Hillary Responds To Rudy Ad

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:37:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here is the Hillary Clinton campaign's response to the Giuliani ad attacking Move On and Senator Clinton:

Rudy Giuliani is dropping in the polls and is unable to defend his own support for George Bush's failed war. Instead of distorting Senator Clinton's record in the campaign's first attack ad, the Mayor should tell voters why he thinks sticking with the Bush Iraq strategy makes sense. The country wants change and while Hillary Clinton is focused ending the war, Mayor Giuliani is playing politics."

It is worth noting, that Senator Clinton, unlike me for instance, refrained from criticizing Move On for its ill advised "General Betray Us" title. Say what you will about Senator Clinton, she does not criticize activist groups like Move On and the Netroots. Some folks who made a big deal about criticisms of Move On, like Matt Stoller, should take note and commend Clinton for not taking the, I believe, merited shot at Move On. On the flip is the Clinton statement Rudy ~~lied about~~ distorted.

SEN. 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.

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.

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.

I started my morning today at ground zero, where once again the names of the nearly 3,000 victims of the attack on our country were read solemnly in the rain.
We have seen Osama bin Laden reappear on our television sets, essentially taunting us. We have the most recent reports out of Germany of terrorists plotting against American assets who have been trained in Pakistan. And we get very little comfort from the fact that the mastermind of that mass murder is at large, neither captured nor killed, and that the Taliban and Al Qaida are resurging in Afghanistan and their network is certainly, if not tightly organized, a loose confederacy that has grave consequences for us. . . .

No General Betray Us in that. Rudy is clearly desperate.

< Contraband Underpants Found at Guantanamo | Gen. Wesley Clark Endorses Hillary Clinton >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary Responds To Rudy Ad | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Does Clinton disagree with Move On? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Al on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:40:35 PM EST

Giuliani aside, here's what Clinton said:

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.

So she's calling him a liar. According to her, this is a military commander who stands in front of Congress and lies. This is different from "Betray Us" how, apart from the absence of a pun and the apparent courtesy of her opening paragraph?

Why do we have to be courteous to military leaders and their commanders-in-chief who lie, anyway?

Say what? (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:46:06 PM EST

Are you saying "suspension of disbelief" is calling some one a liar?

Ok. So hear is a question for you - is calling Petraeus "General Betray Us" calling him a traiotr?

Cuz I want to get this straight from the Move On supporters.


In both cases, (none / 0) (#7)
by Ben Masel on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:32:13 AM EST

depends on the body language.


: Better,,,, context (none / 0) (#8)
by Ben Masel on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:35:35 AM EST

In one case an ad placed by a partisan group. In the other, a US Senator acting in her official capacity.

What did you think it meant? (none / 0) (#23)
by Al on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:38:32 AM EST

Suspension of disbelief = What you are saying is not believable = you are lying.

I really don't see what's wrong with calling a spade a spade.


: To me "willing suspension of disbelief" (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 01:46:03 AM EST

means, pthe erformance is flat and unconvincing.

Clinton's suggestion (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:55:43 AM EST

that she's no longer part of the general's audience is good, but a day late and a few hundred million dollars short, to say the least. I think she distanced herself from MoveOn's ad's tone, but not its substance, which is very smart.

Just heard Ari Fleischer fulminate against the MoveOn ad on NPR's "On the Media" and use it as an excuse for his pathetic FredomWatch.org propaganda. Fleischer contorts the facts in typical Republican fashion to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Calls today's anti-war movement 60s holdovers and out of touch radicals. When will the reactionary right ever realize the 60s are over? You must be desperate if your idea of criticism is essentially calling someone a hippy.

Prior to that the MoveOn's spokesman argued that the "betray-us" tag was meant to question the presentation the general was making, not his character: "is he going to betray us by offering yet another false assessment" was the intent. Still think that's bad rhetoric, since it fails totally to persuade anyone not already of like mind. As for the actual presentation, the ad's pretty much on target as to what the general put on the table.

