Custom Search

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Democrats Stand with MoveOn Attack Against Petraeus

When we first heard of the attack ad against General Petraeus, we discussed it here and here.

As we told you late last night, Move On org has bought a full page ad, seen here, in the NYT, headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House".

I said:

There is no middle ground here. None. Zip. Zilch.

There isn't. A few Democrats have made statements with lukewarm protests, such as Harry Reid's calling it a "distraction", but as a party, the Democrats have not come out against it, in fact, they blocked a vote on a resolution by House Minority Leader John Boehner to condemn the MoveOn's attack against General Petraeus.

The Democrats blocked that resolution.

Think about that for a second.

General Petraeus was confirmed, unanimously 81-0, (that link is to the roll call vote) and given the job of heading up a new counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq back in February and he received his full compliment of troops approximately three months ago.

Here are the credentials of General Petraeus which we showed you yesterday afternoon while showing you how the Democrats, (before Move On announced their full page ad in the NYT), were already trying to discredit General Petraeus:

General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq on February 10th, 2007, following his assignment as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Prior to assuming command at Ft. Leavenworth, he was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission- Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005. That deployment to Iraq followed his command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during which he led the “Screaming Eagles” in combat throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force-Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander - Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm. He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings. In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America’s 25 Best Leaders.

This is who they attacked. This is who the Democrats, as a party, refuses to allow a resolution to condemn this attack.

Hillary Clinton, in fact, took it a step further, not only did she not condemn MoveOn, she actually slurred general Petraeus herself:

September 13, 2007 -- Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday found herself positioned firmly to the left of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding that disgusting New York Times/MoveOn "General Betray Us" attack on Gen. David Petraeus' integrity.

That's not an enviable position for a woman who's trying to convince the American people that she's fit to be president of the United States.

Further complicating her life was the position former Mayor Rudy Giuliani took yesterday on the general, the importance of victory in Iraq and . . . the truth. You couldn't ask for a more stark contrast at this stage in a possible Giuliani-Clinton presidential face-off.

At issue was the MoveOn ad, published in Monday's Times, attacking Petraeus' honor as a man and as a soldier.

How disgusting was it?

Even Pelosi, one of the most left-wing speakers ever, said she'd have "preferred that they won't do such an ad."

But Clinton not only couldn't bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus' honesty: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," she huffed to the general Tuesday.

And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as "de facto spokesmen for a failed policy," pointedly refusing to criticize the ad - which called him an outright liar who'd "betray" his nation.

Giuliani, by contrast, had it exactly right.

He called the MoveOn ad "one of the more disgusting things that has happened in American politics."

Added America's Mayor: "The failure of the Democratic candidates to really condemn that, given how much money spends on behalf of Democratic candidates, is unfortunate."

It isn't just General Petraeus that MoveOn has attacked recently, they also attack Brian Baird, a Democrats, a war critic that has voted against every Iraq bill and funding request since day one.

What did Brian Baird do to deserve the attack from MoveOn?

He went to Iraq, he came back and he made this statement:

Which makes this article I found on Real Clear Politics all the more surprising but welcome.

Our troops have earned more time

The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks possible.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.

I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened and angry that we are where we are.

Knowing all this, how can someone who opposed the war now call for continuing the new directions that have been taken in Iraq? The answer is that the people, strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done.

To understand the magnitude of the challenge and why it is taking time for things to improve, consider what happened as the result of the invasion and post-invasion decisions. Tens of thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost and hundreds of thousands have fled the country. We dismantled the civil government, police, armed forces and the nation's infrastructure. We closed critical industries and businesses, putting as many as a half million people, including those who best knew how to run the infrastructure and factories, out of work and filled with resentment. We left arms caches unguarded and the borders open to infiltration. We allowed schools, hospitals and public buildings to be looted and created conditions that fanned sectarian conflicts.

It is just not realistic to expect Iraq or any other nation to be able to rebuild its government, infrastructure, security forces and economy in just four years. Despite the enormous challenges, the fact is, the situation on the ground in Iraq is improving in multiple and important ways.

Regardless of one's politics or position on the invasion, this must be recognized and welcomed as good news.

Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis. Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas. The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories. Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again. The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life.

Without question, these gains are still precarious and there are very real and troubling problems with the current Iraqi political regime and parliament at the national level.

The Iraqis are addressing these problems along with our own State Department but these issues will not easily be resolved and could, if not solved, throw the success of the entire endeavor into jeopardy.

Those problems notwithstanding, to walk away now from the recent gains would be to lose all the progress that has been purchased at such a dear price in lives and dollars. As one soldier said to me, "We have lost so many good people and invested so much, It just doesn't make sense to quit now when we're finally making progress. I want to go home as much as anyone else, but I want this mission to succeed and I'm willing to do what it takes. I just want to know the people back home know we're making progress and support us."

Read the rest of this article...

After Brian Baird made that statement MoveOn instantly went on the attack.

He was verbally attacked at his own hometown meetings for telling the truth as he saw it and now is launching an ad against Brian Baird and calling him immoral.

For telling the truth? For saying what he witnessed? Yes Sireeeeee, thats exactly what they want to punish him for.

Being honest.

(The Politico) has its latest target: Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who announced last week that he supported the troop surge after a recent trip to Iraq.

Now has launched a television advertisement against the 5-term congressman, calling his position “immoral” and urging him to support a withdrawal of troops. The ad will be airing on cable in the Vancouver, Washington media market.

Baird wrote an op-ed in the Seattle Times that the troops “deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.” In 2003, Baird voted against the Iraq war and, more recently, joined his party in voting against the surge in a nonbinding resolution.

The anti-war left proves once again they do not care about the truth or honesty, all they care about is that they are told what they want to hear, whether it is true or not.

Brian Biard on his own site said:

On his official Web site, he says, "As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better.

"I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy and, most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves deserve our continued support and more time to succeed."

MoveOn owns the Democratic party. Make no mistake about that, the bought them, they own them and they have even stated this very clearly back in 2004.

In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”

John McCain made an excellent point today regarding Hillary Clinton that I think stands for every Democratic and Republican candidates that does not stand up and stand apart from MoveOn:

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain made the following statement today:

Senator Clinton said that believing General Petraeus' testimony requires a 'willing suspension of disbelief.' I think it willingly suspends disbelief to not repudiate an advertisement run by a radical left wing organization that impugns and dishonors the integrity of a man who has served his nation with dedication all of his life. If you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the United States.

The Democratic party has been bought and paid for by MoveOn and now their silence shows that they are, indeed, owned.

A token protest about MoveOn and their tactics is not a condemnation and it does not separate yourself from them in any way shape or form.

The Democratic party has sold their souls to the farthest left fringes of their base, ignoring the moderates completely and I believe from reading a few of those moderate sites that are, themselves, condemning MoveOn and the Democrats for not denouncing MoveOn, that by standing with them, they have alienated far more than they have pleased by blocking the resolution to condemn the attacks against General Petraeus.

The NYT doesn't get off scott free either, now reports are telling us that the times offered MoveOn a substantial decrease in the normal advertising rate to run that ad.

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give such a discounted price.

Bottom line here is you choose who you hang with, you choose who you stand with and the Democrats have made that choice. They stand with and by MoveOn, as a party, and they will be held responsible for their decisions.

[Update] BlackFive has filed a complaint with the FEC regarding the MoveOn's Petraeus ad.