September 14th, 2007
09:55 AM ET
16 years ago

Giuliani blasts NY Times for MoveOn ad

Giuliani said Clinton,, and the New York Times should apologize 'for what they did.'

(CNN) -'s New York Times ad calling into question Gen. David Petraeus' testimony before Congress drew more Republican ire Thursday - this time over the price the non-profit political advocacy group paid for the full-page ad.

The New York Post, citing, reported Thursday that the organization paid $65,000 for the ad, calling it a $116,000 discount from the Times' usual $167,000 price. That prompted a pair of GOP presidential candidates to complain.

Rudy Giuliani, campaigning in Atlanta, blasted the Times and demanded that the newspaper "give us the same rate, the heavily discounted rate they gave for that abominable ad."

And on Friday, the paper published the former New York City mayor's ad that defends Petraeus' record and criticizes Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, for her recent tough questioning of the general.

Newly announced candidate Fred Thompson noted in a campaign speech in Jacksonville, Fla., that the Times gave the group "a discount to make sure it (the ad) gets the widest possible circulation."

There's just one problem. The $65,000 rate is the Times' normal rate for an advocacy ad from a non-profit group, according to newspaper spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.

Mathis wouldn't disclose how much paid for the ad, citing policy, and said the final cost of an advertisement in the paper depends on a number of variables. But, she said, the standard rate for a full-page, black-and-white advocacy ad would be $65,000.

The newspaper took issue with charges from some, repeated in the Post article, that the left-leaning got a "family discount."

"We do not distinguish advertising rates based on the political content of the ad," the paper said in a statement. "In fact, the advertising department does not see the content of the ad before a rate is quoted."

"We believe the broad principles of freedom of the press confer on us an obligation to keep our advertising columns as open as possible," the statement continued. "In fact, there are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on our own editorial pages."'s ad appeared in the Times on Tuesday, the first day of Petraeus' testimony. Under the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us," the ad said that the top military commander in Iraq "will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war." It also suggested that Petraeus' testimony was influenced by the White House.

During his testimony, Petraeus said that he had written his own remarks and that the White House had not seen them beforehand.

"To state the obvious," he said Wednesday after his testimony was complete, "I disagree with the message of those who are exercising the First Amendment right that generations of soldiers have sought to preserve for Americans. Some of it was just flat completely wrong and the rest is at least more than arguable."

- CNN Assignment Editor Alta Spells contributed to this report

Filed under: • Rudy Giuliani
soundoff (138 Responses)
  1. CorruptUsr

    "Meanwhile, MoveOn's political action committee will begin airing a new ad on television Monday that accuses Bush of a "betrayal of trust." The ad will run from Monday to Friday in Washington on cable and nationally on CNN. The total ad buy is $60,000."

    A TV ad for 5 days as cheap as a one page newspaper ad? What? Is this another family discount??

    CNN "Betrays US" too.

    September 14, 2007 02:34 pm at 2:34 pm |
  2. Jeff Spangler, Arlington, VA

    Rudy has fallen right into this little [urinating] match started by with full knowledge and tacit support of Congressional leadership.

    September 14, 2007 03:05 pm at 3:05 pm |
  3. Frankie G

    Hey Pete,
    Get an education!

    September 14, 2007 03:59 pm at 3:59 pm |
  4. Chris, Wilmington, DE

    Well I guess according to Pete from Florida, General Petraeus has committed perjury, so I guess we can try him for such. If you really did serve this country than I thank you Pete, and I am happy that your views are allowed to be heard in this free country. Do yourself and your countrymen a favor and criticize Bush and the republicans, not anyone who wears a uniform. They are not the policy makers, they should not be criticized.

    September 14, 2007 04:39 pm at 4:39 pm |
  5. chessnoid

    Giuliani is part of the problem and not the solution. He is blasting the NY times just because he doesn't agree. He can put out his own add if he doesn't like it.

    September 14, 2007 04:50 pm at 4:50 pm |
  6. Bea, Hoboken, NJ

    George W. Bush is great. The war is wonderful. is horrible. We need to return to basic morality. I would write more, but I have a prostitute here waiting to put my diapers on. Posted By John R, San Francisco CA : September 14, 2007 11:11 am

    Senator Vitter, I presume......

    September 14, 2007 04:55 pm at 4:55 pm |
  7. Bill, Atlanta, GA

    I can understand people getting upset about a political action group running an ad questioning a member of the military. What I question is where was this outrage when the "Swift Boaters" did the same thing to John Kerry?

    September 14, 2007 05:11 pm at 5:11 pm |
  8. Ed

    By the way freaks... Rudy Giuliani got his print ad for $65,000. I guess the New York Slimes saw what they did was disgusting and horrible. Unfortunately his ad didn't defend Petrraeus. I have Rudy Giuliani's TV ad over at my blog that pulverizes Hillary over Petraeus... She's on FIRE!

    September 14, 2007 05:44 pm at 5:44 pm |
  9. Pete, T.S. FL


    Wearing a uniform does not make you credible, honest or great. I am not challenging the General's long service and sacrafice. However the good General also has a responsibility to those serving under him and in my eyes he has lost sight of that as have many before him. Westmoreland....

    And far as criticizing Bush and the Republicans, I do that. And I will be all over anyone no matter the politcal affiliation until my brothers and sisters are home. No I am not naive enough to think they can all be home now, but we need to start!

    September 14, 2007 06:04 pm at 6:04 pm |
  10. christian, selden, ny

    Peter D. Walnut Creek, CA

    its great how you can say the iraq war is a "bad situation" A BAD SITUATION!??! do you even understand what is happening. people are dying every day people are losing their children their fathers, mothers brothers EVERY DAY!!!!! and you quickly dismiss it as a "bad situation" and go on to quote hillary's words.....america is so backwards. do you UNDERSTAND THE REPUBLICANS SCREWED UP VERY BAD....DISGRACEFUL what are you defending? the iraqi war is not just "one of the issues" we are destroying ourselves with this pathetic "war". what is wrong with america!??!it is an atrocity. george bush and his administration is responsible and should be removed NOW not in a year.......

    September 14, 2007 07:00 pm at 7:00 pm |
  11. christian, selden, ny

    i was in a store about a month ago looking to buy a newspaper and on the cover of the post was BRAD PITT the Daily NEws had Lindsey Lohan and the NEW YORK TIMES had a picture of the troops in iraq in combat. i bought the new york times and i have been reading it ever since. NEw YORK TIMES is NEWS its what people should be reading. they criticize the government BECAUSE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED MISERABLY. they arent biased, they talk bad about the government because the government of today is a comple disgrace!!!!!!

    September 14, 2007 07:30 pm at 7:30 pm |
  12. Seekster, Arlington, TX is about as American as Benedict Arnold. This band of traitors does have the right to free speech but so do we. They have been slime for a while but they crossed the line with the Patreaus ad. is nothing more than a bunch of traitors! (How is that for Freedom of Speech?)

    September 14, 2007 08:18 pm at 8:18 pm |
  13. christian, selden, ny

    Seekster, Arlington, TX

    i would have to say "freedom of speech" isnt as intelligent when it is used in the context of "how's that for freedom of speech" maybe it would have meant more if you expressed views on the current state of this country's current situation, instead of calling names to an orginazation that is just expressing their views, the same as you. very hipocritical i would say.....hows that for blah blah blah...

    September 15, 2007 04:49 pm at 4:49 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6