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 MoveOn.org spends on behalf of Democratic candidates, is unfortunate."
To say the least.
Meanwhile, the Times' own complicity in the despicable slur turns out to be even worse than imagined: Not only did the newspaper agree to run the libel, it apparently subsidized the hard-left sewer rats who wrote it.
To the tune of more than $116,000.
MoveOn yesterday confirmed that it paid just $65,000 for the full-page missive - compared to what a Times spokesman said is usually $181,000 for such ads.
So, we wonder: Will the Times report the $116,000 difference as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic National Committee - or to Hillary herself?
As if.
Actually, MoveOn might feel cheated: Just a day earlier, The New York Times Magazine ran a free 4,900-word puff piece ("Can Lobbyists Stop the War?") hyping the group and an anti-war coalition it formed.
Maybe the value of that should be declared, as well.
On the merits of Sen. Clinton's attack on Petraeus' report, we wonder:
* Does she have specific data to refute the general's numbers?
* Can she explain why someone like him would risk his career and reputation and lie to Congress?
* Will she show how the two intelligence agencies that vouch for him erred - or, worse, conspired with him to deceive the nation?
Of course not. On all three counts.
But Hillary's slur was an effective way to provide aid and comfort to MoveOn. "There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation," said Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero and Republican presidential contender in his own right. "I do not understand why those seeking to be commander-in-chief have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander."
Clinton & Co. need to explain."
So far, its but a few mainstream media types and US asking these questions, so I don't think they'll be answered any time soon.
Two sets of laws. Two standards of common decency. Ours. The Clinton's. The twain is never meeting and all people of good will should once and for all call for their removal from anything to do with public service. Yes, dog catcher too.
No comments:
Post a Comment