Interesting, but it appears that the samples date from the 1990s and were obtained by the UN as part of their verification that Hussein had destroyed his chemical weapons facilities. We all know that he had chemical weapons at one time, but the UN/US successfully destroyed those programs.
Matt's right--it turned out to have been a commercial solvent: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/nyregion/06clean.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
Somebody provide me with the names of the Democrat US Senators who have publically condemned this outrage. I wonder if it might have anything to do with the amount of money they all get from the people who published this? I wonder if the MSM is planning on investigating the apparent fact that the New York Times gave moveon a huge discount for the full page over their standard rate? I wonder how low the left can stoop? I wonder what psychological disease they all have which makes it impossible to say "I disagree" and instead simply says "You're a liar"?
They do. They only venerate penny-ante war vets like Kerry when they try to land cheap shots on Bush, or Limbaugh, or whoever your villain of the moment is. And if a true hero like McCain becomes troublesome, he'll get slimed by the hero-worshippers in a New York minute. Most of the time, they're countenancing the crazies who want to prevent the military from recruiting at high schools, and accusing soldiers of war crimes in order to land more cheap shots on Bush. This is the true mainstream of your Democrats.
Look up rate card rates, discounts, etc. Apparently, nobody pays the rate card rate, especially if you have a contract rate (which the PR company representing moveon.org likely has) with the Times. The card rate is apparently equivalent to the posted rate for a hotel room, which is also more than you actually pay (unless you're a sucker). This story is a nonstarter.
Right. Let's get back to the heart of the matter. Which is this. The moveon.org crowd, in the end, have nothing but contempt for the military. The ad was ultimately designed to attack the credibility of the US military. Mrg not only wants us to think General Petraeus is lying today, but that any soldier who argues that Iraq is anything other than a defeat is lying. Not disagreeing, but lying. And the ad itself is so astonishing in its sweeping condemnation of a thoughtful, serious, dedicated commander, who is clearly working very very hard to execute a strategy that might, just might, pay off. One of the reasons their "we support the troops" and "don't question our patriotism" crap rings so hollow - and is so infuriating - is that one of the main reasons they oppose the war in the first place is because they think our soldiers are brainwashed neanderthals. Just recall John Kerry's assertion that only the folks who don't have any brains wind up in Iraq. In the end, this is all part and parcel of the same strategy and the same tired memes that we see taken up by the TNR in the Beauchamp scandal and by De Palma in his new film: to not only discredit the war, but to discredit and smear the troops and the institution fighting it. Because the goal is not simply to subvert and end the war in Iraq. We shouldn't kid ourselves at all that their outrage is simply over an "illegal" war or "Bush lied, people died," as if, for the MoveOns-types there are "legal" wars or wars that we're not lied into. They want to subvert the military as an institution; destroy it's credibility and thus hinder our ability to go to war ever again. For the radicals like MoveOn and such, it's about ending our ability to use military force under any circumstances.
NYT ad http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm "A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate. A Post reporter .. was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday." "Apparently". "Likely". You're just guessing. Link or quote the "contract rate", if there is one. Oh, it's "proprietary"? Sure. Then, in the interests of a full & open discussion, let someone leak it! Wrong. It's an issue to be discussed & possibly debunked, if your theories hold any water. Until then, it's on the table. Is the NYT subsidizing moveon?
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) said Thursday that he is asking The New York Times for the “same heavily discounted rate they gave MoveOn.org” for his campaign to run an ad in Friday’s paper. http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68425&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=70 Normally when you get a reduced rate you don't have any say in what day the paper runs the ad. That it ran on the day of the general's testimony seems more than just a coincidence. Given that its stock is at a five year low, I wonder what the Times' stockholders think of the company giving away $116K?
Or it's an indication that I was right. By the way, Guiliani's ad claims that the Clinton campaign and moveon.org "orchestrated" their attacks on the General. Rudy's evidence for this? Well, he doesn't have any. Because there isn't any. Because they didn't orchestrate any attacks.
Not unless you had evidence from a situation before all this brou-ha-ha. I'm with FN, the NYT is covering their Old Gray Ass... Oh, it wouldn't surprise me at all if both decided to engage in character assasination independently. Wouldn't suprise me at all...
Wait, they're arresting people in Utar for NOT watering their lawn? Here in Long Beach their about to do the opposite! Screw going to war with the NoCal's for our water, we're annexing Utah!
The 25 who refused to condem the ad (presidential candidates in boldface): Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) CLINTON (D-NY) DODD (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) FEINGOLD (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) BIDEN (D-DE), Cantwell (D-WA), and OBAMA (D-IL) did not vote.
moveon Petraeus ad http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_ny_times_admits_petraeus_ad_sold_to_move.html "Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus. ... the liberal group paid the standby rate of $64,575 for the full-page ad, it should not have been guaranteed to run on Sept. 10 ... an advertising representative left the liberal group with the understanding that the ad would run that Monday even though they had been charged the standby rate. The group should have paid $142,083 to ensure placement that day."