
Tennis lovers saddened by the conclusion of the U.S. Open Sunday should take heart, for a great match is being waged in the blogosphere between editors at Salon and NewsBusters.
Initially at issue was whether or not "CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric has become a shill for the Bush administration and the war in Iraq as avowed by Salon editor-in-chief Joan Walsh on Sunday.
As set two got under way, the point of contention was whether or not Walsh was in bed with MoveOn?
Not surprisingly, Walsh doesn't think so (emphasis added throughout):
Editor Noel Sheppard swept aside my criticism of MoveOn; instead he takes me to task for highlighting a video compilation the group did of Katie Couric's (not so) greatest hits from her Iraq trip. It was a terrific video, the kind of fact-based critique the group is known for, and I said so. (I also said I didn't think the Petraeus name-calling was up to its standards. Twice.)
Criticism of MoveOn? Is this what Walsh thinks is criticism (emphasis added):
MoveOn did a great video summary of Couric's Iraq trip, with close attention to detail, which also distinguished its ad in the New York Times (although it was marred, in my opinion, by the right-baiting play on Petraeus as "Betray us").
I don't know, Joan. Words like "great," "close attention to detail," and "distinguished" aren't what I normally consider criticisms. Do you?
Sure, there's that little bit in there about "Betray us" marring things a tad, but doesn't that read as somewhat of an afterthought subsequent to three superlatives?
Furthermore, in your posting later on Tuesday, you wrote (emphasis added):
MoveOn's Nita Chaudhary also compared Petraeus with Powell in defending the group's tough language about the general in the Monday ad. "Some Democrats were uncomfortable with such strong language, and Republicans attacked MoveOn," Chaudhary wrote in a letter to members Tuesday morning. "We're sure if we'd run an ad debunking Colin Powell's testimony in 2003, they would have done the same thing -- but sometimes it's important to set the facts straight." I'm on record as someone who wasn't crazy about the schoolyard play on Petraeus' name, but Chaudhary's right about the larger point. Overall, the deference to Petraeus and ambassador Ryan Crocker has been vexing.
Forgive me, Joan, but though you again pointed out how you weren't "crazy about the schoolyard play on Petraeus' name," you're still using a MoveOn representative's words to support both it and your views. In fact, you even stated "but Chaudhary's right about the larger point."
Once again, this was hardly a criticism.
As such, your apparent disagreement with "Betray Us" by no means mitigates your continued use of MoveOn to buttress your position. Though you might not like the breath emanating from the person snoring next to you, he still appears to be your bedmate despite Wednesday's following claim:
That means I'm "in bed with MoveOn." Really? All of them? There's a lot of them. And why me? Newsbusters criticized Frank Rich for criticizing Couric (whom they used to hate until she did her Petraeus-eye view). Somehow male Couric critics and male MoveOn fans -- lefty blogosphere skeptic Matt Bai loves MoveOn -- aren't "in bed" with the group. Try to find some new ways to say I'm too nice to MoveOn, OK, Noel? My daughter's kind of alarmed.
Sorry to cause your daughter alarm, Joan, but how do you think Gen. Petraeus's family feels about the way he's been dragged through the mud just for having the audacity to serve his country all his adult life?
Regardless, give her a kiss for me, and tell her that all appears fair in love and war.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
That means I'm "in bed with
September 12, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Jack BauerThat means I'm "in bed with MoveOn." Really? All of them?
Of course not, now you're just being silly, dear.
Besides that that would be a physical impossibility, even for Catherine the Great. And Joan ain't that great.
Let's settle for in bed with George Soros.
Never trust a man whose last name is a palindrome.
That means I'm "in bed with
September 12, 2007 - 18:51 ET by Chris NormanThat means I'm "in bed with MoveOn." Really? All of them?
Jack,
Sounds like this woman went to the "Balboa School of Semantical Hair Splitting".
Chris... if that's her
September 12, 2007 - 18:57 ET by Jack BauerChris... if that's her wittiest response she should stick to obits.
Jack, It was really one
September 12, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Chris NormanJack,
It was really one of those "I know you are, but what am I?" type of rejoinders. Really, really, lame - really.
That means I'm "in bed
September 13, 2007 - 13:42 ET by taznarI note that Noel was too much of a gentleman to answer that one.
One flippant response begets another.
Another lovely little lefty
September 12, 2007 - 17:43 ET by fitzfongAnother lovely little lefty parlour trick...exploiting your own child by bringing her into the debate. As if Joan Walsh allowed her impressionable little daughter to avert her eyes from Daily Kos and MorOn.org long enough to read the Noel Sheppard post.
Aint that the truth, good
September 12, 2007 - 19:14 ET by general companyAint that the truth, good grief. This is how they explain, justify, and distract from all of their bad behavior.
