ABC anchor Charles Gibson on Friday night suggested the Rudy Giuliani campaign's New York Times ad, not Monday's “General Betray Us” ad from MoveOn.org ad to which the Giuliani ad responded, meant “a fierce new political fight...got even nastier today.” Gibson did acknowledge: “It started with a single newspaper ad targeting General David Petraeus, as the war's top commander reported to Congress this week. And it has snowballed very quickly.” Jake Tapper's subsequent story recounted how the MoveOn ad “accusing General Petraeus of becoming 'General Betray Us'” was “paid for by influential, in-your-face liberal group MoveOn.org.” But Tapper's piece contained only three elements which occurred on Friday and thus could be what Gibson was referring to -- video scanning over Giuliani's “own counter-ad in today's New York Times,” this soundbite from Giuliani: “MoveOn.org, which is well known for its character assassination of Republicans, decided to participate in character assassination of an American General in time of war. This is unprecedented” and, in the very last sentence, Tapper reported how MoveOn has “decided in newspaper ads and on TV to accuse supporters of the Iraq war of betraying the nation.”
The big type at the top of Giuliani's full-page ad quoted Hillary Clinton: “The willing suspension of disbelief.” The key line below: “Who should America listen to...A decorated soldier's commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton's commitment to defending MoveOn.org?” How is the comment from Giuliani about an activist group that struck first and ad copy critical of a candidate in a political contest “nastier” than MoveOn's first-strike attack on an Army General running a war? “GENERAL PETRAEUS OR GENERAL BETRAY US? Cooking the Books for the White House,” read big type in MoveOn's ad (PDF of it).
Maybe Gibson intended to describe both ads as “nasty,” but ABC didn't label MoveOn's ad as “nasty” on Monday night, the day it ran in the New York Times, and General David Petraeus appeared before two House committees meeting jointly. On the September 10 World News, reporter Jonathan Karl related:
War critics inside and outside the hearing room attacked Petraeus, saying he had manipulated statistics -- failing, for example, include many killings in his calculation of ethnic violence. The anti-war group MoveOn.org went further, accusing the General of cooking the books for the White House. Petraeus faced that criticism head-on.
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide this transcript of the September 14 story on ABC's World News:
CHARLES GIBSON: The war in Iraq is the focus of a fierce new political fight in this country, one that got even nastier today. It started with a single newspaper ad targeting General David Petraeus, as the war's top commander reported to Congress this week. And it has snowballed very quickly. Here's our senior political correspondent, Jake Tapper.JAKE TAPPER: It was an in-your-face full-page ad in the New York Times, accusing General Petraeus of becoming “General Betray Us” by allegedly not being honest in his testimony before Congress, paid for by influential, in-your-face liberal group MoveOn.org, and condemned by Republicans during those hearings.
REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL), AT MONDAY'S HEARING: Calling this man of honor and courage "General Betray Us" in a full-page ad in the New York Times is outrageous and it is deplorable.
TAPPER: Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani took out his own counter-ad in today's New York Times.
RUDY GIULIANI: MoveOn.org, which is well known for its character assassination of Republicans, decided to participate in character assassination of an American general in time of war. This is unprecedented.
TAPPER: Despite calls by Republicans to condemn the ad:
FRED THOMPSON: To disavow this libel against this brave American.
TAPPER: Not one of the Democratic presidential candidates has done so.
MARK HALPERIN, ABC NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Most of the Democrats running for President are not going to rush to speak out against MoveOn. They're simply too powerful. They play too big a role in the Democratic nominating process.
TAPPER: Some Democrats on Capitol Hill disapprove of MoveOn.org's tactics.
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: I would have preferred that they not do such and ad.
TAPPER: That's at least partly because the ad allowed Republicans to talk about the rhetoric of war opponents instead of failures in Iraq. MoveOn.org thrives on pressuring Democrats, today instructing Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to vote against any funding for the war without a timeline for withdrawal.
