CNN displayed Giuliani attack ad against Clinton, while reporting on Cheney criticism of MoveOn ad
On the September 17 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Betty Nguyen reported that Vice President Dick Cheney "weigh[ed] in" on a newspaper advertisement that the liberal group MoveOn.org placed in The New York Times on September 10, titled, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Although Nguyen's remarks were limited to controversy surrounding the ad, including Cheney's criticism of it, CNN did not display the original MoveOn ad during Nguyen's report. Instead, for 10 seconds, CNN showed the top portion of a full-page ad Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani placed in the Times on September 14 accusing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) of executing a "character attack" on Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, and reprinted a smaller version of the MoveOn ad next to a quote from Clinton. Despite CNN's showing the Giuliani ad for 10 seconds, neither Giuliani nor Clinton was mentioned in the actual report.
From the 3 p.m. ET hour of the September 17 edition of CNN Newsroom:
NGUYEN: Well, the anti-war group MoveOn.org sparked a controversy last week with an ad accusing General David Petraeus of "cooking the books" on the Iraq war. That ad played off the General's name, asking, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Well, now, Vice President Dick Cheney is weighing in.
CHENEY [video clip]: Like most Americans, I admire the integrity and the candor that General Petraeus showed in his hearings before Congress, and the attacks on him by MoveOn.org in ad space provided at subsidized rates in The New York Times last week were an outrage.
NGUYEN: The Vice President making those comments at a fundraiser in Kansas City for a Republican congressman.
"Like most Americans, I admire the integrity and the candor that General Petraeus showed in his hearings before Congress, and the attacks on him by MoveOn.org in ad space provided at subsidized rates in The New York Times last week were an outrage."
In other words, MoveOn was accurate and truthful, but why did they have to be so mean?
From what I'vie heard, the farther left Democrats thought the ad was great but the centrists and Democratic politicians didn't find it helpful. Ed Schultz was fairly critical of it on his program one day. FWIW.
Well, fwiw I must be far left. What I see in the ad is an attention grabbing headline followed by a laundry list of factual grievances.
The Republican response has been weak. They can't refute the facts that MoveOn laid out, so they have to complain disengenuously that the message was impolite.
Even Greenspan admits the Iraq occupation is a betrayal of the public trust in that this exercise in breaking our military in Iraq is for oil.
To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, Republicans can't HANDLE the truth!!!!
:-)
What does F.W.I.W. mean?
What does F.W.I.W. mean?
For What It's Worth.
I think it means, for what it's worth. I'm not positive about that.
Does anyone else know?
TMan, I think that's "for what it's worth". As one of the Luddites who never really touched a computer prior to this century, I've had to slowly decipher most of these abbreviations, and ask others what the hell they mean, too.
Hi Bruce, I'm one of those that didn't think it was helpful. I thought it was a bad tactic to use. I think the ad actually backfired and actually provided the Republicans with an effective deflection...defending the honor of a General instead of dealing with the truth of the situation. The insult to a serving General became the story instead of the validity of the points being made in the body of the ad.
I admit to not seeing the ad. As I said, Ed Schultz wasn't crazy about it and he had a guest from MoveOn on his show explaining the reasoning behind the ad. She specifically said that she didn't really care if the ad hurt Democrats because it was the truth and thats what they were trying to show people. I think Schultz was a bit mystified by the logic, as am I.
Bruce, the confusion may be coming from your belief in the framework that has been promoted to you that Moveon is a mouth piece for the democrats. Moveon is actually issue based and they are pushing those issues (and those of their members). They aren't neccessarily pushing a party or candidate but rather pushing those that will support their position. They have been critical of the democrats in the past and I am sure will continue to do so. They have an agenda and if that agenda doesn't always help certain candidates I don't think it will change their message in any way.
I agree with you on that. It seems a bit self defeating in some circumstances.
If you are mystified by the comment, throw on body armor and get over to Iraq and serve your country, I'm sick of the passive nature of alot of so-called Americans when it comes to Iraq. As long as someone elses blood is spilled life should go on for the Bruce...long live the Bruce....Move on had the right message, at the right time to expose Betrayus for the bush lackey that he is...
Marker, haven't you heard? THEY DON'T HAVE BODY ARMOR! Or tank armor for that matter.
"I think the ad actually backfired and actually provided the Republicans with an effective deflection...defending the honor of a General instead of dealing with the truth of the situation."
And the White House was counting on that when they conceived this entire piece of political theatre.
It is simply disgusting that the Administration put Petraeus in the foreground hiding behind his uniform, an emblem of honor, as a way to claim infalibity for their overt political mission.
Petraeus is not above reproach.
And, my apologies, but decorum be damned. Our young men and women are dying to protect oil interests in Iraq for Texas oil-men. There is no damned reason to be polite to these scumbag politicians and their accomplices.
I am infinitely more dismayed by such a betrayal of the public trust than some ad that offends some fake-a** sense of honor or patriotism of war apologists.
I agree, Lost. The ad backfired. The title was considered disrespectful by everyone except those of us who are already against the war.
What we need is to draw more people to our side and I'm afraid that this ad could have done just the opposite.
