Mark Levin reports role in Giuliani attack on Clinton
On the September 14 edition of his nationally syndicated talk show, conservative radio host Mark Levin took credit for a new advertisement by Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's campaign attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). Levin said that he met with Giuliani on September 11 at Fox News host Sean Hannity's 2007 Freedom Concert and suggested that the former New York mayor link Clinton with the liberal group MoveOn.org and demand that she and other Democratic presidential candidates denounce the group's September 10 advertisement in The New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus. As Media Matters for America documented, Giuliani's ad misrepresented Clinton's position on the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq.
Levin went on to describe Media Matters as a "phony group," claiming that it is linked to "Hillary Rotten and her husband, 'BJ' Bill Clinton." In fact, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political candidate or party.
From the September 14 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Mark Levin Show:
LEVIN: Good evening my friends, this is Mark Levin. Our number is 877-381-3811 -- 877-381-3811. We did our analysis yesterday of the president's speech. Right there, right after his speech. No need to do more of that today, unless, of course, you want to talk about it. I don't know how much more can be said about MoveOn.org, the sleazeball operation that was set up in 1998 by the Clintonoids with their hemorrhoids. Funded by billionaires Peter Lewis and George Soros to fight Clinton's impeachment, and has been a Clinton front group ever since. And she is MoveOn.org.
When I was at the Freedom Concert in New Jersey on Tuesday, I met briefly with Rudy Giuliani with Sean [Hannity], and I told Rudy Giuliani, "MoveOn.org should be linked to Hillary Clinton." I told him that every presidential candidate on that Democrat side, we should demand that they denounce this organization and what they have done. And little did I know that he was actually listening to me. It's the right thing to do. This is a Clinton front group, that's why she hasn't denounced it. 'Cause she likes it, she believes in it. We have all kinds of sordid groups out there that are linked to Hillary Rotten and her husband, "BJ" Bill Clinton. This, what is this, Council for American Progress, that's a phony group, Media Matters, a phony group, MoveOn.org, a phony group, and on and on. They all work together. They're all using different parts of the tax code as they try to slime their way to office.
This guy shouldn't be allowed to use Linkin Park as his signature song. Three songs for you, Levin: "Hands Held High", "No More Sorrow", and "Little Things Give You Away". And let's see how fast you switch to Ted Nugent after hearing those songs.
This guy shouldn't be allowed to use public airwaves to spread his lies, haterd, and useless right-wing propaganda.
So typical of you to call for censorship when your side can't compete in the marketplace of ideas. Let me guess - you are also in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine," aren't you?
Since when is hatred the "marketplace of ideas"?
And yes, I'm in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. Both sides of each issue should be presented so people can decide for themselves what is right by making an informed decision - not by responding in knee-jerk style to whatever these hatemongors tell you to think.
If the Fairness Doctrine was still in place, Mark Levin would have to get a real job. And we'd all be much better off.
wzwriter, I think Genghiz made it pretty clear; You are opposed to lies, hatred and propaganda, and he considers those things "ideas".Yikes.
wzwriter, I think Genghiz made it pretty clear; You are opposed to lies, hatred and propaganda, and he considers those things "ideas".Yikes.
I guess lies, hatred, and propaganda are the closest Genghiz's side gets to having "ideas". Double yikes.
"In fact, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political candidate or party".
Me neither. Thanks for clearing that up.
Which is why it always shills for Democrats. It's "not" affiliated.
It's not MMFA's fault that the Democrats are on the right side and the Repugs are the liars. And that the media seems to be siding with the liars.....
the ad was stupid. not that they shouldn't have had an ad pointing out the reality vs. bush perception of iraq. but you give these guys ammunition when you use rhetoric like that. look at the anti war crowd beating up on the military. not smart.
Life according to Media Matters:
When Rudy Giuliani pays for an ad in the New York Times, it's not just an ad; it is an "attack ad." When MoveOn.org pays for an ad in the New York Times, it's just an ad. Excuse me, but when the ad is specifically about attacking the patriotism and credibility of the guy leading our service members in Iraq, it is an attack ad.
