Giuliani Attacks Clinton Over MoveOn Ad

This controversy started last week when Moveon.org ran this ad in the New York Times in advance of Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker testifying to Congress. (More on the ad here)

Republicans immediately responded (full list of responses is after the jump), in past substantively to the ad, and in part in response to this article in the New York Post regarding a significant discount that the New York Times allegedly gave MoveOn.org. The New York Times responded here, saying that MoveOn paid the standby rate that is standard for issue groups; it’s also the rate that Giuliani would end up paying to run his own ad.

Hillary Clinton said the following to Petraeus and Crocker on Tuesday:

(in part) ….[T]oday 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.

Giuliani responded, saying the following in Atlanta two days later (Audio):

“[I] call upon the New York Times to give us the same rate, the discount, heavily discounted rate they gave MoveOn.org for that abominable ad–that was, in a very, very coincidental way, published on the day that General Petraeus testified–in which MoveOn.org, which is well known for its character assassination of Republicans, decided to participate in character assassination of an American General in a time of war. This is unprecedented. And we are going to ask The New York Times to allow us tomorrow to print an ad that will obviously take the opposite view. We believe, unlike Hillary Clinton, that General Petraeus is telling the truth. We think that her attack on General Petraeus was a follow up to the MoveOn.org/Times attack.

“I’ll tell you what she said. It’s pretty simple. You go interpret it because this is typical, how can I say this in the kindest way about the Clintons, not the most direct way of saying what it is you’re trying to say. This is what she said to General Petraeus: ‘I think the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.’ The willing suspension of disbelief I imagine means saying that the General wasn’t telling the truth. And I believe that in a time of war–with a General about whom there is no question about the General’s integrity. I agree with the success that he’s had and I think we should support that success, other Americans might not agree with the success that he had. They have a right to not agree. What I don’t think should happen in political discourse is the kind of character assassination that MoveOn.org participated in in calling him ‘General Betray Us,’ that The New York Times gave them a discount to do, and that Hillary Clinton followed up on with these attacks on his integrity.

“I believe those organizations should all apologize and I believe The New York Times should give us the same discounted rate and the same ability to place it on the day that we want to place it, which is tomorrow morning, the day after the President speaks, that they gave to the very excessive left-wing side of this dispute. It’s time for Americans to really insist that American politicians move beyond character assassination, and this is exactly what they attempted to do with General Petraeus. Well, it’s one thing when politicians do it to each other. It’s another thing when it’s done to an American General who has been putting his life at risk to protect us, who is back there right now or on his way back there right now, putting his life at risk to protect us and about whom there’s never been a question about the man’s integrity. Maybe you can disagree with his tactics. I don’t. I agree with him. You have no right to disagree with his integrity and put his integrity into question. That is what’s wrong with American politics today. Hillary Clinton, The New York Times, MoveOn.org should apologize for what they did. Their excessive political view led them to character assassination. They should apologize for it. They should stop it and what we should move on with from now on is a civil discourse without name calling.”

Giuliani followed up on that attack by putting a full page ad in the New York Times on Friday (as I mentioned above, at that same rate he called for), and launched the following internet ad:

Giuliani also attacked Clinton campaign for comparisons of Clinton with Margaret Thatcher, saying, “I don’t think Margaret Thatcher would impugn the integrity of a commanding general in a time of war, as Hillary Clinton did, or require an army to give a schedule of their retreat to the enemy, as the Democrats are suggesting.”

The Clinton campaign responded to the ad fairly quickly with the following brief press release:

“It’s hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the ‘08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush’s failed Iraq strategy.”

In the middle of this fracas, Giuiliani touted a congratulatory letter from Bill Clinton:

Giuliani told a law-enforcement group in Louisiana he has a letter from then-President Bill Clinton praising him for helping pass a federal anti-crime bill when he was mayor.

“I have a letter - I keep it at home,” Giuliani told members of the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association in Baton Rouge.

“It’s a letter from President Clinton, congratulating me for all of my efforts and saying something like the crime bill couldn’t have been passed if it weren’t for me.”

“I keep this letter. I’m going to use it at the right moment. You can imagine when,” he said to thunderous applause, hinting that the letter would be trotted out if he faces Hillary Clinton in the general election.

As for what Democratic candidates have said on the Moveon.org ad, here is what Clinton said regarding both her comments to Gen. Petraeus and the Moveon.org forum in the Democratic mashup:

Rose: You said yesterday it required a willing suspension of disbelief. Meaning that you questioned either his veracity or his judgment in what he said.