Before the General's report,
September 12, 2007 - 17:51 ET by rbosqueBefore the General's report, the word on the street these past weeks has been positive for the surge. So it came as no surprise the left would start to demonize the good General before his appearance on the Hill, knowing full well the report was a positive one for the Administration and our troops. It's such arm-chair "generals" that reveal just how "out of their minds" Move-On.Org is. My two sons and brother (Navy LCDR) served there and they came back encouraged with our progress. I would take theirs and the General's word for it.
Walsh
September 12, 2007 - 18:10 ET by pocomocoWalsh is, of course, in bed with MoveOn. Why else would she be trying to pull the covers over her head by using such a lame response?
"Words like "great," "close
September 12, 2007 - 18:52 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"Words like "great," "close attention to detail," and "distinguished" aren't what I normally consider criticisms. Do you?"
Those words and phrases are the types of language commonly found in citations for military decorations/medals. Hardly critical language by any measure.
"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps
All except for that little 'betray us' thing?
September 12, 2007 - 19:10 ET by KC MulvilleBut the substance was right? The MoveOn ad was not factually correct. If you can stomach it, go to MoveOn and check out their 'substantiation' for their accusations. Most of the rebuttals come from clearly left-leaning media reports. In fact, one of them comes from Paul Krugman, whose article can hardly be described as an independent view of the facts. When the left-leaning media relies on other left-leaning media as 'authorities,' nothing is substantiated.
They do cite the NIE, GAO report, and Jones report. However, MoveOn says that all three reports have shown that the surge has failed. They plainly haven't. One might argue that those three reports refuse to paint a rosy scenario; but then, Crocker and Petraeus aren't painting one, either. All the reports, Petraeus' included, stress how cautious they are about the conclusions. In fact, almost everything Crocker and Petraeus say is repeated in the three reports. So how can MoveOn claim that the reports "show" anything?
And even if they did, it would amount to nothing more than one part of government reaching a different conclusion than another part. It would be no different that saying that an FBI prediction disagrees with a CIA prediction. But MoveOn took that disagreement as 'substantiation' that Petraeus is a traitor. That's not factually correct. That proves nothing.
Joan's problem is not just
September 12, 2007 - 20:52 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Joan's problem is not just you Noel, it's what you and your collegues do; call out these frauds for what they are.
When they are called to task for truth bending, quote twisting or their favorite tact, the out & out lie, these sanctimonious <fill in the blank> get all in a bunch.
Sorry Joanie, yours is not the only opinion that gets out there anymore. As for bringing your child into it, well that just speaks for your complete lack of character. Good job Noel.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
MoveOn did a great video
September 12, 2007 - 21:04 ET by dscottMoveOn did a great video summary of Couric's Iraq trip, with close attention to detail, which also distinguished its ad in the New York Times
Yes, Joan, you're a typical liberal using the fake but true story line of Moveon.org, you have done Salon.com a disservice by pulling them into your lack of journalistic ethics by your association. How do you expect us to take Salon.com seriously when you cite material from such an organization?
dscott's postulate: The degree to which someone exaggerates or deceives is inversely proportional to the merit of the advocated position.
Salon? What's That?
September 12, 2007 - 21:32 ET by Del DolemonteSalon is run by the guy whose brother played a congenital liar on "Leave it to Beaver" back in 1960. Said brother has since become a hack for PBS's "Frontline".
http://en.wikipedia....
I'm sure the intellectual dishonesty runs in the family...
Eddie Haskell
September 12, 2007 - 21:41 ET by Conservative_in_mass.nice job Del...
I knew Eddie Haskell was a Lib! http://www.tvland.com/shows/litbeaver/character5.jhtml
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Mitch McConnell- MoveOn and Pelosi and Reid daily contact
September 13, 2007 - 00:05 ET by SportPoliticsMitch McConnell (R) testifies on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that MoveOn is in DAILY contact with the stafs of Pelosi and Reid, and that they have a STANDARD monthly meeting IN PERSON.
So, daily staff contacts, and monthly meeting with MOVEON, who claims to own the Democratic Party.
Hear the testimony here, and his explanation of why he is calling for the Democrats to disown and renounce the moveon ad:
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5
Posted a comment last night
September 13, 2007 - 00:21 ET by RESTLESS 1Posted a comment last night about George Pataki's appearance on "Hannity and Colmes". He got into the Moron.org ad with alan and alan stated that he was sure dem candidates rejected the ad. Pataki shot back by saying that the dem candidates should also reject Moveon's campaign funding as well. He left alan speechless with that comment. Republicans should be calling for all dems to reject or return all campaign contributions generated by or from moveon.org.
If the shoe fits??
September 13, 2007 - 01:10 ET by BigB"That means I'm "in bed with MoveOn." Really? All of them? There's a lot of them. And why me?"
Well, it's not like yer an overpaid, snooty, out-of-touch, blithering, LibTard Whor.........whoa...
better not go there....
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....