Now that I've written this, I expect to be attacked. Bring it on. (Mark Levin did not approve of this message, specifically.)
Wouldn't call the move on ad just an ad. If your only going to define the ads as ads or attack ads, well this is what you call framing the issue. Would you argue that provocative ad would be inacurate. Would you care to express the opinions of the generals boss Adm,Fallows. He also has some problems with his underlings performance. Think they'll get any time on the MSM callender?
Please, did you even look at the ads? Oh wait, you didn't since Giulianni's isn't in the NYT, as you claim, it's a video (in particular the link is to YouTube).
Giulianni's ad is the archetypal crap you'd expect to hear from him or maybe someone on Fox (gee, like Sean Hannity for instance...oh). It says,
"Now she is questioning his honesty...And just" when our troops need all our support to finish the job Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them. General Petraeus and the brave men and women serving under him deserve an apology, and our nation deserves better."
That is a prime example of an attack ad.
Petraeus is a liar, plain and simple. I don't care if he's leading the forces in Iraq, it doesn't make him more honest or less of a liar. His assessments are in direct contradiction to every independent report coming out of Iraq. The MoveOn.org ad simply highlights this and the only "attack" was the use of "General Betray Us." That's some real "venom" isn't it? I mean that might "embolden the turrists." </sarcasm>
And I got a good laugh out of your inclusion of "bring it on." It was stupid when Bush said it, it's stupid now that you say it.
Just because Mark Levin says that he led Giuliani to make the ad doesn't mean it's true. He could be exaggerating his role, or Giuliani could have already made the decision to make the ad.
Giving Levin credit he may not deserve might leave less blame on Giuliani's shoulders that he rightfully deserves.
When the military allows itself to be politicized it deserves to be criticized.
Colin Powell is a case in point.
Excuse me, could you point out a time in Mr. Powells's career that he was "political" as a memeber of the armed forces?
He locked horns with Clinton over allowing gays to serve in the military.
And yes, Powell was Joint Chiefs Chairman for the first 8 months of Clinton's first term. I remember that Clinton was surprised at how quickly Powell called for a sit down and confronted him over the issue. The oval office chair wasn't even warm yet.
Something about a U.N. speech he gave with some very bent intelligence maybe?
I'm fairly certain he was NOT a member of the armed forces when he addressed the UN. Wasn't he S.o.S?
Yes, he was.
But he gave the impression that his many years of military experience was reinforcing the "fact" that Iraq had WMDs. Which we now know is a lie. Therefore, Powell leveraged his military career for political purposes, and lost a great deal of his credibility as a result.
I don't get Levin. He frequently uses an insincere tone of voice. Does he even wish to be taken seriously?---does he feel guilty about his deceptions? Hannity can't seem to help it, his voice betrays him. But Levin puts it on.
Hey MMFA,
Levin is a goldmine of rhetoric for you to report. He's as hateful as they come. Heck, you should just post transcripts of his whole show in <b>bold</b> and call it crap.
I listen to him every day and have called in a few times...once in 2004 to call him out on comparing the War on Terror to the War on Communism in Vietnam.
He's a brilliant constitutional lawyer...knows his stuff, but he's got his ethical interpretation of it all wrong. Like how some people are subhuman because they're criminals, immigrants, activists, French, or extremists.
For some reason that reminds me of the definition of <b><i>FASCIST<b><i>...
maybe huh?
even though he was retired military at the time it's clear the reason he was picked to give that particular speech was the respect he garnered as a military commander.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record...
The presentation by the soldier-diplomat to the world body in February 2003 lent considerable credibility to President Bush's case against Iraq and for going to war to remove President Saddam Hussein."
Are you starting to see a patten here?
The media just has a woody for this Betray-us thing. I just caught Sans Sannity with Newt Gingrich , both of them getting the vapors and their skirts all ruffled that somebody with a military uniform could be subjected to the same standards as mere mortals.
I haven't seen them this outraged since they responded to attacks on the credibility of John Kerry, Murtha, and other vets.
Oh wait, those vets weren't lying and sucking up to the war machine so much, so the GOP media was leading the attacks.