ELI PARISER, MOVEON.ORG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: We're responsible to our 3 million members who want to see an end to this war, like most Americans do. And that's, you know, how we make the decisions about what we do.
TAPPER, OVER NEW ANTI-BUSH AD: And they've decided in newspaper ads and on TV to accuse supporters of the Iraq war of betraying the nation, hoping they influence more than they offend. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Washington.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





TAPPER: Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani took out his own counter-ad in today's New York Times.













Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Roll up ye sleeves
September 14, 2007 - 21:19 ET by drillanwr2008's gonna be one hell of a fight.
It started with a single
September 14, 2007 - 21:22 ET by motherbeltIt started with a single newspaper ad targeting General David Petraeus,
as the war's top commander reported to Congress this week. And it has
snowballed very quickly.”
Oh, that's right: it started as just one little tiny newspaper ad. The ad targeted General David Petraeus as he reported to Congress. The ad called him a traitor.
Sounds like the way they treat Israel. Hezbollah attacks one little restaurant, and Israel goes and attacks a town, contributing to the "cycle of violence." It wouldn't be a "cycle" if Israel didn't react, you know.
Just one little teeny ad. Now Rudy Giuliani is making it into a big deal and the whole situation is snowballing out of control. Now he's contributing to the "cycle of nastiness." Why couldn't Rudy just shut up?
Thanks, mb ... Running on
September 14, 2007 - 21:29 ET by drillanwrThanks, mb ... Running on fumes here, and you said exactly what I wanted to, but couldn't quite get my thoughts together.
mb
September 14, 2007 - 22:10 ET by Conservative_in_mass.you've IDed that classic tactic of the libtards; taking the results of the actions and making them the cause. Disgusting.
I hope the NYT ends up as one little newspaper for their blatant Anti American behavior. The stock fell under 20 a share today, so looks like their well on their way.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
mb, cim & drillanwr
September 14, 2007 - 22:51 ET by MrShyc_i_m, you probably meant "results of the REactions..." ( ? ) but yes, you're totally right....
and lets seeeee.... terrorists fomented with religious-based hatred from corrupt dictatorshiped and politically/religiously barbaric rogue states in the middle east attack us FIRST... we react and attack 2 key countries in the region... and only THEN do the libtards start going crazy and making us (see: GOP in the White House) the cause... this is their disgusting tactic with all things.
AND, let me take the subtle ABC coverage (er, slant) FURTHER....
1) "one ad in a newspaper" -- like you said mb, sounds like one "little ad" by using the word "one"... AND.... notice, just the word "newspaper".... that newspaper being the NY Times!... largest paper in the largest city on earth! ... and it's a FULL PAGE AD, let us not forget! (cuz they sure will :p)
2) Flip it around -- if it was a blatant, egregious smear ad of some non-political person put out by the right, and then the Dimwits countered... the MSM would not be saying "and now it's snowballing"... but rather... "Democrats fight back" or something to this effect, which will clearly establish that there was a bully that started the fight.... believe me, it would be framed completely different.
1) "one ad in a newspaper"
September 15, 2007 - 11:50 ET by drillanwr1) "one ad in a newspaper" -- like you said mb, sounds like one "little ad" by using the word "one"... AND.... notice, just the word "newspaper".... that newspaper being the NY Times!... largest paper in the largest city on earth! ... and it's a FULL PAGE AD, let us not forget!
So, by ABC's and Gibson's reasoning we could safely proclaim "Just two little bombs ..." regarding WWII.
sorry c_i_m
September 14, 2007 - 22:49 ET by MrShyyou were right to use the word "actions" in re-reading it... I can be a bit dyslexic sometimes :p (the result IS the reaction... uh duh...)
shy
September 15, 2007 - 08:37 ET by Conservative_in_mass.I had the same problem when I first posted it.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
At least the libtards are consistent
September 15, 2007 - 03:42 ET by SportPoliticsGotta give em credit here where due, they claim they can start the fight, and noone is allowed to fight back, just like the terrorists started the fight, and the USA is not allowed to fight back.
