TheHill.com - Giuliani demands MoveOn’s New York Times ad rate

Well it's only fair right?  If Rudy Guiliani wants to run an ad in the New York Times, he should get the same discount right?  The NYT's wouldn't want to appear to be BIASED or anything right?

The former mayor said his ad “will obviously take the opposite view” from MoveOn.org, which argued in its ad that Gen. David Petraeus is “cooking the books” on Iraq and cherry-picking facts that support his recommendation to keep a large number of troops in Iraq for some time.

Giuliani continued to include Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in his criticisms for her comments that it would take “a willing suspension of disbelief” to accept at face value Petraeus’s report on the situation in Iraq. Giuliani interpreted Clinton’s remarks at a hearing earlier this week as questioning the general’s integrity.

“We think that her attack on Gen. Petraeus was a follow-up to the MoveOn.org/Times attack,” Giuliani told reporters in Atlanta.

I disagree with Rudy on a lot of issues, but on this one, he's dead right.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

MoveOn.org Gets Discount Rate for ‘Betray Us’ Advocacy Ad | NewsBusters.org

What ever happened to a news organization just reporting the news and selling advertisement as the same rate to everyone?  I guess that simply isn't the case with the New York Times.  They gave moveon.org a more than $100,000 discount on the infamous "General Betray Us" ad.

 

Jake Tapper at ABC News reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its full page anti-war advocacy sliming of General David Petraeus. This figure raised the suspicions of attentive blogger Confederate Yankee whose intuition appears to be correct. (h/t Michelle Malkin) While looking up the current New York Times rate book he discovered that MoveOn.org received a $102,000 discount on the standard political advocacy rate that is advertised at $167,157.

Of course moveon.org isn't taking the controversy lying down:

In an e-mail to supporters, the group said Petraeus “misled the country” in his testimony before the House on Monday. MoveOn wants its members to write letters to the editors of local and national newspapers and question the findings Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker presented to Congress. The group provides talking points to support its view that Petraeus “used faulty statistics and cherry-picked intelligence to argue that American troops should stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future.”

Now, that would have been fine, but they ran the ad BEFORE he gave testimony and it takes a LONG time to put together an ad of that magnitude.

Simply put, once they knew that Petraeus would deliver at least a bit of positive news out of Iraq, they took it upon themselves to smear General Petraeus' good name without knowing a single thing that he was going to say.

However, the group appears undeterred. It compares the testimony of Petraeus to that of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, who made the case for an invasion of Iraq before the United Nations in 2003. MoveOn said that, had it run a similar ad back then, Republicans “would have done the same thing — but sometimes it’s important to set the facts straight.”

Kind of ironic that they say "it's important to set the facts straight" when they don't even have the facts before they open their mouth.

No Democratic censure for MoveOn ad - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

Well it appears that Democrats LIKED the ad that was taken out against General Petraeus.  The infamous "General Betray Us" ad.  They aren't speaking out against it, only giving token statements.  Let's take a peek:

Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat "wished [MoveOn.org] wouldn't have done that ad," but declined to comment further.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.

Even Presidential candidate John Edwards won't denounce the obviously below the belt tactic done by his political masters:

A spokesman for former Sen. John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate who has benefited from full-page ads MoveOn.org ran on his behalf, said Mr. Edwards "honors General Petraeus' service and patriotism," but he did not disavow the MoveOn.org ad.

"The general is wrong to believe that the American people or Congress should give President Bush's failed Iraq strategy more time," said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.

In July, MoveOn.org ran newspaper ads for Mr. Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire after their members chose him as the winner of an online forum about global warming.

Is Barack Obama any different?  Nope.

Sen. Barack Obama's spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted that the candidate is not questioning the general's patriotism but rather his "logic," because the Illinois Democrat sees "no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."

After Mr. Obama won an online MoveOn.org forum about Iraq, the group set up a page directing its members to make direct financial contributions to whichever candidate they felt gave the strongest performance.

Of course, even Hillary won't denounce it.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said his boss would "keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."

So she can't be bothered to make a two sentence statement?

But do you know who actually denounced the ad on the Democratic side of things?  John Kerry.  Stop laughing, I'm not kidding:

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, who on Monday called the ad "over the top."

But they are all saying that it's being used as a distraction.  This coming from the party of distractions.  Republicans aren't asking for this to be the main topic, they are asking for a bit of humanity from Democrats and they aren't getting it.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Hirsh: Rating Petraeus’s Report to the Hill - Newsweek Michael Hirsh - MSNBC.com

There's reports that the Pentagon's internal report will "differ substantially" from what General Petraeus is telling America.

John Arquilla, an intelligence and counterinsurgency expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, is even harsher in his assessment of Petraeus. “I think Colin Powell used dodgy information to get us into the war, and Petraeus is using dodgy information to keep us there,” he said.

