On Morning Joe, Bernard Goldberg falsely claimed Clinton and Obama "didn't condemn" MoveOn ad
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Author and Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg falsely claimed on MSNBC's Morning Joe that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "didn't condemn" an ad that referred to Gen. David Petraeus as "General Betray Us." In fact, Obama and Clinton voted for an amendment that condemned the ad.
On the April 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, author and Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg falsely claimed that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "didn't condemn" MoveOn.org's 2007 newspaper advertisement, which criticized Gen. David Petraeus and referred to him as "General Betray Us." Goldberg stated: "[W]hether you're a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, you just don't -- you don't take out a full-page ad in The New York Times and refer to a man who's dedicated his life to his country as 'General Betray Us.' But two people didn't, didn't condemn the ad: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- who not only want to be president, but commander in chief." In fact, both Clinton and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that condemned the ad, among other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces.
The Boxer amendment "strongly condemn[ed] attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." Of the MoveOn.org ad it stated: "On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States" It also criticized Republican-backed attacks on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) concerning his military service, as well as attacks on former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), a veteran.
During a September 23, 2007, appearance on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Clinton stated of the MoveOn.org ad: "I don't condone attacks by anyone on the patriotism and service of our military. I am an admirer of General Petraeus ... and I joined in voting for a resolution that condemned such attacks." Clinton made similar remarks during an appearance on NBC News' Meet the Press that same day, stating: "He [Petraeus] is a man of great honor and distinction who has served admirably. I don't condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don't believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that. I didn't think it should've been said about Senator Cleland or Senator Kerry. I think it's important that we end this kind of attacks on the patriotism of those who serve our country."
From the April 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
JOE SCARBOROUGH (co-host): Let's talk about General Petraeus' testimony yesterday. How does the media properly cover something like that, and what did you get out of that testimony?
GOLDBERG: Well, I think the media should just cover it. You know, I mean, the more news and the less analysis, the happier I am. You know, can I take it back to the last time he testified, and the "General Betray Us" ad?
SCARBOROUGH: Sure.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Mm-hmm.
GOLDBERG: Look, "betray" is a word that has special meaning to a man in uniform. It's an attack that crosses a very, very bright line. And I think most people watching us would condemn that ad. They would. I mean, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, you just don't -- you don't take out a full-page ad in The New York Times and refer to a man who's dedicated his life to his country as "General Betray Us." But two people didn't, didn't condemn the ad: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- who not only want to be president, but commander in chief.
What's interesting, to me anyway, about that is that -- I mean, they don't think Petraeus is a bad person. They even supported him. But they wouldn't condemn the ad, because they're terrified, terrified of the crazies on the left and people like MoveOn.org, because that's their ATM machine, Joe. And they just will not -- they would rather not condemn an ad that attacks a good, decent man like General Petraeus.
And personally, just so you know where I'm coming from, I've been against the war from the outset. I think it's a mess. I just -- I don't think it was necessary. But you don't [video skip] a general -- you don't refer to him with the word "betray." And somebody who wants to be commander in chief ought to have the guts to say, "I condemn that ad."
SCARBOROUGH: You're talking about --
GOLDBERG: [Sen.] Joe Biden [D-DE] did, by the way.
I'm sorry but on this issue I support move on, regardless of media distortion.
He is general "betray us".
I have no respect for this general who is promoting the idea that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely making for trillions of dollars in a budget deficit as well as countless instances of human suffering.
The Iraqi invasion was a shameful act. Do generals get a pass for their lack of foresightedness and morality?
It is instances like this which make me tempted(and I live in New York State)to vote for Nader in November.
Yeah and there is a problem with "following orders" that was demonstrated at the Nuremberg trials.
And in this case I stand by my analogy.
How is move on "sleazy"?
What a pathetic little whiner.
Complain about the hundreds of times Republicans in higher position than moveOn have called people traitors or shut the hell up.
And we had trials to determine such things, not sleazy organizations who put out disrespectful ads slamming someone they don't like.
It's called "Freedom of Speech", Tommy. It's protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. You could look it up, if you'd like....
Not only that Tommy they paid to run the ad
Why do you hate free markets ?
Yes, I am advocating the government rush in and shut down moveon's offices and throw them in the jail for running this ad, absolutely.
Eden, Come on - they have every right to run it, and you can applaud it, and I can denounce it. No problem on any of those, for me at least.
Then by all means, let's have some trials! Send Bush, Cheney, Petraeus and the lot to the Hague and let them defend their war in the proper forum.
Glad to have you on our side.
I think your ire is misdirected. He and the rest of the troops will be home whenever our gov't tells them to come home. I think the blame lies with the elected officials, not petraeus. He's the underling in terms of decision-making.
