For Immediate Release: September 10, 2007
Contact: Brett Mecum (
Phone: 602.957.7770 /
Cell: 602.448.9883 / Fax: 602.224.0932


PHOENIX, AZ – “I understand that the people at had hoped the Democrat Congress would have surrendered in Iraq, surrendered to the terrorists and apologized to the rest of the world for Americans being American long before now – but they need to learn they can’t always get their way,” said Randy Pullen, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.

“Democrat US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing her best to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts and bring an end to the economic growth that has marked the last decade – might still get their way and the Welfare Society might still return,” Pullen said.

“Democrat US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has surrendered to anyone in the Middle East with at least a slingshot and a bad attitude causing doubt among troops and confidence among the enemy – so may yet get its way if Democrats can pull-out a pre-election defeat from the jaws of victory,” warned Pullen.

“’s stunt today was even more cowardly than Mrs. Pelosi or Reid,” Pullen said.  “While giving Democrats cover during congressional testimony, the Democrats ultra-liberal front-group took grandstanding shots at a decorated soldier and unwavering patriot who has dedicated his life to serving his nation.

“ ought to apologize to the American people and Democrats, like Arizona Democrat freshmen members of Congress, Gabrielle Giffords and Harry Mitchell, should return any and all campaign contributions received from this group,” Pullen said.  “I think the Democrats might actually be better off taking money from fugitives from justice than pinning their election hopes on a group better described as a bunch of thugs, rather than a special interest group. and their Democrat cohorts will smear anyone, say anything or do whatever it takes to win elections no matter who they have to hurt in the process.

“Just when you think Democrat politics has reached rock-bottom, it turns out they can sink even further,” Pullen said.


  1. I’d pay attention to this political counter-attack if Pullen and his fellow Rs condemned the Swift-boat lies directed at John Kerry’s military service, and if they didn’t finance television ads questioning the patriotism of Max Clelland, who lost one arm and both legs in Vietnam.

  2. While good in point, I disagree with one assertion; Harry Reid may be screaming for immediate retreat which is voluntary defeat but he is not causing doubt among the troops. They may question if they will be allowed to stay long enough to do the job they see as very possible, but they are confident in the ability to prevail. Members of my family have racked up 5 tours, one in progress and another set for deployment in December, and they report that there is no doubt in our ability and absolute need to succeed in the mission.

    Who gave those hecklers the very highly protected passes to enter the hearing? That, to me, is more important information than if Larry Craig has a wide stance. The provider most certainly knew of the intent and was therefore complicit. If the hecklers are prosecuted, so should be the Congress member that provided the tickets.

  3. Holy moly, Sam, come back to the future. Unfortunately, Mr. Cleland did the dirty deed himself, though he has claimed otherwise, for political gain. Spouting the truth is unpatriotic? And all you want from Randy is a long mea culpa for EVERY past event over which he had no accountability? That’s all? And then you’d pay attention?

    I doubt it.

  4. Let me correct my grammar. I did not mean to say Cleland blew up the grenade for political gain, but that he has hidden the fact that the incident was solely his mistake.

  5. Iris: I never thought for a nanosecond that you were implying Clelland deliberately injured himself.

    Unfortunately, the politics of smear have not gone away. I don’t like it when Democrats indulge in that stuff either.

    My only intent is to point out the obvious hypocrisy. I could go on and on about examples in your party. You no doubt would respond by pointing out the blue-state sleazebags.

    Let’s all play by the same rules.

    To quote the late (and great) Mo Udall…those who throw mud lose ground.

  6. Good lord Iris, how could you possibly care how Max Clelland was wounded in battle? His heroism, like those of all American soldiers wounded in battle is unparalleled. Sam is more than right about this one.

    It gets at something else. Look at how many American officers warned about this war in the first place and were “reassigned” or who perpetrated this into costly mess that it is. With each new “plan”, a new General is embraced as a hero and the ones that warned us were essentially fired, quieted, or condemned.

    The GOP has no monopoly on heroism or support for troops. What they do have a monopoly on is just how fools rush in.

  7. K, You perpetuate the myth. He wasn’t wounded in BATTLE. Yet he used the results as though he WAS wounded in battle. I have nothing but heart felt sympathy for those who ARE wounded in BATTLE. I have no use for liars, regardless of their physical disabilities which, in this case, were blatantly used to gain power. I feel just as sorry for his problems as I would anybody, but in his and every similar case, I would question their ability to make good judgments.

  8. Unbelievable…he was in Vietnam… he was deployed. He was serving in a time of war. He gave his limbs for his country and served honorably.

    Under the rationale you use, Pat Tillman is not a hero either.

  9. The guy also won the Bronze and Silver Star…Cleland was a war hero. Your party machinery drug his name and service through the mud…and even questioned his patriotism directly in a despicable ad that John McCain had the guts to call reprehensible.