Listening to Fleischer, it's clear that any opposition to Bush's insanity makes you a cheese-eating surrender monkey. There's going to be self-righteous, reactionary pushback no matter what MoveOn does. So why shouldn't MoveOn be just as in-your-face as the FreedomWatch.org fascists? Should a general be given a pass on his crass political theater just because he's a general? The actual facts are after all on MoveOn's side.

What the Left doesn't understand (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:52:06 AM EST

is that the RNC is hoping that Move on does this every two weeks between now and election day.

It didn't attack the war, it attacked the man.
It didn't attack Bush, it attacked a person who is, at the end of the day, a military person.

That is, anyway you slice it, an attack on the troops. While he was telling the world how successful the troops had been, the ad was calling him a liar and the troops efforts and scarifices tratiorous.

It didn't attack the Repub candidates, it made the Demo candidates either look foolish trying to distance themselves from the ad, or by not distancing themselves, polarizing millions of independents against the Demos.
It created controversy and hostility against each other in the Demo/Left's ranks.
It created a huge secondary issue by raising the question that the NYTimes was willing to contribute a defacto political contribution by a 40% discount. This will call into question every story that is anti-war or anti-Repub that the Times runs.

Congratulations folks. I thought Rove had retired.


The ad's an attack (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:14:09 PM EST

on the troops? So deliriously Coulteresque a statement, so completely dissociated from what is actually the case. Lovely.

Can't see a single reason not to challenge the good general, neither does Admiral Fallon apparently, who has had some choice words for him.

As for polarization, that's good. We on "the left" are going to be so upset by the ad's rhetoric that we do what? Forget that the war was premised on lies, that it needs to end yesterday, that it has made us less safe? Everyday the war is in the news is another day the Bush Administration needs to answer America's question, "why are we still there?" And they have no answers.

I can fault MoveOn for not being as rhetorically sophisticated as they might be, but that's small beer.

Hmm, right-wingers not trust the NYTimes? Better pick up the phone and get right to Matt Drudge with that bombshell.

In FOG OF WAR, McNamara reflects on his malefeasance, his hubris, his shortsightedness. I can just see the Petraeus version, explaining forty years from why more troops had to die, how he now realizes that what seemed like reasons were in fact misunderstandings, blindness, and arrogance. It's sad and terrifying to see McNamara come to terms with his faults; we don't need to wait forty years to tell Petraeus that he's stuck in the ideological fog of Bush's big war.


Some things to remember. (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:10:56 PM EST

Ann Coulter isn't running. And yes, many people see the add as an attack on "the troops." On the war "effort." Now I don't expect someone for open borders to understand, but things like that are important to many people who otherwise aren't in love with the Repubs.

And I didn't say "right winhgers." Can't you read??

Oh well, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Tehe


Your posts (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:19:55 PM EST

are increasingly incoherent. It sounds like the many people you claim to speak for are all living inside your head.

Fact is, I don't need to wait 40 years for a pathetic mea culpa from the general who whitewashed more bloodshed in Iraq. Being a McNamara isn't a career choice; it's a cop out.

Now, kissing the president's a** may be your (or many people's, not sure who to address here) idea of supporting the troops, but in the reality-based community it just isn't so.

So, you and your right-wing, Fortress America, authoritarian "many people" just keep telling us we're not supporting the troops and watch as a big blue wave washes over Washington in Nov. 2008.


tnthorpe (none / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:58:53 PM EST

Did you need to wait 40 years to know Mac was full of it?? Wow. You are one sharp dude....

And what does that have to do with the left putting an ad in the NYT at a 40% discount attacking the military??

And you still haven't shown me where I wrote "right wingers" in my comment.

