Giuliania using Generals without their permission vs Hillary Clinton gets the endorsement of General Wes Clark. Wonder who comes off better?

General BETRAYUS is a PUBLIC FIGURE.

And a WAR CRIMINAL and LIAR just like TRAITOR Bush

I'm no fan of the cackeling witch that is

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But she is right Giuliani is desperate.

OUT of Mesopatamia NOW!

Get off the oil America.

If Petraeus doesn't want to look like a political general, he should demand Guiliani stop using his picture in campaign ads.

This is confusing....was Petraeus testifying before OUR Senate and Committees...he works for us - right?

If fact...its OUR uniform he was wearing - so to speak?

If We were lied into an unwinnable war with the wrong country, the wrong strategy and the wrong weapons, what do we call a general who
promotes and continues that war?

a hero?

Guiliani makes the politicization of our military even more apparent with his grandiose
praise and the attempt to slime a sitting Senator whose vote could make or break Petraeus
any day of the week.

And the office of VPOTUS will argue the General was a clandestine DOD operative.

Remember when the Iraq vet marched with the anti-war-group around the White House and they jumped all over him. They Try or did change his discharge status and salary because they said it was against their laws to protest politically with any of their military identification on. The only piece of clothes he have that belong to the service was his pants and they had nothing pertaining to his service I believe.
This is the BS that the republicans are going to do to the democrats , because the democrats have never has the backbone to confront them on ANY of these issues.
Clinton should have sued ABC for the article they ran called the drama-document or whatever they called it that had lies about his administration.
What is it with the democrats they let the republican lie their a.. off about them and do nothing about it. But when you tell the truth on the republicans they yell their d... head off and the democrats shutup.....

I think it has been established by the courts that if you are a public figure, you are fair game for the discourse. Nobody is going to believe that General Petraeus is endorsing an ad from MoveOn.org, HIllary Clinton or Rudy Guiliani. All these ads are clearly political ads and General Petraeus is clearly a subject to be discussed. It would be nice if the Pentagon spent more time on war planning than sniping at political players about the trivial.

Arn Gunnutes.. I wonder what your rhyme of Gen. Petraeus' name says about your level of education? But I do know that such evil associations have negative effect in many venues. The NY Times referencing BETRAYUS has set the Democratic cause way back and is possibly the cause of the incomprehensible bump in Bush's poll ratings. There is a level below which decent people will not stoop. The derogatory reference to the general is way underground. Thank you for giving aid to the Republican Party.

I find it funny all the hand-wringing that RepugliKKKans are doing over the moveon Petraeus ad. Any soldier, and anyone with common sense, knows that the generals will always make things sound rosy.

Yet all of a sudden the Repukes will screech "TREASON" if you say otherwise? I guess all of those episodes of M*A*S*H and Blackadder were just espousing treason all along...

Donovan, you're not an American. You don't how EVIL Bush is. If you knew how Corrupt Bush and the Republican Party was, you would not defend them. But I don't blame you, you don't live here.

Eh, who cares. Let him denigrate his own party on his own. There are much better battles to win.

The obvious issue - just how FAR behind the US Military Mr. Giuliani has been in his career - was raised back in February in this article....

http://www.examiner.com/a-591689~Draft_questions_cloud_Giuliani_s_chances.html

and as usual, the rest of the media (and the talk shows and Sunday news interviews) haven't flt it was an obvious issue.

I just hope Rudy got the discount so the wingnuts stop their pathetic whining.

Greg, after reading this silly post, I would encourage you to crawl back to The Observer and see if they might hire you back. My understanding is that their night janitor just quit.

You all need to get a backbone.Vote for this or that and bitch and whine about it forever.
I guess Iraq will be the last thing you leftwing crackeads will ever get "bullied" into voting for again!I doubt it,apparently liberal free thinking will only take you as far as the social dependancy line.

Someone should dig up the video of Rudy in 2004 when he refused to condemn the swift boat guys and blamed the troops for our failure on Iraq. I think it was on the Today show.

gqmartinez wrote on September 15, 2007 2:00 PM:
"Giuliania using Generals without their permission vs Hillary Clinton gets the endorsement of General Wes Clark. Wonder who comes off better?"

Here is the text of General Clark's endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President: (I received this by email)
Are we looking at a possible Clinton-Clark ticket?

dated September 15, 2007

Today, I am proud to announce my endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.

Senator Hillary Clinton has earned the support of millions of Americans in her campaign for president -- and today I am pleased to count myself among them. The world has reached a critical point, and we need a leader in the White House with the courage, intelligence and humility to navigate through many troubling challenges to our security at home and abroad. I believe Senator Clinton is that leader, and I whole-heartedly endorse her for President of the United States. Senator Clinton and I share a worldview in which diplomacy is the best first-strike tool in our arsenal; in today's complicated global system, the United States should be making more friends than enemies.