I find it incredible that Petraeus could be attacked in such a way, at such a point in history, without the Moveon people being run out of business.
Truly despicable. I guess the time has passed in the U.S. where, people devoting their life to serving this country receive no respect.
moveon's tax exempt status should have been revoked long ago. Politically neutral?
Right. Just like MMFA.
I find it incredible that Petraeus allowed himself to be used in such a way, at such a point in history, without the American people demanding that our military leaders stay out of the political arena until after they've retired.
I find MoveOn's questioning an Patreus' service and/or loyalty to his country quite despicable and personally distasteful. It only serves to increase division and animosity.
That said, I don't see much difference between MoveOn's rhetoric and that of Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or the Swift Boat doofs. What has me amused is how the right-wing has the chutzpuh to complain about MoveOn, when they have been doing the same thing for so long. Do they even know they've been doing it?
Secondly, MoveOn has never claimed to be "politically neutral". They don't have to be. They are an issue advocate and I have no real problem with that. If you are going to take away their tax exemption because you don't like the way they communicate their issue, that is not democratic and pretty fascist - plain and simple.
That said, I don't see much difference between MoveOn's rhetoric and that of Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or the Swift Boat doofs. What has me amused is how the right-wing has the chutzpuh to complain about MoveOn, when they have been doing the same thing for so long. Do they even know they've been doing it?
They can dish it out, but they can't take it....
I find it incredible that Petraeus could be attacked in such a way, at such a point in history, without the Moveon people being run out of business.
I find it incredible that some people think that no one should be allowed to criticize anyone in uniform. "Thinking" like that smacks of Stalinist Russia.....
Truly despicable. I guess the time has passed in the U.S. where, people devoting their life to serving this country receive no respect.
Serving the country is one thing. Selling yourself out to support a lying administration is another.
moveon's tax exempt status should have been revoked long ago. Politically neutral?
Right. Just like MMFA.
The Christian Coalition and FoKKKus On The Family are even MORE political, and their tax-exempt status has never been put in jeopardy. Let them lose theirs, first - THEN we'll talk about MoveOn's status.
You're right about repsect for serving this country, but putting on a uniform, or sticking a 10cent bumper sticker on your car falls short of the honor that goes with the uniform. If anything, we should be shamed that this high ranking officer chose to help this administration keep our sons and daughters in a war that had no basis of truth. I'll stand beside you and salute every soldier and civilian who went, but never for a poitical mouthpiece.
I'm sad to say that after six months of anxiously waiting for the 2007 Freedom Concert here in NJ, I was not able to attend due to an old bowling injury.
Sorry, HBL. I know that you were looking forward to my review of the concert.
Who needs a review? I can tell you EXACTLY what happened there.
Some people sang, Hannity and his right-wing loony frineds said a bunch of stupid stuff, and a whole lot of sheeple in the audience waved flags around and called themselves "great Americans".
There. I just saved everybody the price of a ticket to one of Hannity's propaganda-fests. :-)
There's always next year, King. I didn't make it to San Diego for the Freedumb Fest either, and I've survived.
Ann Coulter has deemed this the "Doctrine of Infallibility." One side puts up their advocates, and then it is demanded that the advocates cannot be criticized at all, because they are due "respect" for their status.
Ann says, for example of the widows of 9/11 who criticized Bush and his War in Iraq, that NOBODY can be held as above criticism. So she "hits back" at these supposedly "infallible" advocates, using deeply personal attacks ("they ENJOY their husbands' deaths"), but mostly saying they are WRONG.
Ah, but the Rightwing has THEIR "Doctrine of Infallibility" as well, to advocate THEIR political policies. Without irony, it involves people who are under orders from the Commander in Chief ... the MILITARY. The Rightwing find a military person willing to advocate NeoCon policy, and then set about demanding that their advocates NOT BE CRITICIZED.
Guess what, Ann, and all other rightwingers? YOU (Ann) do not respect any such doctrine, and we on the left will follow your example. We can do no less, else it would be unilateral disarmament.