Can't you get anything right??

hehe


: You argue (none / 0) (#49)
by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:36:09 PM EST

like Guiliani. Seems Clinton handled him pretty easily.
Go back, reread the posts, not that that will help, but I don't need to wait 40 years for Petraeus to become another plaintive McNamara. But hey, keep arguing in full-on Republican mode: derogate, misconstrue, misquote, just plain make stuff up. It's your way, Ann Coulter's way, Rudy Giuliani's way, Andrew Card's way, Bush's way. Nobody but wingnuts is buying anymore.
So put your rightwing's Guiliani-esque palavering up against Clinton's polish and all I see is blue horizons.

I gather you , like 95% of the country didn't (none / 0) (#15)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 09:55:25 AM EST

actually read the ad.

Keep grasping at the straws.


Tell you what (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:14:24 AM EST

I am no lawyer and you are no sales person..

In sales it isn't what you are saying, it is what the customer sees, hears.....and remembers...


Key word: remembers (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:19:42 AM EST

This will not be remembered by a majority next month. Keep in mind, polls show no-one expected the general to say anything other than it is working, and they didn't believe him.

Keep grasping at straws though, I am enjoying it.


Don't you think the Repubs (1.00 / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:27:20 PM EST

will remind them??

Another key point about marketing... keep repeating the point.


No (5.00 / 0) (#42)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:24:39 PM EST

Because all it will do is reinforce their perception that the report was written by the Whitehouse and given by a latterday General Westmoreland.

If this is your rallying cry, you are indeed in trouble.


: Keep running... (1.00 / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:10:22 PM EST

The points are what I detailed.
And you can't deny them because they are true.
You can attack them using some things the Right has said, but then you are proving that you are against free speech....
Unless it is calling an honorable military man a traitor... that he has betrayed us..
And remember... It isn't what your die hard Repubs have said. It is what the Independents believe. Ann Coulter can say nasties about the "Left" until the cows come home and it is meaningless... Moveon's attack was pesonal and identified.... It will be rememered as mean spirited and insulting.. just like this little nasty was let slip by DA:

...People will think either I'm crazy or used to be in Naval Aviation, and I don't know which one is worse.
Once Moveon lowered the standards, the Left followed its downward spiral..

In other words (none / 0) (#27)
by jondee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:31:17 PM EST

fine-hone your lies 'cuz the rabble cant handle the truth.


Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:28:07 PM EST

Didn't you embarass yourself enough last night??


: How so (none / 0) (#56)
by jondee on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:22:03 PM EST

Herr Pokerputz?

Yeah we get it (none / 0) (#28)
by jondee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:23:41 PM EST

Petreus = "The Troops", as does Bush, Pat Robertson, and even you. You made that abundantly clear four years ago. It's a pity that there's so many troops that dont support the troops, but that's another story entirely.


I understand your point, but (none / 0) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:54:23 PM EST

I think if I were HRC or any of the others, I would demand to know if Rudy (or the rest of them for that matter) have disavowed, Coulter, O'Reilly, the Swiftboaters, those who wore purple heart bandaids at the GOP convention or the distributors of the purple heart bandaids and I would tell them, until they removed the beam from their eyes, not to worry about the mote in my eye. But that's just me.

a comment usually made in (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:29:25 PM EST

reference to the theatre.

really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

it denotes the fantasy nature of the subject at hand, and the necessary casting aside of logic, in order to immerse yourself in it. i believe the analogy is apt, in this instance. sen. clinton was right on the mark.

the question is whether or not the good general made his report knowing it was fantasy or not. if he did, then clearly he's a liar, 4 stars or no. if he didn't, than he has no business having the 4 stars. in either event, he managed, much like gen. powell, to destroy his credibility in the minds of the public.

i suspect he'll be retiring shortly.

My problem isn't with what she said (none / 0) (#5)
by Beldar on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:08:50 AM EST

I do not think it is unpatriotic to refuse to accept what Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker said. Reasonable people can disagree in good faith over the opinions they expressed, and over what inferences should be drawn from their testimony, especially with respect to predictions as to future events.

"Willing suspension of disbelief" is an aggressive formulation, but it's still respectful.

