*shrug* Doesn't bother me. Ambivilent about the war as I am, my heat's against the reckless fools who do things like hire inexperienced kids to handle rebuilding efforts, let ideology trump reality, and not get the armor upgrades out as fast as they can or try and cut survivor's benefits. Free speech is free speach, the more the better.

Now, I could also mention (with some research) several liberal-type ads relating to health care that NEVER EVEN MADE IT TO TELEVISION...At least yours were aired, and you're kvetching because some people disagree with it? Granted Melendez has gone too far demanding they be pulled, but if you're so fired up about free speach lets see a post next time we hear about a liberal group who can't even get their material on the air - and no dodging behind station's rights to make business decisions, they're public airwaves after all.

Oh, my.

"Now, I could also mention (with some research) several liberal-type ads relating to health care that NEVER EVEN MADE IT TO TELEVISION"

And the GOP was involved with this exactly how?

"...At least yours were aired, and you're kvetching because some people disagree with it?"

They were aired at two stations - and the DFL has launched a letter-writing campaign to shut the ads down.

My question: Why?

What do they find so threatening?

I forget. Has the Minnesota DFL surrendered to Al-Qaeda or is it just collaborating?

I think some of the anger to this ad is the statment that the reason we are in Iraq is to fight Al-Qaeda there, instead of on US soil. Color me confused, but didnt' we go to Iraq over WMD?

"didnt' we go to Iraq over WMD?"

No. As noted in that conservative tool "The New Yorker" about three years ago, the Administration had four reasons to go into Iraq; Repeated defiance of UN Resolutions, Human Rights abuses, WMD and links to terrorism (not necessarily 9/11).

I'm pretty convinced that had we found WMD, BUT Iraq had turned out to be a human-rights paradise, the media and the left (pardon the redundancy) wouldn't say a word about WMD, but the trope would have changed to "Didn't we into Iraq over Human Rights? Hmmm?"

I mean, if even "The New Yorker got it...

There are plenty of "other" reasons we went to war, but what did the administration publically state as the reason we went to war?

But back to the issue, I am offended by the ads b/c of the statment that we are in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda. Maybe that is what this mess has morphed into, but that isn't the publically stated reason we are there.

Fulcrum, the ads do not say we are in Iraq to fight al Qaeda, they say we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. It's a fine distinction, but the Left aren't the only ones that can do nuance. Then they say we'd rather fight them there than here. That's a point that's hard to argue.

Fulcrum wrote:
"I think some of the anger to this ad is the statment that the reason we are in Iraq is to fight Al-Qaeda there, instead of on US soil. Color me confused, but didnt' we go to Iraq over WMD?"
Anger over an ad should not lead to a desire to use whatever power you have to quash it. The fact that the DFL thought the best response was to kill the ad, rather than respond with an ad campaign of their own, says a lot about how they view free speech when it comes from a point of view antogonistic to their own.
The joint resolution that authorized the war (http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686) prominently mentions justifications other than WMD. By the DFL's standards, shouldn't any ad which claims that WMD's were the only reason for going into Iraq be branded a lie?

I cannot understand how the TV station gets away with not running the add based upon the adds comments that the MSM is not covering all sides of the war in Iraq.

How shallow.

There should be a penalty for this sort of action.

I cannot understand how the TV station gets away with not running the add based upon the adds comments that the MSM is not covering all sides of the war in Iraq.

How shallow.

There should be a penalty for this sort of action.

I cannot understand how the TV station gets away with not running the add based upon the adds comments that the MSM is not covering all sides of the war in Iraq.

How shallow.

There should be a penalty for this sort of action.

"There are plenty of "other" reasons we went to war, but what did the administration publically state as the reason we went to war? "

All four.

They leaned hardest on WMD - understandable, I think, given that none of the other three reasons threatened to obliterate Tel Aviv or render Midtown Manhattan uninhabitable for thousands of years. Some call that a political mistake. Enh.

But in Bush's request for the authorization, he used all three grounds, quite clearly.

The left's chosen to ignore that fact, of course, but it's the truth.

Terry-thanks for the link.

kermit-those ads are quite deceptive i must say, but i think you made a good point about the nuance of the ad and what they are really saying.