    He never lied about his service…he was wounded because of the mistake of a fellow soldier.

    Under your rationale, every man and woman killed in a jeep accident or hit by friendly fire somehow should not be honored…even if they had been awarded medals prior to it.

    And if they happen to disagree with the policies of the GOP…then somehow…they are some kind of a liar or traitor.


  10. Hypocrisy, you truly are a member of the GOP…

  11. Now let’s step back to this so called “outrage” of an ad. Does it in any way impugn Petreus’ patriotism, loyalty to the United States, or question his service. NO. When you actually look at the ad, it simply questions what he argues in his report. It takes him to task with facts from the otherside of this debate. It asks the very tough questions that any of us, as citizens of the United States, have a right to ask or should expect to ask about this policy at this very important time in history.

    Some argue that this ad is tantamount to calling him a liar. That is so far fetched and wrong. If questioning facts and the evolution of a report is calling someone a liar than any debate we have with each other on this list would fit the same category.

    I don’t call you liars and you don’t call me liars. Niether did Moveon in this ad.

    What this really amounts to is that some in the GOP don’t believe it is appropriate to question the authority of the military or its leadership. The criticism amounts a call for censorship of ideas and essentially questions the extent to which we should question our leaders. I don’t think any of you intend this kind of chilling effect on free speech because the target of that speech is a general, now do you?

  12. Kral –

    You’ve officially lost your mind.


    “Cooking the books”

    They’re not calling him a liar? What else would the 4-star in charge of 160,000 US troops be called if he were “betraying” his country? This is indefensible.

  13. No, denying someone freedom of speech is indefensible. Lying to Congress – and to the American people – is indefensible.

    And condoning smears from the right, while exploding in a self-righteous snit-fit when the table is turned, is hypocrisy.

    But then again, you’re from the party that brought us two-story taj mahals in Alaska, built with lobbyist money, along with right-wing “defenders of the family who hire hookers, cruise airport bathrooms, shake down lobbyists and hit on interns, male and female, while attacking Bill Clinton for, well, hitting on interns.

    Hillary gave back the money raised by Hsu. Republicans gave back token amounts directly received from Abramhoff, but kept the bundled cash that came from fund-raisers he organized.

  14. My oh my, how it’s hitting the fan! With all of this passion and some very interesting posts I can only imagine what it will look like come this time next year!

  15. Sonoran Sam,

    Let’s see, your the party that has wasted billions in pork for a certain unnamed Senator in West Virginia. The party that heartily embraced two members of Congress involved in gay scandals, one with a page and another who let his boyfriend run a whorehouse out of his house. I could go on and on, but let me leave you with this question, why isn’t Patrick (undisclosed prescription drugs) Kennedy giving back the Hsu money?

  16. Mark: If you want to compare Byrd to Ted (bridge to nowhere/build me a fancy house) Stephens, I’ll be happy….And if you want to compare Larry “Foot tapper” Craig and David (make we wear diapers) Vitter to a Congressman who was open about his sexuality, and was re-elected by voters who KNEW his sexuality, I’m happy to deal with the consequences.

    And if you’re asking about Congressmen who didn’t give back dirty money, there are a couple of guys from your own party here in AZ who should be answering that question.

  17. I would be more than willing to compare the reaction of the GOP to Craig to that of the Dem’s reaction to Gerry Studds not only engaging in a homosexual affair with a house page, but also defending it.

  18. The next time I see Mark Foley I’ll have to ask him about that….

  19. As to the comment about “just read the ad”. I read the ad and it looks to me as if they really are calling one of the finest generals in the Army a traitor. There’s different nuances here and there but the emotional punch is clearly in the title: “Betray Us”. That is unambiguous. It was put in there for effect. Bottom line? Moveon claims they own the democrat party. This ad and the tepid reaction from Democrats show that is true. These days Democrats have a vested interest in losing the war. Any sign of success would reverse gains they made in the last election. That, to me, is traitorous. This ad is so “inexcuseable” that Gabby Giffords is not going to give the money back. Talk about actions speak louder than words.

  20. The difference, and I’m not condoning Foley’s behavior is that Republicans pushed Foley out the door, Democrats kept your boy Studds in.

  21. Last time I checked, Vitter was still “serving” the people of Louisiana. And no one’s clamoring for Stephens to move back to his new two-level home in Alaska.

    We can trade sleaze for sleaze all day, Mike.

  22. K: Apparently the version I have read regarding Cleland is different from the one you have read. I SAID the version I have read claimed he was responsible for his setting off the grenade and that he had been drinking. That circumstance in no way relates to Pat Tillman or the other examples you give. And BTW, in my comments, there were never any personal attacks of you. Stick to the argument and win or lose on ITS merits.

