MoveOn ad hits back at Giuliani after his attack on their Betrayus ad

[bigtree]

from MoveOn:http://pol.moveon.org/giuliani/


Betrayal of Trust


Rudy Giuliani has always been a big fan of George Bush's war in Iraq.


Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani advocated a broad war against global terrorism - including taking strong action against Iraq. Giuliani specifically emphasized the need for action against Iraq: “I have a very strong view that it's imperative that we remove Saddam Hussein and do away with his regime. You have to take pre-emptive action. As time goes by, Saddam Hussein will become more and more dangerous." (Newsday, 9/21/02)

Giuliani: “Saddam Hussein is and was a target. He (Bush) proceeded when public opinion was in his favor and when public opinion was against him. When the war started in Iraq and the first few days it wasn't won in 36 hours, some in the media had decided we had lost. . . . And up until now, when people are starting to revisit it, George W. Bush has remained constant and focused as a president should." (Boston Globe, 7/26/03)

Former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York supports the Iraq war and the "surge" of additional troops to Baghdad. (Boston Globe, 4/7/07)

Rudy Giuliani: Opposes setting a timeline for withdrawal. Supports the president's plan to have a surge of additional troops sent to Iraq. Agrees with Bush that failure in Iraq would be harmful to U.S. interests. (The State, 5/13/07)

Yet when Giuliani had the chance to actually do something about the war, he went AWOL.

Giuliani quit the Iraq Study Group after two months. (Newsday, 11/17/06)

Giuliani resigned in May 2006 from the Iraq Study Group – the 10-member bipartisan study group that provided assessments of conditions in Iraq and the surrounding region. (Washington Post, 6/1/06]

The Iraq Study Group held nine official meetings, which it called "plenary sessions," according to its final report. They included three that occurred during Giuliani's tenure in 2006 but that he did not show up for, the sources said - working sessions on April 11 and 12, and May 18 and 19. There was also a kickoff event on March 15 that Giuliani and several other members did not attend, the sources said. (Newsday, 6/19/07)

And gave speeches. For money.

Giuliani cited "previous time commitments" in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why - the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani's lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months. Giuliani failed to show up for a pair of two-day sessions that occurred during his tenure, the sources said - and both times, they conflicted with paid public appearances shown on his recent financial disclosure. Giuliani quit the group during his busiest stretch in 2006, when he gave 20 speeches in a single month that brought in $1.7 million. On one day the panel gathered in Washington - May 18, 2006 - Giuliani delivered a $100,000 speech on leadership at an Atlanta business awards breakfast. Later that day, he attended a $100-a-ticket Atlanta political fundraiser for conservative ally Ralph Reed, whom Giuliani hoped would provide a major boost to his presidential campaign. The month before, Giuliani skipped the session to give the April 12 keynote speech at an economic conference in South Korea for $200,000, his financial disclosure shows. (Newsday, 6/19/07)

Republican voters should ask: Giuliani: where were you when it counted?

Giuliani's name is mentioned nowhere in the group's final report, which lists more than 160 people who were consulted. (Newsday, 6/19/07)

Giuliani said recently he's never been to Iraq. (Newsday, 6/19/07)

Giuliani said he had not read the Iraq Study Group's report. (AP, 12/6/06)

Rudy Giuliani. A betrayal of trust.


video of ad: http://pol.moveon.org/giuliani/

[medeak]

1. Scarborough made a point about this ad

that MoveOn actually helps the candidate it attacks with republican base..am thinking am concurring

[bigtree]

3. I really don't understand that type of thinking.

What MoveOn did was take away the cover that republicans and some Democrats were allowing Bush as he hid behind Petraeus. Petraeus is not an honest broker. He's a shill for an unending occupation. He DID betray the majority of the Americans' demands that he and the administration come up with an exit plan.

What is actually happening is that many Democrats are satisfied to just criticize MoveOn without pointing out, and standing behind, the truth that the organization promotes in their efforts to confront the administration.

[rodeodance]

4. yes, many times they attach the messenger

[pampango]

5. I don't think that a general is betraying his country's people every time

he makes a strategic decision, such as the "surge", or gives an assessment of its efficacy that differs from what I believe. Generals throughout history have made huge mistakes regarding tactics or strategy in conducting a war, though they undoubtedly thought at the time that there were good reasons for doing what they did.

Politicians are responsible for directing the military and should do so in a manner that is consistent with what the majority of Americans want. Generals betray us if they do not follow the orders given to them by civilian leaders, as long as the orders are moral and constitutional. While I don't agree with the surge as a military strategy, I don't think that recommending it, implementing it, or evaluating it is immoral or unconstitutional.

If Patraeus lied in supporting a strategy in Iraq that he really believes cannot work, then he betrayed us. If he believes that the strategy is working or could still succeed, then he is not betraying us just because he does not put forward an exit strategy or because his "surge" strategy does not work. He can make withdrawal recommendations to his civilian leadership, but it is not his decision. Once the civilians tell him we are withdrawing, then he, or his successor, will have to come up with a withdrawal strategy.