Clinton: No, what I said was meant to convey my very strong feeling that no matter how flat the pancake, there’s always two sides. The problem is that what the administration’s report intended to do was was to take anecdotal evidence and actually gild the lily once again, making it seem as though there had been much more progress than I think you can actually justify. For example, they take tremendous credit for what’s happened in al Anbar province in terms of the coalition with the Sunni tribal sheikhs. That was going on before the surge. In fact, when Gen. Petraeus testified during his confirmation hearings last January, he alluded to the progress that was going on, the sheikhs were already turning in the face of the barbarity and violence of al-Qaida in Iraq. And there is no getting away from the fundamental problem, which is there is no military solution. And everyone has to admit that the Iraqi government has failed politically, and the Bush administration has failed to pressure the Iraqi government and has totally missed the boat when it comes to the diplomatic offensive that should have been undertaken.

…..

Rose: Did you think the Moveon.org advertisement about Gen. Petraeus was either appropriate or necessary?

Clinton: You know, I think that we should focus on what the problem is here. The problem is a president who has a policy that flies in the face of reality. I don’t fault people who are serving their country and fulfilling the mission that they have been given. Both the general and ambassador were there implementing the president’s policy, and I think we should remain focused on this president, and frankly, I’m getting enough Republican support to force the president to change course.

This seems to be an issue that the Clinton is trying to wait out, not wanting to undermine support of those who support the Moveon.org ad, but wanting to stay as far away as possible from explicitly supporting it. The benefit of waiting it out is that Democrats instinctively will rally to her support, much like they did to Kerry when Bush attacked him during the last primary; they likely will keep responding by bringing up Giuliani’s time on the Iraq Study Group and more should Giuliani keep pressing this issue. I’m not waiting for Clinton to, to sue the language of Giuliani, play much defense in this, since discussing the Moveon.org ad is pretty much a losing proposition for Clinton no matter what she says (which is the same idea that Kerry likely had on the Swift boat attacks); unlike Kerry, though, Clinton will assuredly attack Giuliani back should these ads keep up.

Meanwhile, the primary issues on both sides are still being overlooked, as secondary candidates keep jostling to get media attention. They’re the big losers in this situation.

[Image credits: Foxnews.com and politicsnj.com]

After the jump, as promised, Republican reactions to the Moveon.org ad.

Duncan Hunter

The following information was released by the office of California Rep. Duncan Hunter:

In their treatment of General David Petraeus and his testimony before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees this week, Congressional Democrats remained largely united in their criticism of American military efforts in Iraq. Beyond the expected rhetoric that the President’s Iraq strategy is “failing,” some Congressional Democrats went as far as accusing General Petraeus of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration.

This accusation was even the subject of a full page advertisement in the New York Times, financed by the left-wing, anti-military organization MoveOn.org, that referred to General Petraeus as “General Betray Us.” This advertisement, prominently displayed in one of America’s leading newspapers the morning of General Petraeus’ first appearance on Capitol Hill, was as pointless as it was insulting.

While shameful, attacks like these should not come as a surprise. Reports of progress from Iraq are bad news for Congressional Democrats. This point was made clear when Democratic Whip James Clyburn said that a positive report by General Petraeus would cause a “real big problem” for the Democratic Party.

Congressman Clyburn is right in one respect. It’s hard to make the case for withdrawal when security conditions in Iraq, under the leadership of General Petraeus, have markedly improved.

Since last October, attacks in al Anbar Province have been reduced by one-fifth and civilian deaths in Baghdad have dropped 74 percent since last December. Additionally, the number of violent incidents against civilians, Iraqi Security Forces and our coalition partners throughout Iraq has declined in 8 of the last 11 weeks. Most importantly, the Iraqi Security Forces are steadily maturing and assuming more of the security responsibility.

Rather than commending General Petraeus for his efforts and giving due attention to his assessment of conditions in Iraq, some Democrats in Congress and liberal organizations like MoveOn.org have instead resorted to impugning his integrity. Luckily, General Petraeus has a thick skin and mainstream Democrats and Republicans appreciate the integrity of the talented General.

General Petraeus has devoted himself to serving and protecting the interests of the American people, and his professional life has been a reflection of duty, honor and country. He is both a military officer and a scholar, and his expertise is an invaluable asset to the operability of our armed forces.

For his service to America, General Petraeus deserves our appreciation and respect. He has also earned the right to be heard without having his integrity called into question.

His assessment and recommendations have been shaped by realities on the ground in Iraq and not by “political operatives,” as suggested by one of my colleagues. It is only appropriate that Congress accept his viewpoint with the same objectivity that it was provided.

