Pushing back against Giuliani’s latest smear

Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign probably thought it was being very clever using Gen. David Petraeus’ image in a new ad this week. For the Republican candidate, it was the best of all worlds — Giuliani got to bash MoveOn, smear Hillary Clinton, and associate himself with a decorated general, all at the same time.

What the campaign probably didn’t expect was pushback from the Pentagon — but that’s exactly what it got. Apparently, uniformed personnel aren’t supposed to appear in political ads, and wouldn’t you know it, Giuliani didn’t ask before using pictures of Petraeus to score a few cheap points.

Petraeus’ spokesman is putting some distance between Giuliani’s ad and the general, too: “General Petraeus has not condoned the use of his photo in political ads. Use of his photos in recent ads was without his consent or advance knowledge.”

Eventually, the Giuliani campaign got around to responding:

Asked if the campaign was concerned, Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella said: “It speaks volumes that Hillary Clinton wasn’t concerned about the use of Gen. Petraeus’ photo when MoveOn.org used it to disgrace the American general’s image.”

So, Giuliani disrespected a general by using his image in a campaign ad without his permission, refuse to apologize, refuse to pull the ad, and this is Hillary’s fault.

It’s almost as if Giuliani’s campaign wants to come across as idiotic.

What’s really odd is that Giuliani’s entire smear of Clinton is based on one sentence — the senator thanked Petraeus for his service but told him his reports “really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” In other words, he offered a series of dubious claims that spun conditions in Iraq, and Clinton was skeptical (as were, according to polls, most Americans). That’s it. That’s the entire outrage.

By Giuliani’s logic, questioning a general’s assessment is anti-military. Hmm. I wonder whether blaming U.S. troops for a Bush mistake should be construed as pro-military?

Remember the al Qaqaa munitions site that Bush left unguarded?

Asked about the missing explosives in Iraq, Giuliani said, “The president was cautious. The president was prudent…. No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn’t they search carefully enough?”

Faced with a scandal, Giuliani decided it was more important to blame the troops than hold the president responsible for his own costly mistake. He didn’t hesitate to throw the troops under the bus for political expediency — if tarnishing their service helped Bush, than so be it.

It was as shameless and direct an attack on U.S. troops serving in Iraq as I’ve seen in nearly five years. And he still hasn’t apologized for it.

As Wesley Clark said at the time, “For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the ‘actual responsibility’ for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly.”

So, Giuliani disrespected a general by using his image in a campaign ad without his permission, refuse to apologize, refuse to pull the ad, and this is Hillary’s fault.

That’s not what she’s saying at all CB.

“It speaks volumes that Hillary Clinton wasn’t concerned about the use of Gen. Petraeus’ photo when MoveOn.org used it to disgrace the American general’s image.”

She’s not saying anything. She just burped out Base-agitating buzz words. It’s like they’ve got their hands on one of BushCo’s SpinTronic 3000s (TM) but don’t realize it needs defragging.

Or Ravenel (Guilie’s former chair in S.C.) isn’t the only one on his campaign staff with a coke habit.

Or they know Das Base is so well trained that it only has to hear a few key words (Clinton, MoveOn) to start frothing and baying for red meat.

  • This is an interesting statement:

    Asked if the campaign was concerned, Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella said: “It speaks volumes that Hillary Clinton wasn’t concerned about the use of Gen. Petraeus’ photo when MoveOn.org used it to disgrace the American general’s image.”

    So apparently, Giuliani think’s it’s okay to use a picture of a general for his own, personal, political gain and it’s not okay for a political organization to use a picture to exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech. Both are political, but the MoveOn picture was used for a general political statement (protected speech) whereas Giuliani’s ad was for his own political benefit.

    And somehow it’s all Clinton’s fault? Wow, just the kind of person we need in the White House – an individual even more out of touch with reality than Bush.

  • Of course they’re idiots – they’re Republicans, aren’t they? Someone is surprised by our little Il Duce-wannabee and his campaign staff of Blackshirt-wannabees acting like Blackshirt wannabees????

  • Hillary didn’t have anything to do with the MoveOn ad, but it’s her fault. Giuliani’s ad using Patraeus’ image without Patraeus’ permission is Hillary’s fault. Everything is Hillary’s fault.

    For Giuliani’s campaign, this isn’t as dumb as it looks. Rudy is sinking in the polls. To get nominated, he needs to win the hearts of the Republican base. The Republican base believes that everything bad is the fault of either Bill Clinton, or Hillary, or both. What better way for Rudy to win their votes than to show them, early and often, that he shares their hatred of Hillary. He will be mentioning her name in every even-numbered sentence from now on. (In odd-numbered sentences, he will be reminding us of how he single-handedly defended New York City from the Terrorists on 9/11/01.)