You think or you know?

“His political talking points are all very clear: the continued references he made to the danger of Al Qaeda in Iraq, for example, even though it represents only somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of the total insurgency.

How do you know it's only between 2 and 5%?  Where do you get these figures?

The continued references to Iran, when in fact the Iranians have had a lot to do with stability in the Shiite portion of the country.

Yes, the insurgency isn't happening at all.  The Shiite's aren't bombing markets full of people.  If that's the Iranian's "help", I don't think anyone wants it.

 And it's not at all clear why things are a little better now. Is it because there are more troops, or is it because we're negotiating with the insurgents and have moved to small operating outposts?

Well we'll all find that out once troops start coming home won't we?  If things continue to go at the same pace and there are less troops, I think that would answer your question.

On any given day we don't have more than 20,000 troops operating.

How do you know this?

The glacial pace of reductions beggars the imagination.”

Well moving 30,000 troops out of Iraq is a big deal.  Would you like it if we moved our guys out and had to bring them back because things hadn't quite settled down?

I'm not saying this guy is wrong.  However, I want examples and hard data before I accept someone's opinion on matters.

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Surge a failure, Democrats tell general

Democrats, no matter how much you say it, that doesn't make it true.  You'd like to believe that the surge has failed, but cold, hard numbers don't lie.  Hell, most of you haven't even BEEN to Iraq. 

 

Anti-war Senate Democrats bluntly told Iraq commander General David Petraeus Tuesday his troop surge strategy was an abject failure in its prime objective -- forging an Iraqi political settlement.

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer rebuked Petraeus for past optimism. "I ask you to take off your rosy glasses."

Petraeus replied: "my responsibility as I see it is not to give a good picture, it is to give an accurate picture."

So who do you believe more?  A guy who's got a PhD in international relations, who wrote the Army's counterinsurgency handbook and who's right in the trenches of it? 

Or are you going to believe a career politician who's only concern is the way the wind blows and in getting more votes to stay in power?

Would you trust the cop or the mayor on what's going on about crime in a city?

The simple fact of the matter is that General Petraeus told the truth and Democrats didn't like it.  So they've resorted to calling him a liar, a traitor, and worse.  That's the first sign of losing an argument.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Iraq 'surge' working, Petraeus tells Congress - CNN.com

Wow, that certainly isn't going to jive with anti-war Democrats. 

The troops "surge" in Iraq is improving the security situation in the country, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress on Monday.

Gen. David Petraeus arrives for testimony to Congress on Monday.

He said U.S. forces could be reduced to pre-surge levels by next summer.

Petraeus said he has recommended the withdrawal of a Marine expeditionary unit later this month and a brigade combat team in December, plus the "reduction of eight further brigade teams and the battalion combats in 2008 until we reach the pre-surge levels of 15 brigade combat teams by mid-July 2008."

Responding to pre-hearing criticism that he would be repeating the Bush administration line on Iraq, Petraeus in his opening statement said the testimony was his alone.

Petraeus said coalition forces had seen good success against al Qaeda in Iraq, knocking it "off-balance" and pursuing its leaders relentlessly. Watch the hearing live

The general said that tribes and local citizens have rejected al Qaeda and other insurgents, especially in the volatile Anbar province.

The general called this the "most significant development in the past six months."

Despite successes, "the level of civilian deaths is still too high," Petraeus said.

Before Petraeus began to testify, the head of the House Armed Services Committee challenged Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to convince him that the war effort in Iraq is worth continuing.

Basically, he's saying that some soldiers will be home by Christmas.  He's also saying that we should be back to "pre surge" levels in less than 9 months.  What's not said in the article, but I watched on the video, was that if we see the continued trend, we'll be bringing our soldiers home after July 2008.  Petraeus also said that to predict when troops should come home past that wouldn't work because of previous attempts at that is simple naive.

Hell, even DailyKos is stunned.  Here's his whole take on the report:

Petraeus blabbing:

We won! Therefore, our troops need to stay there forever.

Or something like that.

 

Sounds like the ramblings of a sore loser.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

General Petraeus' Live Testimony

Take a look here  It requires Internet Explorer though. :(

Congress expected to grill general on violence data - CNN.com

Well the day has finally arrived and General Petraeus now has to go in front of Congress and give his report on the situation in Iraq.  Cpan is going to be covering the event live, so here's a link to that.  I believe it's starting at 12:30 Pacific Standard Time.

Of course, the liberals out there are already decrying his thoughts and position:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, told "Fox News Sunday" that Petraeus' position of authority in Iraq clouds his view.

"General Petraeus is there to succeed," Feinstein said. "I don't think he's an independent evaluator."

