Breaking: Levin-Reed amendment fails.
Today, the Senate voted 47-47 on an amendment sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) that “would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq to begin in 90 days and end in nine months.”
When the Senate previously voted on the bill in July, the vote was 52-47.
UPDATE: Roll call vote HERE. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Ben Nelson (D-NE) all voted “yea” in July, but voted “nay” yesterday. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Bernie Sanders (I-CT) all voted “yea” in July, but did not vote yesterday. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Pete Domenici (R-NM) also didn’t vote yesterday, but voted “nay” in July. Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) yesterday voted “yea.”
UPDATE:Dodd explains his switch in a press release, which states that “he will only support legislation on Iraq that contains a firm and enforceable timetable for redeploying U.S. troops as well as an enforceable cut off of funds for future combat operations in Iraq.”
How the hell was that vote even that close? Was there a sudden surge (cough) of conscience that swept across D.C. last night?
September 21st, 2007 at 10:26 amoooh, who were the 6 Nancy’s that didn’t bother voting.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:27 amoooh, who were the 6 Nancy’s that didn’t bother voting.
Comment by Squegeeboo — September 21, 2007 @ 10:27 am
I was just wondering this.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:28 amin July, the vote was 52-47.
who went missisng this time?…
just keep bringing it up though…
September 21st, 2007 at 10:28 amkeep it up!
…
#1 : Defeatocrats. - - Juvenile name-calling as witless as the author.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:29 amThe vote losing 5 votes like that is beyond ridiculous.
And you have to love the article’s characterization of it:
‘Moderates want to compromise on Iraq and get things done, but mean ol’ Mr. Reid is too stubborn! He wants party purity! It’s all those damn stubborn lefty dems’ faults!’
God,, gag me.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:30 amComment by Badmoodman — September 21, 2007 @ 10:29 am
===========
It puzzles me why you still rise to his juvenile taunts, stop feeding him and he will wither and die like the administration he fellates everyday.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:32 amGoddamit!
What is it going to take to end this illegal war?!?!?
:(
September 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amNo, Jake. Troops lose again. But that’s all you care about - scoring political points. Congratulations. Go celebrate:
BAGHDAD (AP) — Two more Americans have died in Iraq, pushing the total lost since the war began to at least 3,793.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:42 amWOO WOO!! repugnicants ensuring 2008 will be a massive disaster for them…
keep it up, chickenhawks. the freight train is a-comin’ and you’re stalled on the tracks. rather than getting out and pushing, you just keep turning the key, hoping it’ll start.
but this car runs on ideas and integrity, and your tank is DRY.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:43 amJake D. –
I am getting sick and tired of your ignorant, uneducated, and irrelevant responses. If you have a valid reason why we should stay in Iraq, then feel free to post valid, logical arguments. I have no problems debating you, I have examined my views and they withstand scrutiny. Please enlighten me on why my friends should continue to fight and die for your “war”. Until you want to join the debate, then please be quiet and stop embarrassing MY COUNTRY!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:49 amWhy is it that dems stood in the way of the GOP congress, they were obstructionists? But not when the GOP does it to dems?
Man cons are f’ing morons!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:49 amDems lose again? Sorry Jake, ending the war is what 71% of Americans want.
If oyu want to crap on the will of the people a year before the 08 elections, I welcome you to.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:50 amthat’s right, repubs, keep it going…you won’t be able to blame mark foley and ted haggard in 2008.
but you’ll still be able to hook up with them at the airport restroom after the election.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am3,793 DEAD 25K+ WOUNDED AND JAKE CHEERS…GO JAKE…ASS OF THE MONTH.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:56 amWOO WOO! we get to stay in iraq forever, which is an awesome investment for all us american taxpayers:
“Military officials said Thursday that contracts worth $6 billion to provide essential supplies to American troops in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan — including food, water and shelter — were under review by criminal investigators, double the amount the Pentagon had previously disclosed.”
September 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amAnyone that is so paranoid that they have to create an Ignore List when they are defeated, want to take up DanCaveMan’s challenge?
Or do they continue to believe that “rape is good”, and continue to cut and pastes real American heroe’s biographies?
Only Southern Baptist’s Catholics need reply!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amPIGEON FORGE, Tenn. — Members of a Christian theater troupe are spreading the word that they’re irate about Kathy Griffin’s off-color speech in accepting a creative arts Emmy earlier this month.
The Miracle Theater in Pigeon Forge spent $90,440 on a full-page advertisement in USA Today that ran nationally Monday, proclaiming “enough is enough.”
In accepting the Emmy for her Bravo reality show, “My Life on the D-List,” Griffin said that “a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus.”
She went on to hold up her Emmy, make an off-color remark about Christ and proclaim, “This award is my god now!”
this is kathys strategy - get people to spend their money against her rather than against the democrats….funny
September 21st, 2007 at 10:58 amOnly Southern Baptist’s Catholics need reply!
the two are exclusive….catholics cannot be baptists.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:59 amthe two are exclusive….catholics cannot be baptists.