That is not how the administration put it
It was presented that the General would come in with all his millitary experience and give us the straight dope on Iraq, instead he parrots the GOP line which is technically what he has to do as an underling
I just wish it was presented more honestly and that the Dems hadn't gotten suckered into thinking Petraeus was different
Petraeus shouldn't even be put in that position. The pres should be the one defending his policy before congress. Believe me, I'm not by any means for staying in iraq, despite some the crap I say here, but still I don't think petraeus should be the whipping-boy of the dems. From what I've seen, he's an honorable man serving our gov't
Bush is using the man as a media shield, as pathetic as that is it makes the general a fair target and proves again that W is a coward
Petreaus can still do the right thing and speak out, cry BS
It might get him discharged but he'd get his balls back at least
And I quote "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."
I wish war supporters WERE more forthcoming about what goes on in their heads. History, the facts on the ground and basic math say this war is a loser. I'm not sure what the supporters have going for them other than faith and fear of what may or may not happen.
Petreus knows full well we cannot stay there forever, that history proves the second we leave as hell is gonna break loose. So what exactly does he think we have to gain from all this loss of life and treasure ?
When McCain can walk out of the green zone, alone, and get a gallon of milk then maybe we can discuss progress
Just because a massive war zone is now several smaller war zones is not progress
Just because a massive war zone is now several smaller war zones is not progress
The point is not just several smaller war zones. The point is that instead of 1 large war zone being occupied and controlled by extremists with the citizens of Iraq standing back in fear, they are now fighting back against the extremist because they have US support in doing so. I think changing the mindset of the people to stand up for themselves is a HUGE form of progress.
The escalation has been a failure. Politcal progress was the aim of the escalation. There is no progress at which to point, this is yet another example of how damned inept Republicans are at leadership.
Lie after lie after lie is all we hear from you freaks.
EXXON and HALLIBURTON are showing huge profits. Status Quo is thus VICTORY for Bush's friends, for however long he can keep our troops at war.
So what if a few get killed every day? What's that compared to the miracle of the "free market"? And hell, they volunteered anyway. THEY can't complain about getting themselves placed at the whim of bad leadership. And if THEY don't complain, then what's the problem?
I disagree
First its freedom of speech
Second the General has not been honest about his role in this war, he is taking orders while trying to portray himself as a strategy setter, it may not rise to full on treason but its dishonest to the tax payers
Today in the news they report that Bush may endorse the Petreaues stay forvever plan...interesting since the commander and cheif sets the agenda...it just looks prettier to act as if the general is calling the shots
First its freedom of speech
I dont see where any laws were changed saying the organization cannot create those ads. Just that the target audience does not agree with it.
Second the General has not been honest about his role in this war, he is taking orders while trying to portray himself as a strategy setter, it may not rise to full on treason but its dishonest to the tax payers
There is no way of knowing that he lied. His job to give military strategy, not do what is best for the tax payers. That part is congress & the presidents job.
Today in the news they report that Bush may endorse the Petreaues stay forvever plan...interesting since the commander and cheif sets the agenda...it just looks prettier to act as if the general is calling the shots
The commander in chief makes his decision based upon the recommendations put in front of him. The general calls the shots on the ground, the congress and president call the shots giving him the permission to do so on the ground.
It's simple. You can continue your stupid apologetics but you fail to convince.
Petraeus is giving aid and comfort to these liars, he is complicit in the lies, he has betrayed our trust.
Again, stuff and nonsense. Proof of facts, and opinions, are two different things. Your argument would not hold up in court, what makes you think it should be accepted by everyone.
Lie after lie after lie.
Furthermore, Petraeus has allowed himself to be a political pawn for an enormously misguided president who is actively dismissing the the overwhelming majority opinion of we the people. So yes, MoveOn is correct, Petraeus is a betrayer.
I guess you believe in laws.
I guess you believe the laws protecting human rights and banning torture should be held high.
Sure you do.
I can respect your disagreement and while it may be freedom of speech it still does in now way excuse the insinuation. To call a person a traitor you are not saying he betrayed some of us but rather all of us. There is absolutely not proof whatsoever that Petreaus is a traitor. It is pathetic to make that kind of accusation just because people may disagree with the man. We know he has honorably served his country by simply wearing the uniform, so I see no difference in people calling the man a traitor and people on the right calling opponents of this war traitors, unpatriotic, etc. Both instances are without justification and quite frankly lack moral clarity.
Secondly, his honesty about this war is a matter of opinion because by saying such a thing you are in no uncertain terms calling him a liar on top of being a traitor. I dare say if there was proof that the man sat before congress and bold faced lied he wouldn't get away with it. Lying to congress is a crime.
Hideous ?
Is there anything more beautiful than watching the First Amendment in action ?
And really, why exactly did Obama and Clinton have to apologize ?