Wait, they claim the USA started the fight in Iraq, and the michaelmoore Freedom Fighting Minutemen are fighting back, and they have a right to and should and you would, too, just like Al Qaeda - who is merely petitioning for a redress of grievances concerning "that evil foreign policy" still so vaguely outlined and not discussed, and therefore, we are unable to understand the enemy.
Ok, no credit, except for being on just their own and the enemy's side every single time, and against the USA, every single time.
Maybe the dems and Al Qaeda can get together and implement Osama's demands on USA foreign policy.
Why?
September 14, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Steve08080Why should Rudy keep quiet? Republicans have to hear this crap everyday and now that one is fighting back it's a problem? I thought the ad was great. Identified Hillary for the communist she is. Now it's time for the rest of the party to stand up and fight back.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!
Another thought to add to
September 15, 2007 - 09:31 ET by motherbeltAnother thought to add to this:
It's not surprising that the liberals who run our schools insist on punishing both kids that get into a fight; the one defending himself is disciplined just as severely as the attacker. You see, fighting back just escalates the "cycle of violence." You have to let yourself get beaten up and then complain to the administration.
How DARE they take away a kid's right to defend himself/herself!! We told our daughter she should defend herself, and we would stand by her right to do so, as high up the chain as we had to go.
"HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY
September 14, 2007 - 22:12 ET by Conservative_in_mass."HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: I would have preferred that they not do such and ad."
Spoken like the gentle little grandma the MSM protrayed right after the 06 elections. This is the mentality that is going to protect us against vile throatcutters and fanatics? You can't even raise enough ire against a blatant derogatory ad against a decorated 4 star because you are scared s%!t of a radical fringe group of "3 million?" The Dems don't even give that much respect to organized labor anymore, and that constitutes a much larger percentage of their base.
I'll state the obvious; the dims have been hijacked by the the rabid commie fringe of their "party". You want to talk about what is going to embolden our enemy?
It's no different than how you deal with the school yard bully. Negotiate, concede, cower, or yield, you still got your a$$ kicked and your lunch money stolen.
It scares me that Pelosi is so powerful, yet exhibits such weakness on virtually every issue (even those dear to her kook base, like defunding the war) only because our enemy, which can smell weakness like a Bloodhound will only become more brazen.
There is much at stake this next election cycle, may I dare say the fundamentals of this great nation are at risk.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
I just bought some NYT
September 14, 2007 - 22:37 ET by Night WatchmanI just bought some NYT stock; both sides are lining up to place bargain $60,000 ads.
I tried to buy a copy today, sold out at two stores.
NightWatch
September 14, 2007 - 23:04 ET by MrShyYeah, Guiliani is doing a clever thing... he pointed out how the 60K ads were a discount because, according to the NYT, at this fee the day they place the ad is random, not fixed, although I believe the customer (in this case MoveOn) asked for an ideal/premium day.... so hmm, "random"... the Betray Us ad ran on quite an ideal day indeed... the day Patreaus gave his report.
Guiliani has requested them to place his counter ad on a certain day (wait, today, right??) so we'll wait and see if the NYT does or not...
The Charles Gibson Banana Factor
September 14, 2007 - 23:09 ET by Lame CherrySince Charlie Gibson has opened the door to perceptions and not facts, it is time to give Chuck a taste of this own ideas.
Charlie Idea 1: Gibson's low eye brows, flat head, flat on the top ears all give the impression he is a mental retard suffering from genetic regression disorder.
Charlie Idea 2: Gibson appears by his cocked head to be dealing with primate syndrome where he as a chimp is trying to reason his banana master Hillary is good and Gen. Petraeus is "bad" as the General has no bananas today.
Charlie Idea 3: Gibson having a chimp intellect has an affinity with liberal banana propaganda.