"Betray-Us" isn't. It speaks poorly for Sen. Clinton that she wasn't willing to disassociate herself from the MoveOn ad. The ad went beyond the bounds of decency — and it didn't need to. Opponents of the war, including those far to the left of Sen. Clinton, could find ample ammunition in what Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker freely conceded from which to argue their case.

Gratuitous use of hateful rhetoric (and this was not only hateful, but childish) poisons the atmosphere. It takes some maturity and even statesmanship to rise above it and then call it what it is. Sen. Clinton fell short, this time, in that regard.

May we count on you in the future? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:45:30 AM EST

Beldar you try to keep your blog civil, so I know you don't endorse any of the statements below, but at the same time have you called for (or did you call for) major GOP candidates/politicians to disassociate themselves from the following:

1.Glenn Beck statements on national television just recently that Democrats in Congress "have the blood of our soldiers on their hands?"
2.Fred Thompson telling Sean Hannity that Congressional Democrats are "dangerously close" to "rooting for our defeat" in Iraq?
3.Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saying critics of Bush's Iraq policy are "encouraging terrorists?"
4.Tom DeLay's accussing Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi of "getting very, very close to treason?"
5.Michael Reagan stating Howard Dean "should be arrested and hung for treason?"
6.Ann Coulter accussing Jimmy Carter of treason
7. Saxby Chambliss morphing Senator Max Cleleand, a Vietnam Vet who lost three limbs defending the US, into Osama Bin Ladin?
8.O'Reilly slandering of US troops by accusing them of perpetrating the Malmedy massacre against Nazi troops, when in reality Nazi troops had massacred American troops.

If you have not called (or did not call at the time the statements were made) upon major GOP candidates/politicians to disassociate themselves from such statements, why not? May we count upon you to do so the next time Beck, Thompson, Reagan, Coulter,O'Reilly, et. al. makes one of these McCarthy like statements? If not, why not?


Aren't you for Freedom of Speech?? (1.00 / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:07:22 AM EST

I thought the Left was supposed to rise above all that stuff.

You know, we catch a terrorist and want to give him a quick trubunal and hang'em, and you claim we must protect his rights...


Reading comprehension (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:25:26 AM EST

I am only holding Beldar to his own standard.

My personal position is at 3- remove the beam from your eye before you worry about the mote in mine.


Nope (1.00 / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:25:19 PM EST

When the Left is attacked, it always goes for the "rights" issue. Turn about and all that.

BTW - Get a forklift for that I beam...


yes it does- good point (none / 0) (#24)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 11:47:48 AM EST

Works for me. (1.00 / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 02:23:30 PM EST

You can ask Rudy all you want.

Somehow I don't think he will answer.


How Generous of You (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by squeaky on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:54:56 PM EST

For assuming doltishness rather than mendacity. Although it is true that hey do come full circle with him, usually the former leading the latter.


Squeaky revs up the smear machine (1.00 / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:14:26 PM EST

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

PPJ Lying Again (none / 0) (#37)
by squeaky on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:20:04 PM EST

Selling lies is your speciality. Like Goebbels (and Rove) you believe that to repeat and repeat lies ad nauseum will make it true.

Well you are as dishonest a salesman as he, just not as bright.


Squeaky impeaches Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:34:09 PM EST

Watch who you accuse, Squeaky. You be caught.

After that declaration of what you do, some 17 months later, you did it again.

So it isn't like the first one was out of context, said in the heat of the moment. You re-affrim it.

You be caught!

by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST
(I had written) So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?
(You replied.) I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

How do you like your pet albratross??

Tehehe


You're Psycotic (none / 0) (#50)
by squeaky on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:01:52 PM EST

dude


Heh (1.00 / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 09:16:28 AM EST

That's a wonderful response to my historical record of what you have written that you do.

: Historical? (5.00 / 0) (#54)
by squeaky on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:06:13 AM EST

More like hysterical. Anything you touch with regards to history is revisionist, distorted and cherry picked in order to support your latest lie, propaganda or spin. That is obvious to anyone who has ever bothered to read any of your comments.