  23. No doubt about the sleaze factor being an inherent pattern in humans from time to time; some more than others. The back and forth of who did what or who did whom could go on forever. The reality is this; R’s may have their fair share of whacko’s who go off the reservation but not one murderer or indicted and soon to be convicted felon remains in office. Ted “the swimmer” is and will be in office until he chooses otherwise. Cold cash has a whole new meaning as far as Dems go and it can also gain you the nomination to lead one of the most trusted committees in Congress.

    The topic here is if was out of line in their ad; did they question the integrity of General Petraus in order to predispose opinion and inflict doubt? Most certainly. Are they free to do so according to the 1st Amendment? Absolutely. Did they play their hand and therefore that of all those who would choose to align with their agenda? No Doubt!

    While the ad may inflame those who would see it as an attempt to undermine the good work of our soldiers and the integrity of this country, it also exposed that organization and a very grand scale for what it truly is. Basically they flushed themselves out and any candidate that aligns with them should be quickly identified as a co-conspirator and deserves whatever follows.

    They have bought and paid for more than ad space; they just incensed millions of Americans who saw it as a very un-American thing. The unintended consequences of their actions will prove to go against them in a greater way than it helped their cause.

  24. Again, I see it as an attack on what Petreus is peddling. I have a real problem with the idea that we cannot question or scrutinize someone just because they wear the uniform. Does wearing a uniform, being a hero, or anything else then excuse them for being held to account for what is the most important of policy debates facing our nation?

    I don’t like the betray language all that much, but this doesn’t amount to him being equated with a traitor or amount to staining him personally.

    There is a real issue with what he has testified to and there are issues about where that testimony comes from and how it came about. All are fair questions. You can’t ask America to just accept it because he is a general and the commander. What that means is that he faces higher scrutiny if any…he is in charge, he has to defend it.

    Iris, my humble apologies if my posts came across as an attack on you personally. I got heated.

  25. Um, so how is “betray” not a personal attack? That is what traitors do. I’m not a linguist but I would be willing to bet if you research the etymology of “betray” you will find a common root with “traitor”. You are continuing it with your own choice of the word “peddling” as if he’s like a hawker in Nogales trying to sell us some fake Cuban cigars or something.

    The ad was tasteless. is tasteless and has taken over your party. They will call anyone a liar and a traitor if it suits their purposes: to lose this war and dicredict America’s ability to ever use a military option again.

    I don’t ask America just to accept something because a general says it. But here’s the thing–Petraeus hadn’t even said ANYTHING yet and they had called him a traitor that morning.

    Oh, and Petraeus’ eventual testimony was correct. Everything he said can be backed up with facts. I couldn’t say the same for their hysterical ad.

    The democrats are upset because there is moderate successes on the battlefield in Iraq. The plan that the general impletmented is working. So what should we do? Retreat, according to Harry Reid. Attack the service men and women like Gen. Petraeus is the means to do start that process. Your entire party is vested in failure of the U.S. military.

    If Gabby had any sense of decency she would give that money back. She said today through her surrogates that the ad was inexcuseable. I guess it’s not so inexcuseable that she wants to get rid of that money, though. She doesn’t want to upset that extremists in her own party either. Actions speak louder than words. I guess money speaks to our priorities. It shows hers.

    But here is what it also says about her: she is unwilling to take a stand on anything. She desperately wants to have it both ways. She wants to be both anti-war and pro-military. She isn’t fooling soldiers at Ft. Huachuca or airmen at DM. She doesn’t want to answer tough questions so she sends her errand boys to do answer those questions instead.

    We are going to win this election in CD8. We have a strong candidate with whom the democrats have failed to land any meaningful blows. We are going to be united and your side will lose.

  26. Mark said: “I would be more than willing to compare the reaction of the GOP to Craig to that of the Dem’s reaction to Gerry Studds not only engaging in a homosexual affair with a house page, but also defending it. ”

    The page in question was an adult and had a consensual relationship with Studds. Foley was preying on underage teens. Big difference and the only grey area here is in the minds of people who just think being gay is disgusting.

  27. Billy…campaign all you like for Bee, he is going to lose this race. This is sad sad attempt to tie Giffords to the ad by virtue of money. It wont matter beans…because she has done more already for the bases in the district and Raytheon, our biggest employer than Bee has done. There is no need to shift horses, as good a guy as he is.

  28. Hell, I think she should just give the $5000 to Bee…he is going to need every single penny. He is $1 million behind…is likely to be even further behind (unless he is illegally raising money now as an undeclared candidate who won’t resign to run…as the law says clearly).

    Bring out the lawyers Tim, gotta split those legal hairs.

Speak Your Mind


judi online bonanza88 slot baccarat online slot idn live situs idn poker judi bola tangkas88 pragmatic play sbobet slot dana casino online idn pokerseri joker123 selot slot88