Every week, more people seem to turn against the war. We need to keep the momentum going. We need to be respectful and smart.
That's correct Mr. King ... And ...
George W. Bush was very clever to have this very respectable general reporting the Bush Iraq War policy. The good general was just following orders and supporting his Cammander in Chief.
Bush was smart for once because he doesn't have the general's credibility for serving our country in a war.
MoveOn made a serious mistake. Instead of attacking the honorable general they should have attacked the general's BOSS. They should focus on the man who created this foriegn policy blunder. GWB
But I still must say ... Go! MoveOn!
The MoveOn/betrayal scheme mimics the repugnican "cut and run" script pretty aptly. Democrats shouldn't run from what millions of people correctly see as a bonafide betrayal. What they should not do is take the bait of backpeddaling on the basis of repugnican petty grievances. Petraeus can stand on his own laurels--I think he was quite candid, especially when asked about the connection between Iraq and our security ("I don't know, actually.")--And I'm sure he knows himself that he's the poster child du-jour for the boobinski "strategy." He's honorably doing his job, etc. Democrats mustn't run! Betrayal is precisely what is taking place here, so they should forge ahead with it making the repugnicans do the backpeddaling on an issue they haven't a square-inch of integrity to stand on.
The Move-on advert was no worse than the standard attack from conservative pundits, most of whom have called for murders and assasinations.
The media should have given no more attention to this advert than they give to the hate laced commentary from folks like Coulter and O'Reilly.
Petreaus failed in his role as trainer of the new Iraqi military and LOST the entire arms budget that year he was in that position. He's known as a boot-licker amongst his fellow officers. He's also a commanding officer in a war crime, in direct violation of his military oath and the UCMJ. Yup, he's betrayed us.
WHY SO MEAN?
MoveOn and the whole planet Earth knew exactly what the report would be. This general was hand picked by Bush himself.
I for one, agree with the "Over The Top" MoveOn ad! Dems must use the same tactics that Republicans employ and use.
That MoveOn Ad is straight out of the Republican playbook. Have you forgotten the ugly attacks on war veteran John Kerry?
Most ads aren't expressing the outrage people are feeling about this blunderous war.
Republicans also are running ads criticizing Democrats by using so called enlisted men who have lost limbs. They are in hospital beds begging to be able to stay in Iraq to Win that war.
So you bet, I hereby officially approve of that ad and call for more of the same. The Dems must lower themselves to the Republicans disgustingly low level of thier ads.
Footnote:
The MoveOn Ad in question is on the same low level as Republican Ads. The Swift Boat Ads paid off. They worked wonders against John Kerry.
I support MoveOn Ads in general, but this particular attack against the honorable general backfired. I supported it, but it should have been directed at the general's BOSS.
The general was just following orders from The Commander in Chief. Don't attack the good messenger. Attack the man who created this blunder in Iraq. GWB
There are other options Sam. A gut originated message is welcome.
I'm still flogging through D Westen's political brain book. Its taking a while not because he is hard to read but because the amount of information is densely packed.
One point, among many, he makes is that you shouldn't be afraid to piss off the oposition. MoveOn performed in this way. Kudos to them.
I think they have something for Julie up next.
Cheney is what ? about 10% approval ??
Cheney is alive?
No, he's undead. A vampire.
Cheney is alive?
If you call that living....
Que Count Floyd,"Ohh that's so Scary!"
YOU WANT SCARY?
Wear a Bush or Cheney mask for Halloween.
This role by Time Warner's noise station is hardly surprising, and amplifies the concern being expressed at Truthout.or by its readers complaints that their email newsletters and their own e-mail content are being hijacked by AOL. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091307Z.shtml for details.
All of this tends to tie in with the recent admission that "private" industries have been "involved" in the spying. Think you have to wear a turban for big brother to be watching what you read and write? How long before the eye-cam on your laptop that you use for video messaging and conferencing is run through Big Brother Central?
CHENEY [video clip]: "Like most Americans, I admire the integrity and the candor that General Petraeus showed in his hearings before Congress... "
Cheney immediately backed that up with the results of his nationwide survey. Just kidding,he made it up, just like the bushie posters here who constantly tell us what "the vast majority" and "everybody" thinks.
"...and the attacks on him by MoveOn.org in ad space provided at subsidized rates in The New York Times last week were an outrage."
What's the outrage, the subsidized rates? Does Dick just go crazy at the idea of anybody else taking money that he could have stolen?
Don't miss this post from Driftglass.
"One ad, by one group, on one day, and the Right goes collectively monkey****."
I think the ad was poorly done, and doesn't help anyone. Just like the right's constant use of similar methods, it mostly just works as a way to energize the already faithful. I don't really have a problem with that though - it's what's needed right now. But I get the impression that the ad was intended as more than that, which is why I think it's poorly conceived.
The problem to me though is the use of "betray", which is normally associated with "treason". Whatever I think of Petreaus, and even if I think he has betrayed the American people, associating him with treason is wrong.
I'm all for using confrontational methods, but as I've said before when the right has done this, when you start to call those with different opinions "traitors", you've crossed the line. Note, I don't think that is what they are necessarily doing here, as "betray" can mean other things, but that is the association that I see.