Never before have so many Americans had our well-being so closely tied to world events. Our economic and national security has become more complicated than ever before, and we deserve a leader who draws on wisdom, compassion, intelligence and moral courage -- in short, we need Hillary Clinton. She is tough but fair, a rock-solid leader equal to the many weighty challenges ahead of us.

As I make this endorsement today, I realize this may disappoint many of you who hoped that I would run for President myself in 2008. But rest assured: I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to continue to speak out on issues I care about, to work with you to support good Democratic candidates who will help restore the kind of leadership we need in America, to make sure our nation is as secure at home and abroad as it possibly can be.

Your support has been absolutely essential -- to our country, to our Democratic candidates, and to me personally. I would never have run for President in 2003 without your support -- after all, you drafted me into the race! I can't tell you how much it means to me that you've been standing with me since my campaign for President and right up until now. And we still have so much work to do.

Together, we made a huge difference in the 2006 elections. We helped 42 candidates win their races across America, including 25 candidates who flipped their seats from Republican to Democratic seats. Our Clark community raised more than $1 million for candidates, not to mention the millions of hours of volunteer time members of the Clark community provided to campaigns in every corner of our nation. And I am most proud of the fact we helped elect a number of veterans to the House and Senate. What a tremendous victory for America -- and it wouldn't have been possible without the hard work that you and I and tens of thousands of us put in over those 24 months.

The fight is just beginning for the future of America. Through WesPAC, you and I and thousands of other Americans will continue to play a very active role throughout this entire upcoming campaign -- to support strong candidates, to get them into office, and to get our country back on the right track.

Your continued participation in the political process is absolutely critical. I hope you'll join me in supporting Hillary Clinton's campaign for President. And I hope you'll continue to be active here at WesPAC as we support many candidates up and down the ballot in 2008, and continue to speak out on the issues.

I'm proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. But I'm not going anywhere, and I hope you're not either. We have a lot of work to do in the months and years ahead to get America moving forward again -- and I need you with me.

I'll stop by at 4:00pm ET on Sunday to the Clark Community Network to liveblog. I hope you'll join me.

Thanks so much for everything you've done -- and everything I know you'll continue to do -- for me, for Democrats, and for our country.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

Why does Guiliani hate the military?

"I though you were all going to Canada after the 2004 election..."

I can understand why you would want the nearly 70% of Americans who disapprove of Bush's incompetence to leave country. It's the only way poor, uninformed people like you can succeed.

Republicans are WAAAAY overplaying the 'Petraeus Card.' It's a sign of their political desperation. Polls show that more Americans think he slanted his opinions that think he's telling the truth, so he really only appeals to the Republican base.

My own opinion is that General Betay-Us is a dangerous political hack and a disgrace to his uniform. Bush has politisized the military the same way he has the rest of the government. I don't think he is an effective general - the only thing he's good at is kissing Bush's butt and advancing his own career. And after the Republican disaster next year they will likely turn to him to rescue the Republican party - even though he will have made things worse in Iraq and destroyed the military to get there.

Sad, but both the DEMS and the REPS are using the soldiers to further their own agendas, which tells me that in fact, NEITHER party actually cares about the troops in Iraq. What they DO care about is their OWN climb to or defense of, the top of the heap.

Neither party carews one hoot about the American public or democracy anymore. Remember...BOTH parties were involved in getting this travesty going. Even the Democrats, who have constantly put down the opposing mobsters, didn't even bother studying the information before allowing Bush to attack Iraq.

So tell me... do you actually believe that if it were THEIR sons and daughter who had to go to war, that they would have agreed to the resolution as easily? Of course not!

This pretty well tells me (along with the continuing backstepping to revise history) that NEITHER party actually cares much about the troops. They just don't have enough time to consider BOTH the troops AND their own legacy.

I do believe, however, that if one were to check, none of the candidate who were in office at the time ever missed a dinner engagement or fundraising during that same period of time.... IMHO

I don't think the normal "public figure" issue really applies here. MoveOn.org is an advocacy group. I think the question really is, is it legally (never mind ethically) kosher to allow candidates to wrap themselves in pics of servicemen (including generals)
in uniform, in an attempt to imply endorsement? Some here are saying that 'everyone knows' that Petraeus isn't endorsing Giuliani just because an ad tries to give that impression...but I'm not sure I share that optimism. Seems like a slippery slope to me.

Moveon.org just forgot one thing that those fine Republican folk taught us. That it is only okay to attack either present or former members of the military specifically in the context of their military service (like the NY Times ad), if they are Democrats and/or express opposition to the war in Iraq (e.g. Max Cleland, John Murtha, Paul Hackett, etc). Duh.

