Defending Petraeus
By Erick Posted in War — Comments (44) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mark I. mentioned this in RedHot, but I think it deserves a full front page post. This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the game is played. This is why I would have no problems with Rudy Giuliani getting the Republican nomination. This is leadership on the issue. This is Rudy's ad in the Times.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | President's Speech - Open Thread — Comments (61) »
Defending Petraeus 44 Comments (0 topical, 44 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It would be worth mentioning that he was CONFIRMED to do his current job by these very bozo's.
And I wonder how much the Guliani campaign paid for his ad?
hard and fast. The babies won't like this as your not supposed to respond, your supposed to take it, not dish it out.
George W Bush, do you see how it should be done?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
But it would have been classier to not have used this as little more than a campaign advertisement.
To the campaign, sure. But it also makes light of the alliance between the Dems and the radical lefties that make up Moveon and their absurd statements..."betray us" and all.
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
that is is important to shine the light on incestuous connection between Dems and the radical left. However, methinks it also important to highlight the connection between the Republican party, as a whole, to the duty and honor that accompany military service. I think such would have been more advantageous for Rudy's campaign, besides.
Qualities is he never shies from a fight. That has always been his nature but Erick you just got done piling on his immigration position. Would you be willing to live with his immigration position?
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
If this ad runs tomorrow I am sending my first contribution to Giuliani. Brilliant!
Also, he is putting the NYT on the spot to find out if he gets the same discount and treatment. Apparently the Times told him they will give that price but only when they decide when it runs. Apparently they decided to run moveon's ad on the day of the good general's testimony.
John E.
If the NYT gave moveon.org a $100,000 discount does that violate contribution limits?
I'm not a big fan of contribution limits [prefer open disclosure of the contributors] but if there are limits shouldn't NYT have to abide by them too?
but the available details are not clear enough to conclude that. Taranto checked into it a little bit. They denied him answers to questions regarding their rates. See (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010598)
I happened to catch Rudy talking about this tonight on Hannity and Coomes. Rudy explained that they are going to give him the same discount, but they told him that rate only applies to ads that run on the day the paper, not the client, chooses. He points out that the moveon ad ran on just the day they would have chosen as the most advantageous, so he is waiting to see if they give him the same treatment, namely tomorrow.
So as best as I can tell if these discounts are part of their regular rate structure, they are in the clear. The timing issue could be a violation but they can lie and call it coincidence to beat that wrap.
John E.
If so, I smell a perjury trap opportunity.
Have the NYT say, under oath, that it was a pure coincedence that MoveOn.org's ad was able to run on the first day of General Petraeus' testimony.
As the old saying goes, the crime is often not what gets ya...it's the coverup.
At the very least, if the NYT goes on record publicly with this explanation, they'll have to sit there and take it, while we can batter their credibility further.
Let's milk this for all it's worth...
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
It could be his campaign staff, it could be him, it could be both.
No matter. Timing is everything.
...we'd no doubt have had our attention called to a press conference at the site which they were considering using for writing a potential ad that hadn't been decided on yet, before announcing that an ad was being considered and that an announcement regarding a further announcement (pertaining to said advertisement) could possibly be forthcoming at some point in the future.
Forty times.
You forget how he dealt with Michael Moore swiftly and brilliantly.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Exactly what our side needs to do every time these lowlifes dare to attack one of our heroes. Gets the NY Times, Moveon, and the cowardly Dems who refuse to denounce this scurrilous ad all at the same time!
Great!
Gotta say, this is an example of Rudy's strength. One thing you have to love about him is that he's got stones.
absentee
Now if he only cared about:
- the unborn
- my right to defend my home and person anywhere I go
- punishing those who come here illegally and those who entice them
with even half of those stones, he'd win in a landslide.
Now if he only cared about:
- the unborn
- my right to defend my home and person anywhere I go
- punishing those who come here illegally and those who entice them
with even half of those stones, he'd win in a landslide.
You're probably right-on with that statement!!!
WoundedWarriorProject.Org / MoveAmericaForward.Org
A repub with some juevos.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
politics in America OUGHT to be done. Hit hard but always with the truth, always with the truth.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Rudy! Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Gordon Taylor
Managing Editor
However I do worry about his SCOTUS appointments, defending life, and defending the 2nd amendment.
