Kevin T. Keith writes:

1

I don't know how much the Hitler-ad fracus really adds up [no pun] to, but I would like to see *any* discussion of it acknowledge the basic facts of the situation first.

Critics of the incident consistently ascribe the ads to MoveOn.org itself. The American Jewish Congress statement refers to "The MoveOn.org ad"; Indepundit claims that "MoveOn took down the original spot, but has now put up yet another spot"; the Anti-Defamation League refers to MoveOn as having "accepted" the ad; Professor Bainbridge refers to "MoveOn.org's ads", and so on. Matt Drudge has falsely reported that the ads were part of the "finalist" group selected from all ads on the site. None of these claims is a reasonable interpretation of, or in many cases even a correct statement of, the facts, and this can hardly be oversight; the truth is easy enough to find.

MoveOn announced a contest, open to anyone, to produce ads criticizing the Bush administration. Over 1,500 ads were submitted and posted to the MoveOn Web site under very loose guidelines as to what was acceptable. The public was invited to vote for its favorite ads, to produce a finalist group from which the winning ad would be chosen by a judges' panel. The two ads that mentioned Hitler were among the ads submitted. MoveOn's statement appears to imply that they slipped through a preliminary screening before being put up on the site, but in any case MoveOn did not produce, solicit, or endorse the ads. They were simply among the 1,500 or more that came into the site from hundreds of random individuals; there is no evidence that anyone from MoveOn even saw the ads, let alone chose to promote them. These ads were not selected for the finalist group, and when attention was called to them MoveOn immediately pulled them from the Web site.

There is no way these ads can be ascribed to MoveOn itself. The Republican National Committee Web site ( in its "TOP STORY") implicitly recognizes this, in their typically sneering false manner: they repeatedly refer to "ad[s] posted on the MoveOn.org Web site . . . deeming them appropriate for television" without ever noting that the ads *were not posted by MoveOn.org itself* - they were submitted to an open contest by outside parties, and MoveOn has specifically stated they do not meet its guidelines for the contest. Yet these twelve words from the RNC statement are carefully chosen to create the opposite impression.

It seems simpler, and (if it matters), simply honest, to ascribe responsibility for statements to the people who make the statement; claiming that MoveOn.org is responsible for the Hitler ads is akin to claiming that a building owner is responsible for racist graffiti written by someone else. Not only is this simple principle of moral responsibility ignored in this case, however, but those who persist in making an issue of it consistently avoid stating the simple facts of the origin of the ads or the reason for their presence on the Web site.

Critics even complained that after the first ad was pulled, another "Hitler" ad was discovered on the site and was not removed until complaints were made about that one, as if MoveOn was somehow secretly seeding its site with Hitler ads. It seems obvious, instead, that MoveOn was just not aware of the content of all of the large number of ads on the site (note that simply viewing 1,500 30-second ads would take over 12 hours), and responded quickly when it was informed. I don't know what more the critics wanted or expected.

The ads were submitted by third parties without MoveOn soliciting or specifying content, they were submitted to an open contest with limited pre-screening, they were posted along with a very large number of other ads that almost certainly received little or no content review before the voting process, they were not selected for the finalist grouping, they were removed as soon as attention was called to them, and MoveOn has explicitly repudiated their content. I don't know how this can be interpreted in any way other than as MoveOn itself explains: the material was not created, solicited, or endorsed by MoveOn, and the matter was dealt with as soon as it was discovered. Yet these facts are consistently ignored by critics, and in many cases reported falsely. I hardly think it is MoveOn that owes an apology.

A final question: if, as the RNC demands, "every Democrat . . . who stands to benefit politically from MoveOn.org's efforts . . . [should] urge MoveOn.org to apologize" because of ads equating Bush with Hitler, posted without MoveOn.org's endorsement on its open Web site, then how do we evaluate George Bush's own repeated references to Democrats as Neville Chamberlain-like "appeasers"? Here is a Nazi comparison from the President's own mouth, deliberate, intentional, and repeated. Should every Republican apologize for him?

posted on 01.08.2004 12:43 PM

J.P. Carter writes:

2

Hey Kevin,

Thanks for the comment. The problem with your complaint is that while its true that MoveOn received 1500 ads for the contest, they only posted about 200 on their website.

Now either they picked random ads to put on the site and didn't even bother looking at them (which would seem to taint the contest itself) or someone from the organization viewed the ads and decided to post them.

Either way, MoveOn doesn't come out looking good. They either lied to the people who entered the contest or they are refusing to take responsibility for knowingly posting the inflammatory ads.

By the way, if you read their press release MoveOn only says that the ads "slipped through the screening process." How did they screen them if they didn't view them?

posted on 01.08.2004 12:54 PM

Doug writes:

3

I think you are correct that this ordeal have been overblown, but I don't think that your characterization is correct.

claiming that MoveOn.org is responsible for the Hitler ads is akin to claiming that a building owner is responsible for racist graffiti written by someone else

I think that your analogy is incorrect. Moveon.org should have, and assumingly did, screen the ads to some small degree. I am sure that they did not want to post pro-Bush ads that I am sure were sent in to them. Even if this screening was minimal, they should have removed the ads that were crackpot (Bush == Hitler). As opposed to your analogy, this is much closer to a building owner going to his residents and saying, "I want to have a pretty collage of all of the families who live here, so please give me a family picture." Then, when one of the families gives them a picture where they are all naked (something that some people might like, but not most) the building owner justs ads it into the collage without looking at the picture at all. Then, when visitors to the building object to the naked pictures in the lobby, the building owner says, "I will take that picture off, but it is not my fault that there is a naked picture of the family in the collage; I just put the pictures up that they gave me."