    It makes Rudy look ridiculous to reality-based observers, but it makes him look like a hero to the sort of people who think George W. Bush is a great president. And those are the people who will be choosing a Republican nominee.

  • I find your interpritation of this sentence curious:
    Asked if the campaign was concerned, Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella said: “It speaks volumes that Hillary Clinton wasn’t concerned about the use of Gen. Petraeus’ photo when MoveOn.org used it to disgrace the American general’s image.”

    Your response: So, Giuliani disrespected a general by using his image in a campaign ad without his permission, refuse to apologize, refuse to pull the ad, and this is Hillary’s fault.

    Giuliani did not “disrespect” the general the way MoveOn did, and Clinton knows it. He simply did not get permission to use the generals information. He was defending the general, portraying him as a good man. The spin you people put on things makes me sick.

  • I think it’s pretty funny that Hillary is in the middle of a fight without even saying a word. She had NOTHING to do with the MoveOn ad. Giuliani is pathetic. He and Obama attack Hillary every chance they get because they know she can win.

  • cool…. right-wingers, like Bob seems to be, can actually be made sick… by merely spinning a sentence a little bit. I wonder if most right-wingers feel like dying when they read Ann Coulter, or listen to O’Reilly or most of the Republicans in congress? They probably drink the cool-aid BEFORE reading, or maybe FOX news has a subliminal message embedded that makes it seem OK when they tell lies left and right while smearing any person expressing a progressive view point.

  • First the obvious:

    The Ghoul knows he can’t win the nomination without showing some Clinton hate.
    To win you’ve got to be willing to spread that hate from Alabama to Utah.

    But deeper:
    If you can show that your Hillary hate is stronger than your love of the rule of law…
    So much the better.
    Indeed… lawlessness is the stuff of a powerful executive!

    So well-played Mr. Ghoul. Well-played….

  • It still burns me up that if MoveOn could have just kept it in their pants and drawn the line somewhere short of a personal attack on Patraeus, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. We’d probably be having some conversation I guess, it just wouldn’t be this one. But without excusing MoveOn for stupidity or suggesting that two or more wrongs somehow add up to a right, I do have to note that it would be deade easy to compile a very long list of Republicans in government and right wing talking heads and organizations who have accused Democrats or anyone else who disagreed with them of treason — up to and including the swiftboating of John Kerry. Perhaps we should be asking Giuliani to denounce all those folks too. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Might as well make it a party.

  • Giuliani didn’t ask before using pictures of Petraeus […]

    The way Giuliani “used a picture of Petraeus” is that he reprinted MoveOn’s ad, in its entirety (though scaled down to about a quarter page size) and that included Petraus’s photo. Note that Petraeus’ spokesman says:
    “General Petraeus has not condoned the use of his photo in political ads. Use of his photos in recent ads was without his consent or advance knowledge.”

    Ads. Plural. I assume it’s “pox on both your houses” and covers Giuliani *and* MoveOn ads, both. Yet Sargent makes a big hoo-hah about Giuliani’s lack of permission and doesn’t say boo about MoveOn’s. That’s par for the course for Greg, who tends to loose his cool and becomes a tad shrill when in a grip of fierce partisanship, but I’ve learnt to expect better quality of logic and balanced reasoning from CB.

  • So much time energy and money wasted on revenge. There are so many points to be focused on but Rudy picks the most mundane one to make an issue of. Nothing about what Petraeus said or his facts just what a great man he is. Too much evidence suggest he is another political tool playing along with the Bush agenda of making the facts fit the policy. Colin Powell was also a great General and we should never of had any reason to doubt his words either. Move on backs up its claims with facts and figures whereas Guliani does the only thing he knows how to do…smear opponents and spread fear propaganda.
    It’s becoming obvious that Guiliani is a waste of time, energy and money and is strikingly similar to the street corner profit that wears the two sided cardboard sign with “The End Is Near”, on one side and “9/11..9/11…9/11…the terrorists are coming”, on the other.
    Once again Guiliani is an example of people who think that because they have money their opinions must be relevant and important. To prove it the jump at the chance to take out a full page ad to prove it.

  • The comments from Guiliani’s spokesperson are strange, considering that it falsely implies that it was Hillary who criticized Guiliani for using pictures of Petraeus without the latter’s permission.

  • Libra… what people are trying to say is that Giuliani is a hypcrital opportunist. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the MoveOn full page ad.

    If he wants to drag Hillary and MoveOn through the mud he should do the same with all the right-wingers who spew their venom FAR MORE often than liberals do.

    Did you forget the swiftboating from 2004? Or all the times when conservatives call congressmen and women that they are unpatriotic or treasonous. I don’t recall Giuliani ever distancing himself of any of those dispicable habits. That’s probably what it is, right-wingers are so used to it that they don’t even see it any longer. It becomes a controversy when liberals do it because it is so rare.