General Petraeus understands that mission success in Iraq largely depends on the standup of an Iraqi Security Force. While political reconciliation remains important, politics in Iraq are better left to the Iraqi government and its people. A reliable and effective security force, with real-world combat experience, will provide the stability necessary to allow the Iraqi government to survive. Moreover, it will provide a replacement for American heavy combat forces that can then begin moving from the battlefield.

It is clear that we are making gains in Iraq under General Petraeus’ leadership. Congressional Democrats would be wise to listen to what he has to say and take his report and subsequent recommendations seriously. As the legendary pro-defense Democrat Senator Scoop Jackson once said, “In matters of national security, the best politics is no politics.”

Fred Thompson

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq is “a brave leader,” Thompson told the seniors who endured the heat to come out to the conservative-leaning retirement community’s town square.

Yet “when he comes home he’s met with a full-page ad in The New York Times,” Thompson observed, interrupted with boos and hisses at the mention of the newspaper before he could even complete his sentence, “paid for by MoveOn.org, which basically funds the Democratic Party, calling him a traitor in effect and giving a discount — did you read this? — giving him a discount to make sure it gets the widest possible circulation. That’s what we’re dealing with. And the majority in the Congress, the Democratic-controlled majority, will not disavow it.”

John McCain

(on Good Morning America)

“…I remain disgusted at the MoveOn.org ad that was in ‘The New York Times.” And it’s disgraceful and also hard to understand why most of the Democrat presidential candidates do not repudiate that ad and that organization, MoveOn.org.”

Mike Huckabee

“The disgraceful act of the leftist organization, moveon.org, has marked a new low watermark in American discourse. To accuse a patriotic, honorable, and highly decorated soldier like General David Petraeus of treason by intimating that he had betrayed his duty, his honor, and his country is appalling.

“The full page ad in the New York Times run by this organization is an attack on our entire military – and George Soros should spend an equal amount of his vast wealth for another full page ad apologizing to General Petraeus and to every American who has served or who is serving in the military.

“The very people who Soros savaged with his vile, despicable, and cowardly attack are the ones who have earned Mr. Soros and people of his ilk the right to display their pathetic hatred of this nation’s military in a public forum.

“While an apology to General Petraeus would be in order, one can’t expect it from the caliber of people who are devoid of dignity.

“I call on every candidate for President, whether Democrat or Republican, to join in a condemnation of this outrageous insult to our military. The fact that such an abuse of free speech is legal doesn’t make it right or responsible. Surely everyone who wishes to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces can agree that the attack on the character of a General currently directing our troops in battle deserves condemnation. I hope that Democratic and Republican candidates alike will take a stand and denounce this dishonorable act.”

Mitt Romney

“The MoveOn.org attack on General Petraeus is, frankly, entirely unacceptable. This is a man who is risking his life by being in Iraq, and being in Camp Liberty, and this is a person who realizes that the lives of many other people are under his care. He’s under extraordinary stress. He comes here and reports exactly what he believes is going on – what he thinks ought to be done - and for MoveOn.org to attack him as they did is simply unacceptable and reprehensible. And I frankly don’t understand why Hillary Clinton hasn’t repudiated MoveOn.org at this point. And I’m afraid the truth is that MoveOn.org has purchased the Democratic Party, if you will. That it’s funding, and the status of this 527, and the voice it has in the Democratic Party is so powerful that it’s now calling the shots. And that Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama and John Edwards are afraid to repudiate an ad and organization which has taken a disgusting course against a great American.”

Sam Brownback

Brownback signed a letter circulated among Senators calling for Harry Reid to repudiate the Moveon ad. The letter was posted on Sen. Allard’s site:
“Senator Reid, please join us in making it clear that you do not share the views of Moveon.org, and that you will not join Moveon.org in attacking the character of this fine officer,” wrote the Senators. “It is important that all officials in positions of responsibility speak out and defend General Petraeus as the honest and honorable military leader he is. From his years of service to our country and the important position he currently holds, he has certainly earned it.” …..

“The ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America’s commanding general in Iraq has earned,” wrote the Senators. “No matter whether any senator supports or opposes the war in Iraq, we should all voice recognition and appreciation of General Petraeus’ long and distinguished record of service to our country.

“The future of America’s involvement there is of paramount importance to our country and, while we believe fervently in the right of free speech, we also believe that it is possible and proper to conduct this debate without besmirching our brave men and women in uniform.”

Tom Tancredo

“What was perhaps most disturbing throughout this entire ordeal has been the overt desire by the left and groups like MoveOn.org to do all that they can to assure the failure of the U.S. mission abroad,” said Tancredo. “After watching the circus atmosphere these groups attempted to create during today’s hearings, it is clear to me that for many on the left, the commitment to a radical political agenda supersedes any interest in the well being of the country.”