Comment by bob h — September 21, 2007 @ 10:59 am
It’s a loooooooong story, bob.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amSuffice it to say, Jake D. Religious Fake was caught again in one of his many lies.
“When word reached our cast that a Hollywood celebrity had stood before TV cameras and said such vulgar things about Christ, they were incensed,” he said. “It’s just not OK anymore to mock Christians and Jesus with impunity.”
christains are acting more and more like muslims every day
September 21st, 2007 at 11:02 amthe two are exclusive….catholics cannot be baptists.
Comment by bob h — September 21, 2007 @ 10:59 am
It’s a loooooooong story, bob.
Suffice it to say, Jake D. Religious Fake was caught again in one of his many lies.
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by DRxJ — September 21, 2007 @ 11:02 am
ooookkkkaaaayyyy…ill take your word for it.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:03 amYou didn’t even get all the Dems to vote for this junk. Even some in the Dem party aren’t ready to declare defeat against AQ.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:04 amchristains are acting more and more like muslims every day
Comment by bob h — September 21, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Thank goodness that most pseudo(c)hristians don’t get expanded cable.
South Park, Drawn Together, Penn and Teller’s BullSh!t, to name just a few.
Methinks they’re too busy watching NASCAR!
(He’s making another left tuuuuuuurn!!)
September 21st, 2007 at 11:05 amDefeat?
How do you lose someone else’s civil war?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:05 amthe cheerleading jakes of the world must have
September 21st, 2007 at 11:06 ammassive stock holdings in the military industryal complex…
good, clean money, there…
Note that this was a vote for cloture that failed, not an actual vote on the amendment. And once again, the Dems just said, “ok.” It’s been said before and I will say it again….let the Republicans filibuster and let the American people see who is obstructing resolution of these issues. That agreement to have 60 votes in order to proceed to a vote on these amendments (agreed to by Reid) needs to be rescinded NOW!
TP: please post the roll call as soon as it’s available. Thanks!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:06 amA reminder from Senate Dems: Bin Laden is at large
By Klaus Marre
September 21, 2007
In case you were wondering how long al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden has been at large since the 2001 terrorist attacks, Senate Democrats have an answer. And they are happy to share it.
As of Thursday, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had neither been captured nor killed in the 2,200 days since Sept. 11, 2001. The Senate Democratic message center has added a “bin Laden tick-tock†to information it sends out related to the fight against terrorism.
“In July, the U.S. intelligence community determined that al Qaeda represents the main terrorist threat to the United States,†reads a message accompanying the releases. “Yet instead of focusing on bin Laden, the president is focused on policing an Iraqi civil war. Six years after 9/11, it’s time for us to put our eye back on the ball.â€
The communications director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Rodell Mollineau, said the idea to add the reverse countdown was born in a meeting of Democratic leaders and their senior staff, although he could not recall who first formulated it.
The bin Laden tick-tock, which was first used after al Qaeda recently sent out two videotaped messages from its leader, is supposed to show that “the debate is about more than bringing the troops home,†Mollineau said, adding that “one of the key points that is sometimes lost [in the Iraq debate]†is that resources were pulled from Afghanistan to wage the war against Saddam Hussein.
The device serves as a “daily reminder to not let anyone forget how this started,†the aide added.
Republicans had a different take.
“It’s also been 2,200 days since we have been attacked here at home, which, not coincidentally, is the same length of time that we’ve been on offense against al Qaeda,†the communications director for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Don Stewart, said. “I’m sure that MoveOn — who called for a pacifist response after 9/11 — thinks this gimmick is just hilarious.â€
The tick-tock is reminiscent of a strategy that the White House used to put pressure on Congress to pass the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill earlier this year. At the time, the White House press corps opened its daily briefings by reminding reporters how many days had passed since President Bush sent a funding request to Capitol Hill.
However, Mollineau said the tick-tock is not a response to the White House strategy.
“It is a point that needs to be made,†he said, adding that the reverse countdown will probably remain a fixture that will not go away “any time soon.â€
have a nice helping of shat pie repugs and repug loyalist cronies
September 21st, 2007 at 11:07 amToday’s Must Read
By Spencer Ackerman - September 21, 2007, 9:36AM
So what defense contract in Iraq didn’t involve a kickback? What contract was awarded through competitive bidding? As Pentagon investigators conduct an unprecedented review into corruption in the department’s Iraq contracting, it’s a rare bid that wasn’t crooked.
Yesterday, Congress learned that $6 billion worth of contracts are under criminal review. That’s right — criminal:
Military officials said Thursday that contracts worth $6 billion to provide essential supplies to American troops in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan — including food, water and shelter — were under review by criminal investigators, double the amount the Pentagon had previously disclosed.
In addition, $88 billion in contracts and programs, including those for body armor for American soldiers and matériel for Iraqi and Afghan security forces, are being audited for financial irregularities, the officials said.