Bush has betrayed us. Petraeus has betrayed us only if someone can read his mind and knows that he lied about his belief in the surge strategy.

[bigtree]

6. look. Petraeus is a republican politician AND a general

if he had ANY decency he would resign his appointment and refuse to go "forward"

[pampango]

7. My bad. I didn't realize he was a politician.

Democrats should not confirm Repub politicians to be command generals in the future.

[bigtree]

8. I didn't mean that literally, and I wanted to pull that as soon as I wrote it

I'm trying to say that he's been politicking in favor of the occupation. It was obnoxious and mostly improper when McArthur stepped forward with his propaganda, and it's a slippery slope that Petraeus is on here.

I got a whiff of his prep for his September promotion which was chilling. If we let the generals off of the hook for their propaganda, they'll swamp us with it. The notion of giving ANY promoter of this illegal invasion and immoral occupation room to themselves to con us into continuing is made even more pernicious when a general is the one doing the promoting. He should be directly and severely challenged, especially since it is HIS determination to sell us his "surge." Remember, the entire lie that the escalation of force was a "temporary surge" was a Petraeus invention.

Here's my account of his political ground work for his propaganda:

Sunday, August 26, 2007
Military Mobilizes for Media War Against American Opinion on Iraq
(2 comments) The U.S. military is engaged in a new (additional) effort to organize and manipulate news and info from Iraq to their favor in an effort they hope will allow their bias to filter out to the American public. A branch has been created within the Pentagon which would provide U.S. propaganda on Iraq 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week to coincide with the release of Petraeus' Iraq report in September
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070826_military_mobilizes_f.htm


and this:


Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Petraeus' Betrayal on Iraq-
The general and his commander are betraying the demonstrated will of the American people that they bring an end to their occupation. They have, in fact, betrayed us in their coordinated refusal to allow our troops to stand down from their dubious Iraq mission.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070911_petraeus_betrayal_on.htm

[pampango]

9. I agree that he should be "directly and severely challenged"

since he does believe in the surge. I believe that the "surge" is, at best, delaying the inevitable and most probably making no military difference at all. Indeed he should be challenged on "his "surge"".

I still say it is Bush that is betraying us, since he is the civilian who is buying what Petraeus is selling and ordering the implementation of the surge. I am sure that every country has had generals who have proposed military tactics that would ultimately be proven to be mistakes, but in which they genuinely believed. They were not betraying their people in doing that, just making poor military judgments.

If Petraeus does not believe in the surge and is defends it anyway, then he is betraying us, not because he is going against what the polls say our strategy should be, but because he is not giving his honest military opinion which is what he is there to do. And I do not believe in attacking the messenger (something we know the cons are good at), but attacking the message, in this case the surge.

If Petraeus is lying then he is betraying. If he is just wrong, then he is just wrong. Bush is lying, so he is betraying us.

[bigtree]

11. he's lying, per Kpete

Latest Pentagon Report Prooves - Petraeus Spun Fairy Tales (WAPO)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1833263

[pampango]

13. If Kpete is right, then "betraying" it is.

Of course, it might have been more effective to launch the ad campaign after his testimony was proven to be false rather than prior to his testimony. Also the story in the post you linked to, detailed that there were good and bad developments in Iraq, not that only a liar could defend the "surge" strategy.

[bigtree]

16. Petraeus Lied

Gen. Petraeus lied about progress in Iraq

By Robert Scheer

09/16/2007

Once again, we have a general repeatedly promising to save Western civilization by turning the corner in yet another intractable and unnecessary foreign war. Back on Sept. 26, 2004, in the weeks before the midterm congressional elections, Petraeus took to the op-ed page of The Washington Post to make sure the voters didn't vote wrong. Despite appearances, he claimed the war in Iraq was going very well: "I see tangible progress.

Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up," Petraeus wrote. "The institutions that oversee them are being re-established from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously. ... There has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do."

So keen, it makes one's heart swell. So keen that three years later, after the expenditure of $450 billion more in taxpayer funds, and more U.S. troops in proportion to the Iraqi population than, at the height of the Vietnam War, we had in Vietnam, the good general now insists it would be disastrous to even think about bringing any American troops home before next summer.

That's at least another $150billion and many more Iraqi and U.S. lives wasted. But wait - Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, also testified before Congress this week with Petraeus, and he has more good news about what he still celebrates as the "liberation of Iraq." Remember that Bush administration promise that the oil-rich Iraqis would pick up the check for the cost of their liberation? Well, Crocker is bullish on that front: The Iraqi economy is on schedule to grow by 6 percent, according to his testimony. Perhaps he is referring to the additional money dumped into Iraq's economy by American taxpayers chipping in for the surge.

