn’t been specially treated to achieve its size.

Mong is my maiden name. Mayo Underwood is a lovely lady who was quite generous in sharing the story of this tomato with me. We were able to establish that the plant, as part of its journey to them, had passed through Pennsylvania, which is where my family is from. So I like to think that this is a tomato that my great-great-grandfather may have grown years ago in his greenhouse and fields.

Several commenters appear to be of the opinion that we should not stoop to the level of our opponents and should instead take the high road. I happen to agree. We should refrain from random killing. We should refrain from imprisoning people and subjecting them to sexual humiliation and waterboarding. We should refrain from gathering databases of our opponents purchasing habits and trying to correlate them with their wiretapped phone conversations. As long as we refrain from these activities, we are indeed taking the high road.

Refraining from calling the people who engage in these activities rude names however is not taking the high road. It's rolling over and playing dead.

Have you ever grown Mong tomatos?

__________________________________________________________________

Less warmongering, more tomatoMongering!

I would not be suprised if they have been generally "antiprosecution" on general principles ... before and including Abu Ghraib ... which surprising numbers of people of their political persuasion considered not only business as usual ... but part of a justified "mission" ... no "bad apples" for this crowd, everyone's a hero.

They can't blame Bush... and they aren't going to blame the children of their viewers ... that leaves "management"

my only point, is that this likely is not some sort of "change of heart" for Fox News and armchair patriots ... the soldiers who cooperated with the prosecution of Calley and the soldier who turned in the Abu Ghraib disk were menaced and threatened and ostracised by their former peers in SERIOUS fashion as traitors and worse. I gather the Haditha prosecution is considered by them to be unfair.

Less warmongering, more tomatoMongering!

Now I'm hungry too. Time to slice some 'maters with sweet onion, garlic, basil, some balsamic vinegar and olive oil!

Congress can condemn anything it wants

What Congress can't do is try to stop free speech. The Constitution doesn't say that the government won't criticize something. It says that the government won't censor it.

You seem to be under the impression that someone has argued that the MoveOn condemnation is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. Why else would you be making this point? Who has argued this?

It really, really pisses me off that we are still focused on a newspaper ad and the right-wing reaction to it. It's typical, though. The right wing wanted to distract us from the content of Petraeus's report, and they succeeded.

Right. And if only John Kerry had kept ignoring those Swiftboat attacks, they would have just gone away, harmless.

And if only John Edwards had ignored those haircut attacks, they would have gone away, harmless.

And if only Al Gore had ignored all the stuff about Love Story and inventing the Internet, they would have all gone away harmless.

Absolutely - the lesson of the last 10 years is that right-wing-noise-machine smears spread by the media should just be ignored, because that way, they just go away, harmless.

Just like President John Kerry said they would.

First of all, Che Pasa just plagiarized my comment about the utter incongruity of Glenn's comparison of the Moveon ad with Col. Hunt's article. See page 2 of these comments.

Second of all I missed a chance to comment on Glenn's article on the supposed "revolt" of the generals against military action in Iran. I don't put much credence in Dan-Rather-wannabbee Dana Priest, but if she isn't just blowing smoke out of her tailpipe, then any such "generals" would be dangerous traitors and should be court-martialled forthwith.

Thirdly, Dan Senor has an excellent article about the nexus between Iran and worldwide terrorism here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010671

I go to the local VA hospital a lot. I go to my local Veterans Service Center a lot. I see what has been chewed up and spit out by the Flag-Wavers. Sometimes, it's almost more than I can bear without breaking down.

But there is a line somewhere to the left of center where I can't cross with some of my fellow progressives. I believe a military force is necessary for our country. I believe that there really are some things worth fighting and dying for. I believe that in spite of this criminal, amoral bunch of assholes we have in the Neo-Con movement and the White House and Congress right now, the United States has real enemies and we need to protect our people and our vital interests. This belief of mine is anathema to some on the left. I expect the ridicule and accept it.

There's another place I visit besides the VMAC and the VSC, although less frequently. It's an active military base with a PX I am allowed to use.

When I drive up to the main gate I see three or four young soldiers who look like kids to me. They are barely old enough to shave. They are carrying locked and loaded M-16 rifles and their cammo BDUs and boots are "strack." They call me "sir." As they check my I.D. and wave me through, I have to remember to not bring my right hand up to my forehead and issue them a salute as I once did so many years ago. I'm a civilian to them now. But they are a part of me as as my skin is part of me.

As I pass through some of the buildings on post, I see some of the best people America has, doing jobs with all their hearts. I saw a young female sentry dog handler with her Belgian malinois standing her post. The look on her face is no nonsense. She is on guard duty. That M-16 and that dog mean business. Her long hair wound up in a bun neat and tight. Her uniform, ready to pass any inspection. And when I see things like this my heart bursts with pride and I'm slightly overwhelmed. I am grateful for them and their service. I am so glad that they are there, doing what they do.

That's what I see when I look at our military. And although there are some people in the military who should not be there, the majority of them are the finest this nation has ever produced and I can't let anybody tear them down without a response.

There are a lot of generals in the services who came up through the ranks. All that "fruit salad" you see on the left breast pocket of their dress uniform reads like a resume to others who are in, or who once served in the military. That stuff means nothing to civilians. Some laugh at it. Some find it pompous. But it's just an anachronistic leftover from a different time that still has a purpose.

Gen. Petraeus allowed himself to be used. That's his shame to bear. He wasn't the first and he won't be the last that this Bush administration has abused and tried to co-opt and compromise. But did he "betray us"? Personally, I don't think so.