General Petraeus also knows that to lie to Congress is not only a crime, but it's dishonorable to do so.  To question his character BEFORE you even get a chance to hear him out shows great disrespect towards a man that Democrats said that they would listen to just a few short months ago when they thought they'd get the guy to echo their sentiments.  Now that he's not, they are attacking him at every angle. 

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter -- who opposed sending additional troops to Iraq -- said Sunday he intends to examine Petraeus' testimony.

"We're going to look behind the generalizations that Gen. Petraeus or anybody gives us and probe the very hard facts to see exactly what the situation is," the Pennsylvania lawmaker said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"Unless we see some light at the end of the tunnel here, very closely examining what Gen. Petraeus and others have to say, I think there's a general sense that there needs to be a new policy."

Sounds fair to me.  Look at the evidence, if something's working, keep at it.  If not, try something else.  Where's the problem with that?  But even ordinary American's aren't as open minded as that:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll taken last month found about two-thirds of Americans -- 64 percent -- oppose the Iraq war, and 72 percent say even if Petraeus reports progress, that won't change their opinion.

So 72% of Americans have made up their mind and won't even consider the option of finishing up the job in Iraq.  Those same 72% will scream out for answers if Iraq becomes a terrorist wasteland and attacks on American originate from there.  You don't have to believe me.  Just look it up.  Everywhere after 9/11 people wanted answers.  "Why weren't the dots connected?"  A fair question, but then when you give them the answer, they seem dumbfounded.  "You mean Clinton was too involved in the Monica scandal to defend America from a known threat??" 

Hell, even one of the posters on the article "Chris" doesn't seem to get it:

This is ridiculous. When will people stop looking at numbers. This is about lives, both American and Iraqi, that are being thoughtlessly lost. Here's an idea: Leave the country and see if violence goes down. It probably will.

So he's willing to leave Iraq and just "hope for the best".  He's willing to risk American and Iraqi lives on a "probably will".  That's not long term thinking and it certainly isn't something that wouldn't come back and bite us in the ass.

 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Dems already discount war report - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

They're discounting it because they know it's going to contain things that they don't want to hear:  That progress is being made in Iraq and that enough progress has been made to warrant more time.

What's worse is that they haven't even SEEN the fucking thing and they are already discounting it.  Why?  Because they're trying to do a preemptive strike against the President and undermine the war in Iraq.

"The Bush report?" Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

"We know what is going to be in it. It's clear. I think the president's trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious," the Illinois Democrat said. "I expect the Bush report to say, 'The surge is working. Let's have more of the same.' "

The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general's briefing as the "Bush report."

They are calling it the Bush report because they are trying to get American's who don't have a clue about how this report is going to be made, tricked into thinking that it's all a White House washout.  Bush couldn't claim progress if Petraeus isn't claiming progress.  General Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress about the progress in Iraq.  Any discrepancy between what he says to them and what Bush says in the report will be torn apart within hours.

These people have made up their mind already about the war in Iraq and have lied to the American people.  They trusted General Petraeus to deliver an honest report in September about the progress or lack thereof in Iraq.  Now that they have a gist of what's going to be in it, they don't like it and now are trying to undermine the credibility of a four star General.

That reeks of playing politics with the lives of our soldiers in Iraq.  General Petraeus has already said that we can probably maintain the same amount of security with less forces within a few months if things look good.  That's counter to what Democrats say that Bush wants.  So if we can do the same with less, then that's what we should do.  We should trust the guy who knows counterinsurgency like the back of his hand instead of trying to force their own naive views upon the military.

Democrats said they put more faith in a report Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office that showed Iraq failed to meet 11 of 18 political and security benchmarks set by Congress.

Ok, then let's go with that.  11 out of 18 failed to be met so far.  That means that 7 have been or are close to being done.  So you're willing to bail out when they're almost 1/2 way done with those benchmarks?  Democrats love to talk about soldiers dying for nothing, but they won't tell you that if they pull out of Iraq like they want to and Iraq spirals out of control, those who've fought and died to achieve what we have done so far will indeed be for nothing.

"We will see what the Bush report will be at the end of next week," Mrs. Pelosi said. "The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made. They might want to find one or two places where there has been progress but the plural of anecdote is not data."

She said Democrats were determined to uncover "the ground truth in Iraq."

 

Even one of their own, Representative Brian Baird agrees that we should stay a little longer until they get back on their feet.  He voted originally against the Iraq war.  What do Democrats do about that?  They try to run smear campaigns against him and discount his own findings.  He went to Iraq and specifically asked to go into areas and get the full picture, not a "dog and pony show".  But other Democrats didn't like that he came to a conclusion that differs from their own.

That's playing politics with soldiers lives and the lives of Iraqi civilians.

So go ahead, discount General Petraeus, you're only showing yourselves to be petty and weak when you don't get your way. 

Travis

travis@rightwinglunatic.com