Charlie Idea 4: Gibson proves that all liberals are mental retards who like Pavlov's dog only respond to bananas.
Since it is all about perceptions, it must mean that ABC hired in Affirmative Action a chimpanze retard in Charlie Gibson who responds to "banana good and banana bad".
Conclusion, Rudy Giuliani must feature a banana in his ads and Charlie Gibson will then see both ads as "equal good".
If one does not like banana analogies, perhaps Gibson seeing Bill Clinton raping a nurse in Arkansas as good and molesting a woman in the White House the day her husband committed suicide as good........but Gibson sees George Bush as bad for protecting the United States from terrorists.
Guess that was a banana analogy too as Gibson apparently likes Clinton using his banana as a weapon as most liberals do against women.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
LCherry... I am...
September 14, 2007 - 23:58 ET by MrShyRolling On The Floor Laughing My A$$ Off
and you're right... CG really does look like a primate...
"So easy, a Charles Gibson can do it."
new name for DNC:
September 15, 2007 - 00:24 ET by MrShyBanana Republic
Most of the Democrats
September 15, 2007 - 00:14 ET by MidAmericaMost of the Democrats running for President are not going to rush to speak out against MoveOn. They're simply too powerful. They play too big a role in the Democratic nominating process.
If their candidates for president cannot speak their minds then we can say the democrat party no longer exists. It's become a front organization for a socialist fringe group.
Here's what we're dealing
September 15, 2007 - 00:34 ET by Sonny LykosHere's what we're dealing with. Thought you all might enjoy it:
http://www.americant...
Eli's comin
September 15, 2007 - 04:28 ET by old croELI PARISER, MOVEON.ORG EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: We're responsible to our 3
million members who want to see an end to this war, like most Americans
do. And that's, you know, how we make the decisions about what we do.
Could we please, PLEASE send these 3 million someplace where they can talk among themselves, and not presume to be talking for the vast majority of Americans who still respect and admire this country and the people who serve. I am sure General Petraeus could carve out a slice in say Anbar Province and dump this sorry lot in it, although I would not want to inflict this plague on the Iraq people as they have enough "loons" over there already.
"I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes."
-President George W. Bush
Bull! I am on the
September 15, 2007 - 07:47 ET by buddycBull!
I am on the email list. Try it. Pariser takes his orders from Soros and he then sends out demands and orders to the members. It is really kind of sad. It is a real dictatorship.
"We're responsible to our 3 million members..."
September 15, 2007 - 12:04 ET by RJ1) That's an awfully small number...and I'd like to know how many of them are NOT American!
2) Why are the Democrats and the MSM so willing to have so few placed in the driver's seat of American policy-making?
3) Why such a disproportionate amount of power?
4) Follow the Soros money?
I think Gibson was a 1960's
September 15, 2007 - 06:59 ET by AntiMediaI think Gibson was a 1960's liberal war protester.
I am convinced that the
September 15, 2007 - 07:46 ET by buddycI am convinced that the reason we have wanabewomen in positions similar to Gibson, Lauer, Russert, Williams, Stephanopoulos and etc is that their "producers" control them. On a personal level I don't think Gibson and the others have a clue as to what is going on in the world. Rush and Bill would never allow this.
Sorry Charlie. Really ... he's just plain sorry.
September 15, 2007 - 08:06 ET by CrashWhy is that Charlie? Did he offend your poor fragile China girl?
The NYT and the liberals in general
September 15, 2007 - 12:33 ET by c5thenAre anti-anything except themselves. They are so narcisistic that they would rather the USA abandon the Iraqi's and allow a Khemer Rouge-like killing field to take place in Iraq then to admit that we've got to finish the job before drawing down. The MSM meanwhile are their willing propaganda arm and will always defend a liberal organization against any conservative opposition at all.
If the democrats succeed in winning election to the White House next November, we will have effectively given up our republican form of democracy to an Oligarchy.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com