And if they are to apologize shouldn't it rather be for going along with this false Patreaus nonsense, acting as if this guy was going to say anything different than what W tells him to say...what a farce
Yes it is
Christ we let the KKK march down south
This is not a debatable point chris, they had the right to say what they said
Eden,
I have not heard one person who condemns this crappy and incredibly disrespectful ad say that moveon didn't have the right to run it. That is such a silly straw argument. Of course they have the right to run any ad they want too, just as those of us who find it reprehensible have every right to say so.
Chris is exactly right.
"This is not a debatable point chris, they had the right to say what they said"
I fail to see what makes you think that is the point I am debating. Just because a person has the RIGHT to say something does not justify the statements merit. Obviously it is deplorable for those on the right to accuse opponents of this war for being unpatriotic. Should we not then point out the idiocy of such statements? Or should we accept the premise being put forward as legitimate because of free speech? No one is questioning the right of MoveOn to say what they did, but we can question the legitimacy, which is what I have done. Because you have the right to say someone is a traitor does not make them a traitor. Petreaus is not a traitor, unless you can prove otherwise I stand by that statement.
"That is no excuse to insinuate that a four star who has served his country is a traitor."
Where did you get the idea of calling him "Betrayus" was calling him a traitor? Traitorous betrayal is only one kind of betrayal. There is also this: "to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends."
Personally, I understood the ad in light of THAT definition of betrayal.
Chris,
Of course, it's quite reasonable to assume that moveon was just disappointed in the expectations and hopes they had for their friend, the General.
First thing that popped into my mind too.
very brave of you, especially because, as I noted earlier, he's got BO on his side
A can of Right Guard should take care of his BO problem. Oh, wait - you mean THAT BO......
This is only a half truth by the person who wrote this article.
It is true that Obama and Clinton voted for the Boxer ammendment on the basis that it would also condemn the previous ads against Kerry & Cleeland.
However, it is failing to mention that there was a previous ammendment created and voted on before Boxer's by Senator Cornyn condemning Moveon.org ad in which Clinton did not vote for, and Obama skipped the vote all together.
Regardless of your view on the topic, and Media Matters liking to nit pick articles that do not include "all" the information, it would only be pertinent to include this information as well.
Petraeus's job is to command the troops in Iraq; Bush has him shamefully pimping Dickless Cheney's oil war to Congress. It's obscene.
NERZOG:
None other than Ann Coulter explains exactly WHAT Petraeus is doing at the bidding of the Bush White House, and WHY he is doing it.
Ann Coulter says (paraphrased to this instance), "This is the DOCTRINE of INFALLIBILITY. If the White House has a point to make about the Iraq War, should they send in somebody Congress and the American people are allowed to respond to? No. No. No. Make them respond to someone wearing a uniform, a military man. Then, if anyone responds critically, they can be accused of questioning the honor and patriotism of a soldier."
Rush Limbaugh seems to disagree, " I think when anyone climbs into the arena of ideas, the political arena of ideas, particularly during a heated campaign; they do not get the special privilege of being the only fighter allowed to throw a punch. There are not special people among us who get to enter the political arena of ideas and say whatever they want. They can mislead. They can misquote. They can misrepresent. They can even lie -- and yet we're supposed to, if they are victims of something, stand back, be compassionate, be tolerant, and understand, and not respond. Sorry. I don't follow the script. Now, the idea that certain people because of their status are allowed to enter the fray with impunity is something I am not going to subscribe to. This is a strategy. It is a tactic.I am not going to be fooled or lulled into standing aside. I'm not going to be intimidated under the pretext that some people have a protected, insured right to say whatever they want simply because they have special status."
If a general want to play politics, he has to live with the consequences.
General Petraeus has gotten a free pass from the right, while Gens. Shinseki, Zinni, Hoar, Odom, Newbold, Gard, Johns and others have spoken against the war or the surge and have been vilified by the right-wing media.
It's madness.
The first question ever to Paetreus from a Dem should have been..
Sir, are you at liberty to speak freely on this matter ?
After he answered no he should have been sent back to the sand dunes
Nuff' said
I know also that Move on endorses Obama and I've been getting e mail from them asking me to volunteer for Obama or contribute.
I wonder what their take is on this whole thing. Last I checked they still strongly support Obama.
I think you're right. However, what is blantantly obvious is that the group who paid to run that presented themselves as against the troops. There would have been much better ways to express your thoughts on the war.
I dont think the Moveon ad should group all democrats into a general arena as standing by what the ad said, but Moveon presented what they feel, and the majority of american as well as the government did share the same view.
I agree with those saying the MoveOn ad was a mistake, at least in the sense of being poorly worded, and not taking into account the exploitation by the media. Absolutely political correctness from the right, as much as they'd hate to admit it.
I have a feeling by November, I'm going to be very tired of hearing people* forced to condemn, denounce and reject evrything but the phone book.
* and by "people", of course, I mean non-Republicans.
Or should I come down off my loathing, long-in-the-tooth Lippizzaner.