    Of course it’s also convenient because then you don’t have to talk about substance. That is why MoveOn was wrong to run the ad. We already knew that Petraeus was sugercoating it, we didn’t need to see it in a full page ad.

  • Let the 3rd grader mud start to sling from the right wing! ‘Well, Hillary did it too!’ Bring more of this childish rant on. He looks like a total ass! Did anyone else laugh when they read his response to the pentagon? He looks like the juvenile douche that he is.There’s an entire arsenal of unused Bush ass-kissing that has yet to be unleashed on Guiliani.

  • Blaming Bill Clinton for everything worked for the Republicans for the first five years of Bush’s presidency. Why would they change tactics? Blame Clinton, regardless of the first name.

  • All this really tells me is that the right is thrilled to have another Clinton to kick around. I mean, it’s been 7 years since Bill was in office, and he’s been doing all that great humanitarian work with Bush’s father, so…isn’t it swell that there’s another Clinton all shined up and ready to kick around no matter what happens?

    Giuliani’s spokesperson has no idea whether Hillary was or was not concerned about the use of Petraeus’ image – and what would it matter if they did know? Suppose the ad had run without his image? Anyone think that somehow, some way, Giuliani would not be taking her to task for MoveOn having had the audacity to even use the general’s name?

    Giuliani will take every opportunity – will make opportunity where none exists – to attack Hillary; he can’t help himself, I guess. It’s a huge blind spot for him, and one that generally only makes him look as shallow and self-interested as he is.

    Move On had something to say, which they paid for the right to do. Whether you agree or not that Petraeus is or is not doing a good job, or a bad job, whether he sold out the men whom he commands – it’s all a matter of opinion. Petraeus has become a public figure through the Bush administration’s decision to politicize the issues and to feature the good general in a massive PR campaign. If Petraeus has had any objection to being used in this way, that’s a well-kept secret.

    So, the bottom line here is that the WH put Petraeus in the public eye, the public has the right to take rhetorical shots at him, Rudy is free to continue to make an ass of himself and none of this has anything to do with Hillary, and even less to do with the actual issue of getting our people out of Iraq.

    Do not be fooled or distracted by some made-up controversy.

  • Of course, it’s Hillary’s fault. Eight years after the Clintons walked out of the White House, everything is still the Clinton’s fault. You name it – if it’s bad for the Republicans, it’s those damn Clintons that caused it. According to the Republican Party line, Clinton must have been a friggin’ Machiavellian genius, cleverly setting up events years in the future to make the Repubs look bad. I’m not particularly a Hillary fan, but come on, why can’t any Republican just admit it when they fuck up? Are their dicks really that tiny?

    And then there’s the fact that Ghouliani either didn’t know or didn’t care that military personnel can’t appear in political ads – and he thinks he can be Commander-in-Chief? How anyone can respect this opportunistic bottom-feeder is beyond me.

  • Bruno, @13,

    *Of course* he’s an opportunist; *of course* he dragged Hillary into the controversy for no other reason that she poses a threat to him… All that goes without saying.

    But I *still* think it’s hypocritical of Sargent to make a big deal of Giulia using Petraeus’ photo without prmission, while all he did was re-use the same photo that MoveOn had used. Presumably, also without asking permission (and, frankly, I don’t think permission was needed, since there are plenty of Petraeus’ photos as a public person, and that’s what MoveOnhad used). I don’t like it when anyone on the “side of light” uses the othr side’s questionable tricks; what’s sauce for the goose…

    And I *still* wish that MoveOn had led in with that *splendid* first line of the ad — about the Pet being “at war with the facts”, rather than indulging in a bit of bloggish word-play

  • The difference between Giuliani using the photo and MoveOn using the photo is Giuliani was effectively putting an endorsement in the Army’s mouth by his use of the photo. That’s why Giuliani’s response is nonsense. We can argue (maybe not equally intelligibly on each side) about whether his complaint about making the general look bad has validity, but claiming somebody endorses you without their permission is another wrong altogether- and doing that to the US military is a hyper-version of that wrong- and activists and politicians have made a custom of making all sorts of people look bad in their ads for years.

  • [Giuliani] and Obama attack Hillary every chance they get because they know she can win. -Ethan

    What the hell does Obama have to do with anything? When has he attacked Hillary? Or are you just trolling?

  • It doesn’t matter if it’s true, putting “Hillary” and “Moveon.org” in the same sentence has the same effect as putting the words “Sadaam” and “9-11” in the same sentence. All they have to do is say it over and over and more than 50% of the country will believe it. Duh!

  • Hillary is about as center of the road politically as anyone can be. Yet, her enemies seems to think she’s Abbie Hoffman!

    Heavy handed name calling may backfire this time around. Compared to the GOP right, Hillary comes across as the voice of reason and political moderation.

  • Comments are closed.