He certainly wasn't basing his estimate on any improvement in Iraqi oil production or any other economic component. As the International Monetary Fund reported last month in its annual review of Iraq's economy, "Economic growth has been slower than expected at the time of the last (review) mainly because the expected expansion of oil production has failed to materialize." In case you haven't noticed, oil is the Iraqi economy, yet a recent GAO report stated an additional $57 billion in U.S. tax dollars will be needed to bring oil and electricity production to the level where it can satisfy Iraq's domestic demand by the year 2015.

Crocker actually had the nerve to compare the bloody religious fratricide in Iraq, which our inane invasion unleashed, to the American battle over state's rights, once again reducing the complexities of world history to an easily understood but totally irrelevant example from the American experience. In that case, a better analogy might have been made to the American Indian wars, given that the only thing the United States has been able to do effectively in Iraq is unleash superior firepower. At the current rate, Iraq will be liberated when there are no Iraqis.

Perhaps that is why this week's ABC-BBC poll shows that 70 percent of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated since the surge and that 60 percent believe attacks on U.S. forces are justified. And 93 percent of Sunnis, whom the general and ambassador claim are joining our side, want to see us dead. As for optimism, only 29 percent of Iraqis now think the situation will get better, as opposed to 64percent who shared that optimism before the surge - which almost 70 percent of Iraqis believe has "hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development."

So, ambassadors and generals lie. Get used to it.


http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_6912942

[pampango]

18. You tryin' to make me cry? What about Santa Claus? He's real, isn't he?

"So, ambassadors and generals lie. Get used to it. " You got me there. I thought they all told the truth.

In his Sept. 26, 2004 Op-Ed in the Post he stated that the war was going well. Now he says that the "surge" is working. In each instance he is either wrong or he is lying. (Well, one or the other with regards to the op-ed. I am assuming that the "surge" won't work, so he is either wrong or lying about that, too.)

You "know" he was and is lying, so he is betraying us. Your logic is faultless. I do not "know" that and believe that he might just be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time a general, or ambassador, was wrong. Get used to it. (There I got you back.) ;) Now on to this Santa thing...

[bigtree]

20. it's just another point of view from Scheer

as an extension of my argument(s). The wording is the author's.

I'd provide more accounts but you seem stuck on believing Petraeus. You say you 'don't know' and I've attempted to further your knowledge. I really don't know why anyone would trust any supporter of the disastrous occupation to tell the truth about 'conditions on the ground'.

This administration and its shills have the motive, opportunity, and track record to lie about their occupation. They've been lying all along. And when someone with the supposed intelligence of the general rises up to declare this bloody occupation and escalation a 'success', in ANY way, they reveal their bias and dishonesty.

[pampango]

22. Thanks for your educational efforts on my behalf.

Maybe my threshold of proof is too high. The all shills lie standard is just too low for me.

Look we all know that the MoveOn ad the day of Petraeus' testimony was designed to attack the messenger, so that the impact of the message would be diminished. It was quite effective and all's fair in love, war and politics. I wish they had just attacked the message he was about to deliver, but my opinion is not too consequential in the big picture of politics.

I do tire of each side attacking the messengers of the other side in order to taint the message. Rush does it all the time by attacking the past statements and mistakes of every liberal so that their current message gets lost in the hoopla. Before you say it, I realize that makes me weak because "to beat Rush, we have to be Rush". I am too old to live like that so I will leave some of the political wars to you younger folks.

Again thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

[defendandprotect]

17. His superior has called him "an ass-kissing chickenshit" . . . . !!!

That's Fallon --- commenting on his ambitions re Bush.

Petraeus is still around simply because he is kissing Bush's ass and doing Bush's dirty work.

How many Generals did Bush fire until he found a permanent AK?

[KoKo]

10. And....where does Joe Scarborough's loyalty lie? n/t

[Beelzebud]

14. You don't think Joe would say something just to advance his own agenda do you?

Shocking!

[jhain]

15. What?! Are you drinking a cup of Joe? n/t

[rudy23]

21. The reason they hate this ad is because it's catchy, pointed, and hits them at their strenghts.

It's a Rovian ad, except it's actually rooted in truth. They recognize that those are the tactics that have been so effective for them for the last 7 years, so they attack it as a mortal sin.

Take note--this is how we should react next time somebody lobs an attack like "betray us" over to our side. Rally EVERYBODY to their defense, make up some sanctimonious reason why the attack was unconscionable.

[0007]

2. Giuliani is such a schmuck . . . Rudy doesn't realize that moveon.org

is about to break it off in her ass?

[Richard Steele]

12. K&R

[ljm2002]

19. That's a dynamite spot!

And somehow I don't think it will work to Giuliani's advantage.

Oh sure, another bunch of Republic whiners will get their panties in a wad over the word "betrayal" in the ad. So f*cking what!!@ They whine and stamp their feet no matter what, they use stronger language than that about liberals and our candidates every single f*cking day. They get their dirty talking points out on the airwaves through "news" outlets like Fox, and we get kicked in the teeth all day long. So f*ck 'em.

Sorry. Had to vent -- other things are also making me cranky this morning.