DA - Get in the game (1.00 / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 04:21:02 PM EST

Gesh

How unfocused can you be. Here. Let me explain.

MoveOn does a political attack add by calling a US Army General a traitor. Yes. That's what they did.

The Right takes this gift and uses it. The Left defends. Molly B lists all of the nasty things that the Right has said. I remind her of the Left's standard comeback re free speech, etc.

She, realizing her mistake, wants to claim I misunderstand. You want to talk about criticism re freedom of speech.

Well duh. That was criticism Molly was trying to attack with..

Now. Go find a game you are capable of playing in.


Dude I made no mistake. (5.00 / 0) (#41)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:21:56 PM EST

Reading is fundamental!


MollyB (1.00 / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 06:54:15 PM EST

If you believe in free speech, then why did you bring it up??

Deny and deny you be caught.

: To be blunt (5.00 / 0) (#55)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:14:57 AM EST

I gather your reading comprehension skills are rusty. Go back, review the information and maybe, if you are honest, you will understand.

DA (1.00 / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 07:54:54 PM EST

Look, I understand how you feel about the military..

The fact that you don't want to touch (none / 0) (#24)
by Dark Avenger on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:59:30 AM EST
...People will think either I'm crazy or used to be in Naval Aviation, and I don't know which one is worse.

So it is no surprise when you defend the Mobveon ad...

But can't you do a better job of it??


You wrote what you wrote. (none / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 09:24:32 AM EST

...People will think either I'm crazy or used to be in Naval Aviation, and I don't know which one is worse.

There are millions of insults and ad hominem attacks that you could have written. That you chose to include the military is very revealing.

You have defined yourself.


: Like everything (5.00 / 0) (#58)
by jondee on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 01:29:24 PM EST

else in life, military service is what you make of it; you dont get somekind of lifetime moral pass simply for having been in the military; not in a non-fascist state.

Above that stuff (5.00 / 0) (#57)
by jondee on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 12:36:07 PM EST

One more reason why you dont like the Left: your fear of nose bleeds.


Oh yes (none / 0) (#10)
by Alien Abductee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:41:02 AM EST

Opponents of the war are just poisoning the atmosphere. Tsk.


Reaonable people? (none / 0) (#25)
by Al on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:06:02 PM EST

Reasonable people can disagree in good faith over the opinions they expressed

Reasonable people? You think Petraeus is a reasonable person? He is a military commander presiding over a disastrously failed invasion followed by the destruction of an entire country, not to speak of the incalculable damage it has done to every aspect of American society, and he stands in front of Congress and says things are looking up. It's a repeat performance of Colin Powell's outrageous lying - yes, lying - in front of the UN Security Council.

Do you think the disaster is going to stop if we pretend that its managers are reasonable people, and treat them with respect? On the contrary, they are just emboldened.

I think all this politeness is an excuse for not willing to confront the regime squarely and actually oppose them. And so the avalanche of destruction continues, while we congratulate ourselves on having such good manners.


You know Stoller's motto: (none / 0) (#6)
by Geekesque on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:31:22 AM EST

If you can't say something negative and toxic about a Democrat, don't say anything at all.

Last time I checked, he was bemoaning the fact that . . . Mark Warner entered the Senate race in Virginia.

So you (none / 0) (#11)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:09:22 AM EST

have been getting a lot of demands to apologize for something you said lately? What did you say to have people demanding an apology?

pathetic and predictable (none / 0) (#16)
by Miss Devore on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:05:41 AM EST

ad wars. elizabeth edwards has taken a stand, too.

still, the bush admin has been entirely about selling, so how could anyone think Petraeus isn't their latest product?

It's smart for Rudy to attack Hillary (none / 0) (#21)
by OkieFromMuskogee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 10:32:32 AM EST

because there is no better way to unite Republicans. For so very many Republicans, all Rudy needs to do to win their votes is to show that he shares their hatred for Hillary Clinton.