Custom Search

Sunday, September 23, 2007

How the NYT and MoveOn helped General Petraeus and Hurt Hillary Clinton & Co.

Previously we showed the public editor, in a New York Times piece trying to duck responsibility on the part of Times by claiming there was an error on the part of some unknown salesperson. The article left us with more questions than it answered and we asked them here.

In that NYT piece though the Mr. Hoyt did point out something correctly:

By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the “liberal media.”

More about the NYT piece here.

It did backfire, despite denials from those on the left side of the blogosphere.

General Petraeus' testimony had zero affect on the opinion of the American populous. Yet, here they go again, attempting to score some kind of political resurrection by attacking the New York Times' selling of ad space. In truth, all they are doing is making their voices become background noise to be filtered out with the rest.

That quote is from Rook's Rant and it, in itself brings up the lefts ability to deny the obvious.

Contrary to their claims, the MoveOn ad, NYT's responsibility for allowing that ad, did, indeed, have an effect on the opinion of the American populous, as shown by Gallup, which has a far better reputation as well as credibility at polling than CNN.

About Gallup:

The Gallup Organization has studied human nature and behavior for more than 70 years. Gallup employs many of the world's leading scientists in management, economics, psychology, and sociology. Gallup performance management systems help organizations boost organic growth by increasing customer engagement and maximizing employee productivity through measurement tools, coursework, and strategic advisory services. Gallup's 2,000 professionals deliver services at client organizations, through the Web, at Gallup University's campuses, and in 40 offices around the world.

According to the Gallup poll regarding General Petraeus, we see that in that last week after he spoke and issued his statement, he became better known by America as well as having his image "enhanced" among Americans.

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll suggests that last week's intense schedule of congressional testimony and media appearances by the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, enhanced his image among Americans. Not only did Petraeus' name identification increase significantly in a matter of just a week, but his image also became more favorable than it was just before the week's activities. This occurred in a contentious environment that included the publication of a full-page ad in the New York Times criticizing Petraeus, and much commentary on the truthfulness and accuracy of his testimony. The new poll also shows that Americans are not nearly as familiar with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, who also testified before Congress.

According to the Sept. 14-16, 2007 poll, 61% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Petraeus, while 22% have an unfavorable opinion and 18% are not familiar enough with the general to rate him.

Gallup has asked Americans about Petraeus three times, beginning in early August of this year. Americans' ratings of Petraeus have consistently been more positive than negative in all three surveys. In early August, 47% of Americans rated Petraeus favorably, with 21% rating him unfavorably and 32% having no opinion. Petraeus' favorable rating edged up slightly, to 52%, in the final days before his congressional testimony on the situation in Iraq. Now, after last week, his post-testimony favorable rating has jumped to 61%. Petraeus' name identification -- the percentage of Americans who know enough about him to have an opinion -- also jumped from 69% in early September to 83% this past weekend.

Now the left loves to quote CNN, yet CNN has admittedly shown video obtained from terrorists, enemy propaganda (a sniper shooting our soldiers) as well as offering that sniper video for money on their On Demand channel. (Screen shots of that offer at the last link)

Is it any wonder the left prefer CNN to an organization specifically tailored to polling?

A majority of Republicans have maintained a positive opinion of Petraeus since August, but nonetheless, Republicans' ratings of Petraeus have improved over this time, increasing from 67% in August to 73% in early September to 83% in the latest poll.

Independents' ratings of Petraeus were fairly similar in August and early September, but after his testimony to Congress, his ratings became much more positive, with 59% rating him favorably and 25% unfavorably. and the New York Times did not only help General Petraeus, it also helped expose people like Hillary Clinton as well as other Democrats that refused to denounce or condemn MoveOn's attack ad, but stood with them against our General and therefore our military in a time of war.

Daily News "Hillary's refusal to condemn attacks on Gen. Petraeus is unpresidential".

With her refusal to denounce the far-left for its smear of our top commander in Iraq, Clinton has taken another big step away from the center of American politics. On the most important issue of our times - Iraq and the fight against Islamic terrorism - the Democratic presidential front-runner has thrown her lot in with the radicals, kooks and nuts that litter the wackadoo wing. And she has turned her back on our soldiers and their leaders during wartime.

Democrats Give Leftist Donor Higher Priority Than Backing Petraeus

Shame on Clinton. The ad placed last week in the nation's leading newspaper, The New York Times, questioned the credibility, integrity, loyalty and honor of Petraeus. It was despicable and fully deserved the denouncement it received from 72 other senators, including all of the Senate Republicans and half of the Democrats.

Shame also on our Sen. Patty Murray, a rubber-stamp Democrat who was among those in effect sticking up for, a left-wing smear group that is a powerful force in Democratic Party politics.

Same for the top Senate Democrats, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and his second in command, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. The other Illinois senator, Barack Obama who is also a Democratic candidate for president, conveniently found a way to skirt the vote, apparently a cynical political calculation.


When the chips were down, the record will show that key Democratic leaders and presidential candidates put a huge political donor ahead of their responsibility to defend the leader of our war-time commander leading troops risking their lives. They put their political careers ahead of their country.

CNS News:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2001, was among the 25 liberal senators voting no. In other words, she refused to support Gen. Petraeus or condemn the personal attacks on him. So did Democratic presidential hopeful Chris Dodd of Connecticut.

USA Today's Political Blog, reported Mitt Romney's response to Clinton standing by MoveOn instead of our military, using her own words to do so:

Her vote triggered a sharp statement from Republican Mitt Romney:

"Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief."

That is just a small sample of what the media is showing the American Public. via the New York Times did not only help General Peteraeus but it also showed very clearly who actually does support our troops and who just talks about it.

The Cornyn Amendment:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemns personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

Whereas the Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq, by a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007;

Whereas General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the United States Army Command and General Staff College;

Whereas General Petraeus earned Masters of Public Administration and Doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University;

Whereas General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major combat operations and subsequent stability and support operations;

Whereas General Petraeus supervised the development and crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional experiences;

Whereas General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America;

Whereas during his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and other awards and medals; and

Whereas a recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group,, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force--Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group

25 Democratic Senators voted against that amendment (Roll call found here)

This issue and those politicians, especially the presidential candidates will have this haunt them until election day, as well it should.

How does one expect to become Commander in Chief of a military that they refuse to stand behind?

The American Legion:

“For anyone or group to portray Gen. Petraeus as a traitor is outrageous and downright despicable,” Conatser said. “The military leader I met with is an honest, dedicated patriot who is succeeding given the very difficult mission before him. He should be commended not condemned for his 35 years of selfless service to our nation.”

With a membership of 2.7-million wartime veterans, The American Legion was founded in 1919 on the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans affairs, Americanism, and patriotic youth programs. Legionnaires work for the betterment of their communities through more than 14,000 posts across the nation.

Just head over to any Military blog and you will see that Hillary and the 24 other Democratic politicians that voted against the Cornyn amendment, have sealed their fate in the eyes of the military.

You cannot lead the military and be the commander in chief if you cannot even stand up for them against attacks here on the home front.

If Hillary does not think this issue will be thrown up at her well into the Presidential election, then she is sorely mistaken.

She willingly chose to stand with and against General Petraeus and our military.

That will never be forgotten.