Finally, your last paragraph make absolutely no sense, but, considering you posted it, I assume you cannot see why your comparison is so horribly wrong. You state:

[H]ow do we evaluate George Bush's own repeated references to Democrats as Neville Chamberlain-like "appeasers"? Here is a Nazi comparison from the President's own mouth, deliberate, intentional, and repeated. Should every Republican apologize for him?

First, I have never heard George Bush compare appeasers to Neville Chamberlain. I have actually never heard him use that particular word. However, I run a website (www.peaceforourtime.com) that explicitly does. So, is calling an appeaser Neville Chamberlain a "Nazi comparison"? It is not. Do you know why? BECAUSE NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN WAS NOT A NAZI. The person they are comparing to a Nazi is Saddam Hussein. You know, the facist dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and put them into mass graves. If you want to argue that Hussein was not like Hitler, fine. Just make sure you cite the pictures at www.9neesan.com/massgraves/ in your discussion.

posted on 01.08.2004 1:05 PM

writes:

4

Regarding the ads on the site, they used a random presentation process to give each ad roughly equivalent exposure and to keep people from campaigning for particular ads (I think later in the contest they changed it to weight the more popular ads more heavily, but it was still a random presentation). You couldn't personally see all the ads (there were so many that no one would have been able to view them all anyway), but all the ads got seen.

As for the screening process, you are right that they are not being clear enough about that. Their official rules for the contest stipulate that they reserve the right to delete ads that are "inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, or demeaning to Sponsor's reputation or goodwill" - which the Hitler ads obviously were, in retrospect (and should have been recognized as being so beforehand). The site mostly emphasizes compliance with legal requirements for the ads (no direct advocacy of voting), however, and it does not say how, or whether, they employed any specific screening for "inappropriate" content. If they did not screen at all - which would not be unreasonable - then they should just say so. If they did screen - as they imply - they should say how, and explain why these ads were not screened out. It could be, and from all other evidence seems to me was, a simple oversight or an actual mistake. It could also be that the screening process was so lax that it didn't catch anything (another thing they do not tell us is whether any other ads actually *were* screened out, or why.) If they did take note of the substantive content and consciously decided to post it because they thought it was within the bounds of good taste (even if not likely to win an endorsement), then they should admit that. So far, I see no reason to believe that is the case, but MoveOn's explanations are not complete, and that is troubling.

As for the Chamberlain/Nazi comparison, of course Chamberlain was not a Nazi. He is widely seen as having facilitated Nazi aggression by tacitly approving it. "Appeasement" is a word historically associated with Chamberlain and Bush has - calculatedly - used it over and over. (During the first Gulf War, Bush Sr. was even coached in how to pronounce Saddam's name - apparently "SAD-DAMN" sounds like an insult in his language, while "suh-DOM" does not. Do you think the media-obsessed Bush Jr. administration chose "appeasement" randomly?) He is implicitly claiming that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq are the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain. (If we believe him, approximately 60% of the world's population is Neville Chamberlain - which goes beyond the bounds of taste to raise questions of his grasp of reality.) No one on any side of the debate over the war argued that Saddam was not tyrannical and abusive; they argued over the proper way to respond, and over the limits of US and international law in doing so. To link a hesitation over aggressive war, and a concern for the rule of law, with pro-Nazi "appeasement," is despicable - and perfectly in keeping with the minutely planned PR that governs Bush's every move. When will Bush acknowledge that it was a false comparison? When will the RNC - in keeping with their own stated moral standards - demand that "every Republican" apologize? The world waits with bated breath.

posted on 01.08.2004 2:04 PM

Doug writes:

5

Since my first draft of this was killed when I kicked my power strip, I will be brief.

I almost agree with you about Moveon.org. Either, (1) they were too lax on their screening and these slipped through, or (2) the screeners who saw this did not think that there was anything wrong. So, they are either incompetant or wacko. I think it is probably the first, and it would not be the first time that is true about a partisan political organization.

Re: Chamberlain. I don't think that it is wrong to say that the appeasers are like Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain's appeasement with Hitler was quite popular among the British. He did not suffer much flak from it when it occured except from a few back-benchers (e.g. Winston Churchhill). You say that the people who were against the war in Iraq had "a hestitation over aggressive war, and a concern for the rule of law." A hestitation?? Yeah, that is it. Neville Chamberlain had "a hestiation" over another war as well, which is why he signed the Munich Accords. Saddam Hussein was flaunting the cease-fire that he had signed with the UN and the United States, and we had tried to work it out for over 13 years. That is a hestitation. When Bush said, "come clean because we will not wait for an iminant threat by a brutal dictator anymore", and Saddam tried his dog-and-pony show again, Bush backed up his words with action. To say, "we should give him another chance after these 13 years" seems like Neville Chamberlain appeasement to me.

posted on 01.08.2004 2:39 PM

tgirsch writes:

6

Doug:

The most important difference between Chaimberlain-esque appeasement, and what was called for in Iraq by the UN, was that Iraq hadn't attacked anyone, or even threatened to do so, in a dozen years. What was being done with Iraq wasn't appeasement -- it was containment. So while comparing the opposition to Chamberlain isn't quite the same thing as a Nazi comparison, it's still remarkably unfair, demonstrably untrue, and quite frankly, dirty.

posted on 01.08.2004 7:48 PM