Thompson/Giuliani anyone? Some call it "playing 2nd fiddle". I prefer to think of it as Rudy being "Thompson's Cheney".
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Rudy stated on H&C that he did get the same price that MoveOn got. It is a discount for being flexible as to which day (over a 3-day period) it runs, i.e. you know it'll be one of three days, but you can't choose which one.
If you're MoveOn, the ad accidentally runs the day Petraeus testifies. We shall see when Rudy's ad runs. Given the bright light that's on this issue, I'll bet they run it tomorrow.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
If you're MoveOn, the ad accidentally runs the day Petraeus testifies.
And if it ran the day BEFORE he testified, THAT would look suspicious (such great timing for preemption or coloring people's view of his testimony, since not everyone would read the paper on the same day before the testimony). So let's assume MoveOn picked a 3-day period beginning 2 days before the testimony. There would be a 2/3 chance of the ad running on a day that those so inclined would view as suspicious (i.e., deliberate favorable treatment due to a political agenda of the NY Times). Not particularly weighty evidence.
General Petraeus and the Small People in Congress
This week, General David Petraeus made his long awaited report to Congress on the state of the war in Iraq. As we all know, the general described the progress that has been made since the implementaion of the "The Surge" and his projection of the need to keep troop levels at the current number through the rest of the year and part of 2008. What is remarkable (and so disgusting) is the statements coming from the Democrats and far-left disparaging Petraeus even before he appeared.
For the record, General David Petraeus is a highly respected and highly decorated veteran with a sterling military record. Last January, he was confirmed by the Senate unaminously to take over the lead in Iraq. There was absolutely no opposition to his appointment. Yet, now, with his highly anticipated appearnce looming, suddenly the Democrats in Congress and their supporters on the far left began a campaign of character assassination against the general for the purposes of discrediting his testimony even before given. In spite of reassurances from Petraeus and the White House that his report had not been formed in consultation with the Administration, people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid made public statements to the effect that Petraeus was merely going to parrot the policy of the Bush Administration and tell the Congress what a good job he (Petraeus) was doing. Thus, Petraeus was portrayed as a political hack, whose up and coming testimony could not be trusted nor believed. Reid even went so far as to cast doubt on previous statements by the General.
Then there were the mad hatters at Moveon.org, who this past week, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times describing Petraeus as "General Betray Us", a clear slap at the general's loyalty to his country. Yet, did any of the Democrats speak out against this outrage, even when called upon to distance themselves from the article? Not at all. They are much too afraid of the Moveon folks and the other far-left blogs to do that.
In the face of all this, General Petraeus appeared Monday, and in his professional and dignified fashion, made his report to Congress. He made all those empty suits in Congress look like the pygmies they were. Yet, he had to endure people like Senator Hillary Clinton, possibly our next president, describing him as a "spokesman for a failed policy" and implying to his face that he was a liar.
Regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq War, this attack on the character of General Petraeus was a disgusting spectacle made by hack politicians who were afraid the general was going to tell them things they did not want to hear, so they attacked the general even before he opened his mouth. They questioned the integrity of the very man who is on the ground in Iraq putting his own life on the line. Many of his detractors in Congress have not been to Iraq, yet they pretend to know more than the man leading the effort there. Their attack on Petraeus was also a slap in the face of every man and woman serving in Iraq.
By all accounts, General David Petraeus is a man of whom the military and the nation can be proud. He did not deserve the personal attacks laid upon him by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry and others. Where was the support from the Democrats for our soldiers fighting in Iraq? Where was the expression of hopes for victory?
To sum it all up, General Petraeus did what I knew he would do: He made his detractors in Congress look like very small people.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
When one of our guys pulls out the chickenhawk card, it's "Outstanding," "Brilliant," etc.?
Phbbbt.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
The chicken hawk card?
“We don’t need any more cultural centers,” Mr. Coburn said. “We’re fighting a war; why should we be spending any more on a cultural center?”
But the basic premise is the same - that civilians should not criticize members of the military w/r/t the conduct of war. It is not a valid cudgel when the leftists use it, nor is it when Rudy does.
It's sufficient to point out that the attacks on Petraeus are unjustified without intimating that he is correct because he is military.
Incidentally, I don't think that Joe American reading this is going to really give a crap about the political mudslinging that has gone on around this particular round of hearings, even though it's Petraeus rather than Pace/Casey this time around.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
I am quite sensitive to the chickenhawk argument myself, but I don't see that this is it.