Ann leads the way in criticizing "those who cannot be criticized". So quit your whining, rightwingers. Petraeus is due complete respect as a military man doing a military mission, and is due critical review and analysis when he's put forward as an advocate of a PURELY POLITICAL policy.
We on the left will not go into "full-ANN" mode, and accuse the general of "enjoying the deaths" of American soldiers subjected to Bush's orders. But we certainly WILL challenge his claims, call him on his lies, and demonstrate exactly where he stopped being a general, and started being a political hack and a tool for the NeoCons.
The "Rightwing Doctrine of Infallibility" ... Ann says don't fall for it. For once, good advice from Ann.
To echo your (and earlier posters) sentiments, why is it ok for the right-wing to politicize the military (Petraeus' song and dance report and "support the troops" comes to mind) and yet there be "something wrong" with any Dems with military backgrounds expressing opinions about what is going on. The only Dem i've seen that hasn't been fazed by the right-wing "whining" is Sen. Webb from Virginia. More power to him too!
Exactly....Remember all the "respect" they gave to Kerry's Purple Hearts? I wonder what all the usual suspects had to say when those retired Generals came out in opposition to Rumsfeld. I'm sure that Hannity and Limbaugh were sufficiently deferential.
They're real good about hiding behind their "reverence" for the troops, until one of those troops disagrees with President Numbnuts' policies, or until it's time to actually spend money to help the troops after they come home.
The only thing bigger than the Right Wing Lie Machine is the Right Wing Whine Machine.
Tex, we simply don't see enough of these posts from you. But then, just like Olbermann says about his "Special Comments", if you do them too often you become a cartoon of yourself.
Keep up the good work.
Levin went on to describe Media Matters as a "phony group," claiming that it is linked to "Hillary Rotten and her husband, 'BJ' Bill Clinton." In fact, Media Matters is not affiliated with any political candidate or party.
The only thing that's phony around here is Mark Levin and his Walter Winchell wannabee screechy voice. (And the right-wing loonies complain about Hillary's voice.....)
That voice of his is like nails on a blackboard. Sheeeesh.
That voice of his is like nails on a blackboard. Sheeeesh.
And it gets worse when he shouts. Which happens through most of his radio pukefest.
Levin is one of the best reasons I can think of to be a Democrat; he's the worst of the Flying Monkey Liars. I can at least tolerate Rush Limbaugh in small doses, but I can't even stand Levin for a full sentence. The man is beyond vile.
Levin is one of the best reasons I can think of to be a Democrat...
We could use him as our Recruitment Poster Boy.
:-)
Hey, it may work. I was a political middle-of-the-roader until I started listening to Rush Limbaugh. I voted Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Perot, Clinton. After a couple of years listening to Pigboy, I came to the realization that these people are nuts.
I must admit that I tune in to listen to this vile little man. It's a guilty pleasure, like slowing down to see a car accident. I've been trying to figure out what his poitical niche is. He talks about his constitutional expertise and sees himself as the constitutional king of the trailer park. This little cherub from hell yells, rants and demeans anyone who is dissimilar to him or his beliefs. Take a stand against the war and he tells you that your un american although he never served, and would not allow his children to serve either. Why does he defend high gas prices and new drilling? Maybe becuase he's accepted money from big oil for his Landmark Legal Foundation. I recall listening to an NPR review of his men in black book. It wasn't a good review so Mark went on a campaign agains the reviewer, who ammended her comments. Some said he threatened to sue. Some times I think he tries to be a outspoken and controversial just to get the attention form Media Matters. He's all about himself, his self declared patriotism and Hate.
It will be interesting to hear if the Not-So-Great One mentions MMFA's "attack" on him during today's Mark Levin Radio Pukefest.....
I've met this New York rat, Mark "Loudmouth" Levin. He is nothing more than a sleazeball street thug who hangs with Sean.
Levin is not the only one behind Rudy Giuliani's campaign attack ad on Sen. Hillary Clinton. Levin's "cabin boy" was also a big supporter of the ad.
I never listen to this rat's radio program. I rather endure reruns of the film "Howard the Duck."
I've met this New York rat, Mark "Loudmouth" Levin.
That comment is an insult to self-respecting rats everywhere....
:-)