If MN was a red state with Republican domination of local, state and national elected positions and a big Republican advantage in fund raising ability, I could almost -- almost, but still not fully -- understand the effort by the DFL to get the ads pulled. They could use the old "we don't have the resources to get our message out in the same way" whine they like to use on a national level. However, the DFL in MN has more than enough wherewithal to run countering ads
So why don't they? Because those ads would have to support the alternative view: That Saddam should still be in power, and that Iraq -- despite what actual Iraqis say -- is worse off today than 4 years ago. The DFL doesn't want to have to say this because,
1) They know deep down that it is nonsense
2) This sounds coincidentally like exactly what our enemies want to hear, and while they are happy to spout the AQ party line on blogs and in the coffee houses, they feel squidgy about spouting it in public for some strange reason
3) They would rather sit back and let the MSM say it for them.
Bottom line, they want the ads off the air because the don't want to have to air ads with the opposing viewpoint, no matter how deeply held on their part.

"Bottom line, they want the ads off the air because the don't want to have to air ads with the opposing viewpoint, no matter how deeply held on their part."

And why would that be, exactly?

They KNOW that MAINSTREAM america is not in agreement with them. But their blindered view lets them think "mainstream"= the west coast, the Boston/NYC/Philadelphia/DC metropolis, and Minneapolis. Too bad they can't see that this view keeps losing them electoral percentages.

Well, no that isn't too bad, I guess. Keep on keepin on, donkeys.

"Bottom line, they want the ads off the air because the don't want to have to air ads with the opposing viewpoint, no matter how deeply held on their part."

Ads? They don't need no stinkin' ads as long as the current knuckledraggers keep on tragically mishandling this conflict.

"They KNOW that MAINSTREAM america is not in agreement with them."

If by "MAINSTREAM" you mean the unwashed hordes who touch themselves every time they hear Michael Medved's voice then you'd better rethink your definition of that term. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The DFL doesn't want to stop the ads; they're just drawing attention to the stupid things.

MITCH,

YOUR PHONE # FOR A BEER!! WORK WITH ME BUDDY!

Chris

Why, yes Tim. That's exactly what he meant. How perceptive of you. "The DFL doesnt want to stop the ads; they're just drawing attention to the stupid things" Interesting approach. So when they say "we demand the ads be pulled" what you hear is "run the ads, but here are what we consider stupid things". Got it. I have a feeling there are a lot of words that dont mean what you think they mean.

"Ads? They don't need no stinkin' ads as long as the current knuckledraggers keep on tragically mishandling this conflict."

Read "Kos" much?

You guys are the knuckle-draggers. We see it in Congress, we see it in the media, we see it in this comment section.

"If by "MAINSTREAM" you mean the unwashed hordes who touch themselves every time they hear Michael Medved's voice then you'd better rethink your definition of that term. I do not think that word means what you think it means."

I bet when you heard the news of the bombing at the mosque, you broke out the hand lotion and the kleenex and stroked yourself to eight seconds of pure ecstasy.

"The DFL doesn't want to stop the ads; they're just drawing attention to the stupid things."

THeir letter writing campaign demands that stations stop the ads. Melendez said as much.

You were obviously too busy yanking your two inches of "manhood" (right about the DFL average) to pay attention to that part. Or you got spooge in your ears. Either way, you are as worthless as any other DFLer.

"You were obviously too busy yanking your two inches of "manhood" (right about the DFL average) to pay attention to that part."

Well played sir. Now if we could stop talking about my dick for 2 seconds to recite some facts:

1.) The war is unpopular with mainstream America.
2.) Because of fact #1, the pro-war folks have been reduced to advertising the war on TV (brief aside: they should really consider buying blocks of local TV news. "Channel 6 weather is brought to by The War.")
3.) The spots are ridiculous.
4.) DFL'ers see political hay to be made. Instead of crudely announcing "Aren't these silly??!!" they execute a political "fake", campaigning that the ads should be pulled, knowing full well there's zero chance that will happen.
5.) People say "what ads?", check them out, shake their heads.

"1.) The war is unpopular with mainstream America."

So was desegregation.

"2.) Because of fact #1, the pro-war folks have been reduced to advertising the war on TV (brief aside: they should really consider buying blocks of local TV news. "Channel 6 weather is brought to by The War.")"

"reduced". Heh. Funny .

The "Reduction" comes from having to fight against a mainstream media who is structurally (to say nothing of ideologically) incapable of fairly covering the story.

"3.) The spots are ridiculous."

Stop the presses: Opponent doesn't like opponent's spots. John Kerry's commercials looked like they were assembled by apes, too.

"4.) DFL'ers see political hay to be made. Instead of crudely announcing "Aren't these silly??!!" they execute a political "fake", campaigning that the ads should be pulled, knowing full well there's zero chance that will happen."

And the motivation for the "fake" would be...?

"5.) People say "what ads?", check them out, shake their heads."

And then race out to vote for Howard Dean?

I'll give ya points for self-serving fantasy.

Tim, you have a political party that is using its party machinery to silence an opposing voice.

You do realize your excusing fascism, don't you?