MoveOn.org takes out a full-page ad on Gen. Petraeus

The issue was with his stats on the civilian death toll in Iraq. According to the AP (associated press) data, the death toll rose & stayed there.

According to the data Petraeus gave to Congress yesterday, the death toll rose & then fell in Iraq for civilians.

So the real issue is: why did Petraus present to Congressional oversight a report that varied so greatly with the stats from the associated press? Do you believe a politician more or less than the media?

Why isn’t the General brought up on charges since they have evidence ?

9/24/07

Update:

After two weeks of denials, the New York Times acknowledged that it should not have given a discount to MoveOn.org for a full-page advertisement assailing Gen. David H. Petraeus.

The liberal advocacy group should have paid $142,000 for the ad calling the U.S. commander in Iraq “General Betray Us,” not $65,000, the paper’s public editor wrote yesterday.

Clark Hoyt said in his column that MoveOn was not entitled to the cheaper “standby” rate for advertising that can run any time over the following week because the Times did promise that the ad would run Sept. 10, the day Petraeus began his congressional testimony.

OK, so Gen. Petraeus is a politician and not a military man and the media has far more credibility ?

Rudy Ad on the issue:

 joinrudy2008.com/img/nytad_full.gif

:) On this particular topic, if all the public reports until the oversight meeting said the Iraqi civilian death toll were higher & held steady, and then only in the oversight meeting did the report come out that the Iraqi civilian death toll had dropped…

That kind of “reporting” by a general begs the question: why wasn’t the news put out earlier that the AP reports which are in newspapers across the whole country were wrong & corrected? When proven wrong, the AP retracts statements such as this. The fact that they haven’t is meaningful, to me.

Also, given the fact that this summer was the worst for US troop deaths in Iraq…that begs the question: why would civilian casualties have gone down during that period? The only logical answer would be if the insurgents had dramatically shifted tactics (untrue) OR if they’d gotten much better at attacking & decimating the US military (also untrue). If either of these scenarios WAS true…

wouldn’t the general have been a massive liar when saying that the stepped up troop levels had been working? Yep.

However…now that they found the Iraq WMD in the UN building in New York, shouldn’t the president say that we sent the troops to the wrong location? :)

Though, nothing I say (unfortunately) will save the lives lost, nor lesson the death tool, nor improve the lives of the millions of Iraqis the US government has ruined. That makes me sad, and truly, I wish our little debate here could improve their lives, or bring the US troops home faster.