The chickenhawk argument is essentially: if you aren't a soldier or a veteran, you can't make decisions on war policy. It's obviously false. War is an extension of policy.
But Giuliani's argument is that this particular soldier has earned a high reputation, and he compares favorably to his critics, especially Sen. Clinton.
Right there above the Join Rudy bit it asks "Who should America listen to?"
I think if you cut the ad off right above there, it works great purely as a defense of Petraeus, but below that it's a borderline chickenhawk and then just an ad for Giuliani.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
From http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=282410&&
Senator Clinton: I want to thank both of you, General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, for your long and distinguished service to our nation. Nobody believes that your jobs or the jobs of the thousands of American forces and civilian personnel in Iraq are anything but incredibly difficult.
But today you are testifying about the current status of our policy in Iraq and the prospects of that policy. It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. (This is Moveon's Bush lackey charge)
Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief. (I.e., you are trying to deceive us)
In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside.
Quess the general and I must be giving them an "unfair reading" then.
How about this then... Any fair reading of Hillary's questioning must admit that she begs the very question that Rudy poses at the end of his ad. And no doubt there are plenty who choose MoveOn and Hillary who are joined in thought and money.
John E.
This was pure political brilliance on Rudy's part and I love it!
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
Its not chickenhawking and it is criticism of Hillary. It is appropriate and deserved because she followed up her patronizing comments to the general with a big BUT: something to the effect that no rational person could believe him (very nearly those words). She made the same claims as the moveon ad, in her own words rather than theirs. Rudy is right to point that out. If a person is outraged by the moveon ad, they ought to be outraged by Hillary's treatment of the general too, unless of course they find her credible rather than him. That is the point of the ad and it is a fair one to bring out. It is also a fairly potent one in that you don't see many folks willing to step up and defend moveon. Hillary's treatment of the general truly was over the top. And she insulted me too -- indeed everyone that finds the general credible -- by insisting I/we must be irrational.
John E.
the basic premise is the same - that civilians should not criticize members of the military w/r/t the conduct of war.
That may be your premise---it's not mine. Mine is that, if you slander a distinguished and loyal soldier, you deserve to be pounded for it.
It's sufficient to point out that the attacks on Petraeus are unjustified without intimating that he is correct because he is military.
That strikes me as a very antiseptic, way-too-measured response. Now's the time for a whole lot of "Hooah!" and a healthy dose of anger in our response. And Rudy gets it!
Charlie Mike, Rudy Giuliani!
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I don't like this. We never needed to have Democrat judges and Republican judges, but today we have them, thanks to endless politicization of jurisprudence. Now the same bastiges want to have Democrat generals and Republican generals. Think about it: what country needs its military taking sides in its politics?
These Democrats know very well how to criticize policy without calling military officers liars on national television. The only reason they are doing what they are doing is that their political base enjoys watching people spit on soldiers.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Clinton implicitly called Petraeus a liar- read her quote. Are you saying it's not fair to ask people who they trust to lead us- Clinton siding with Moveon.org calling him a liar or Petreaus with his dedicated service and distiguished career?
Chickenhawk argument is that you cannot promote war unless you attend it. How is this remotely that?
As for your later assertion that he is using a cudgel, that he is saying you can't criticize the military if you aren't in it, well I'm sorry and with all due respect, but that is absurd.
The report in question is a military report. Are you suggesting military credentials are inconsequential? The substance of the report requires expertise to gather, understand and create. Are you suggesting that the General's expertise is not material to the discussion? Or that Hillary's lack of expertise is?
By your logic, no one could criticize Obamas foreign policy inexperience or compare it to vast experience because that would be a form of the chickenhawk argument.
Rudy is justly pointing out the General's credentials with regard to a report where they are obviously pertinent. He is also, subsequently, pointing out the difference in where loyalties lie between the General and Sen. Clinton, a valid contrast given the context of the discussion.
In fact, it couldn't be less like the chickenhawk argument.
absentee
Even though Rudy made not be ideologically perfect to some conservatives, even his critics have to admit he's a tough son-of-a-bitch who has great political instincts.
I would feel very confident of Rudy going up against the Clintons in '08, much more than a laid-back candidate like Fred Thompson.
Rudy can hit back hard and understands that in politics, nice guys finish last.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
www.win-the-war.com.