"Neither party cares one hoot about the American public or democracy anymore."

I agree with a lot of what you said in your post, and am glad you said it. But I have to nitpick this point here. The parties care about nothing other than engaging in the act of democracy (i.e. raising money, running for office, and then governing). In fact democracy is their entire reason for existing. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying, if so I apologize. Peace out.

"3) Petraeus has made clear that he intends to be a Republican presidential candidate in 2012.

Qué?"

Si. In fact I'm pretty suspicious that the 'rumours' that he might get drafted are actually coming from his PR people starting the whispering campaign.

"They want to swiftboat her to a pulp in the general election, and they can do it. "

No they can't. They've been swift-boating her to a pulp for close to 2 decades now. Hasn't stopped her from becoming the front-runner. There's not much they can dig up on her or say about her that they haven't already said a million times already. This (plus her being a woman ) are the only things that makes her attractive to me as a candidate.

In fact this works against them. In FOX/AM radio/right-wing propaganda land Hillary is the ultimate Marxist-Leninist, a radical hairy-legged feminist-communist lesbian Wiccan. In the real world that the other 2/3 of the country dwells in, she is snatching up corporate donations like there's no tomorrow and has a moderate, practical reputation.

I wonder if they are stupid enough to try to paste her as a communist again. I hope they do, the argument has no traction with independants / swings.

I disagree. The General is a public figure, and his testimony is, of course, public. As such, whether he "condones" the ad or not is not relevant, and, in my view, it would not be proper to ask. The DoD regulations in question (in both spirit and substance) are designed to prevent the military from involving itself in our civil affairs, but not at all to prevent civilians (including civilian candidates such as Mr. Guiliani) from speaking about military issues.

To be clear, I strongly disagree with the advertisement's content. Nevertheless, I also believe that Mr. Guiliani can, and should, be commenting publicly on issues related to Iraq, and to the General's testimony -- and that we should expect that comment (in a television adverstisement particularly) to include images of its subject matter.

Move-On had every right to use his picture as they are not running for president.

American citizens have a free speech right to use pictures of Generals and soldiers in military uniform for what ever purpose they see fit.

When you join the military you give up certain rights for the duration. In the cause of maintaining civilian control, the military tries to keep out of politics: hence the ban on appearing in uniform.

This is why the real question is was Petreus playing footsie with Giuliani by assisting in the ads in any way -- giving permission or providing footage or the like.

One does expect the Pentagon to war game the effects of things like staying in or leaving Iraq. Hence Petreus's statement that he does not know whether our actions in Iraq make us any safer is disturbing. At the level he is functioning at this should have been explored.

People caught up in a campaign tend to exagerate the likihood of success and there is long-standing history of the militry fudging the numbers. Pointing this out is not treason it is common sense.

The epithet "General BetrayUs" pales beside the venomous personal attacks on McClellan, Murtha, and Kerry, as well as anyone else who has attempted to bring rationality to the debate over our foreign policy. The Republicans have consistently refused to disavow these vicious attacks. Yet they have prevented an open and intelligent debate on the very serious issues facing the country with regard to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

As far as Hillary Clinton being "swift-boated" if she is the Democratic candidate for President -- that will certainly be the case, no matter who the Democrats nominate; but the bullying tactics of the Republicans have done enormous damage to the country. They are themselves an issue, and they need to be confronted and challenged openly.

The big issue in 2008 is not Iraq: it is which party can lay out a feasible diplomatic and military strategy for dealing with the post 9/11 world. The Republicans have had 6 years now, and have demonstrated clearly that they cannot lead the country on issues of national security.

It's up to us to make Rudy sorry he started with the attack ads.

WRITE letters to newspapers.

PHONE the radio and TV programs and denounce Rudy.

It's up to us.

No on will do it for us.

This is a story?

Are you serious? MoveOn puts out an attack ad on a US General imply he's deliberately lying and trying to destabilize the US democracy, and nobody cares that the image was used without permission and when Rudy defends him you guys get all upset?

It's obvious that the Petraeus 2012 campaign doesn't want his image allied with that of a soon-to-be-failed Giuliani 2008 campaign.

The point is that politicians cannot use active military people to ENDORSE their candidacies, not can active military people permit them to. When someone runs an attack ad against a military person, only a fool would consider that an endorsement of a political candidate.

There is NOTHING in American law or tradition that says people cannot criticize any military people.

If THAT were the case, President Lincoln would have been brought up on charges for criticizing General McClelland during the Civil War.

Anyone in the United States can be criticized, including the president -- who, after all, is the Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy in wartime.

But that would be very different from using the president's picture, without his permission, to imply his support for a political candidate's candidacy.