Taken together, the figures, provided by the Pentagon in a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, represent the fullest public accounting of the magnitude of a widening government investigation into bid-rigging, bribery and kickbacks by members of the military and civilians linked to the Pentagon’s purchasing system.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MI) called DOD’s procurement process “a culture of corruption,” an assessment that appears to represent the bipartisan consensus. Yet the Pentagon’s deputy inspector general said the contracting corruption was attributable to “isolated incidents.” Yes, $6 billion worth of isolated incidents.
Underscoring the culture-of-corruption charge: a court case reveals that a company hired to build the U.S. embassy in Iraq, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting, paid $200,000 in kickbacks for two Army contracts. The allegation comes out of testimony given by a former KBR contracting official, Anthony Martin, convicted of bribery earlier this year.
Martin said in court documents that he agreed to receive kickbacks before awarding a $4.6 million contract to First Kuwaiti to supply 50 semi-tractors and 50 refrigeration trailers for six months. A month later, Martin awarded First Kuwaiti an additional $8.8 million subcontract to supply 150 semi-tractors for six months.
For his effort, Martin said, the company agreed to pay him $200,000. After he received an initial $10,000, he took a trip back to the United States. When he returned, he says he told the company he would not take any additional money.
The court filing says Martin’s “criminal benefactor appears to have completely escaped responsibility for his misconduct and instead continues to profit from a cozy relationship with the government.”
First Kuwaiti is accused, among other things, of using slave labor to build the embassy. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is investigating whether State Department Inspector General Howard “Cookie” Krongard obstructed an internal review of the charges.
6 billion of iraq contracts under CRIMINAL REVIEW
sleep tight repug idiots
September 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amEventually the nation will see that the GOP is blocking the will of the people. America wants us out of Iraq!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:10 amAdd Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by DRxJ — September 21, 2007 @ 11:02 am
ooookkkkaaaayyyy…ill take your word for it.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by bob h — September 21, 2007 @ 11:03 am
are YOU adding that: “Add Karma” ???
funny…
September 21st, 2007 at 11:10 am.
One thing I have noticed is the belief on the right, that if we pull out of Iraq, we surrender the world to Al Qaida. What they are missing, is we will continue to fight Bin Laden, and his terrorist, We will do it on our terms, and our way. Not on theirs.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:12 amno katy thats the tag for the thumbs up
September 21st, 2007 at 11:14 amalong that line of thought krazny can anyone name the countries that have suffered and continue to suffer AQ or muslim extremist attacks while we shove our proverbial phallus deeper into iraq?
Sudan
Phillipines
Singapore
Indonesia
Austrailia
any others?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:16 amwe should be stomping aq out where they are, not making more where they arent
September 21st, 2007 at 11:16 amIndeed, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaida. If Iraq wasn’t sitting on all of that oil, we wouldn’t even be there.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:16 amthe republican senator from alaska—the one who takes bribes—how did he vote?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:17 amno katy thats the tag for the thumbs up
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by bob h — September 21, 2007 @ 11:14 am
huh… now i AM confused…
September 21st, 2007 at 11:17 amthat’s not what i see… oh well…
.
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by katy — September 21, 2007 @ 11:17 am
highlight the thumb and copy then paste in the comment window…
September 21st, 2007 at 11:19 amThis administration has allowed slave labor to build our embassy. Bypassed the unemployed Iraqis and went right to slave labor.
You fine with that Jake D?, Exley? any others.
Exley, thanks for responding on a previous post but you missed the connection. The 3 questions raised were pulled out of the ad you were so uptight about. They are all legitimate questions asked of the Gen.
You guys going to turn your back on slave labor?
Kranzy, I agree. Minimizing our footprint in Iraq does not equate to surrender to AQ. In fact, it would free up resources to accelerate our hunt for OBL and AQ.
Ignorance and fear are strong within them.
Dems need a spine.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:19 amThe UK, and Spain Bob. along with Russia, or are they just dealing with a different set of extremists?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:19 amDon’t feel so bad - it doesn’t show up on my screen either. I always thought “Add Karma” and “Recomend” were the same thing, like the red flag and report abuse.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:20 amVicente Fox: “Cowboy” Bush Is Scared Of Horses
By Eric Kleefeld - September 21, 2007, 9:20AM
Here’s another fun detail from Vicente Fox’s upcoming autobiography: He says that despite President Bush’s cowboy image, the man is actually scared of horses.
Fox tells the story of the two men meeting in Mexico in early 2001, in which he invited Bush to ride a large horse. Bush nervously backed away. “A horse lover can always tell when others don’t share our passion,” Fox wrote.
Fun fact: Bush’s Crawford ranch, purchased in 1999 in order to help create a down-home image for his presidential campaign, does not have any horses.
thats what you get when a northern transplant doesnt bother to really do what many Texans love to do, ride horses. Idiot cant even cover up his fear.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:21 amSudan
Phillipines
Singapore
Indonesia
Austrailia
United Kingdom
Spain
Russia
The list of nations suffering AQ attack while Bush fiddles grows longer - any more ?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:23 amhttp://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf
a really great article on aq attacks - a govt doc in fact
September 21st, 2007 at 11:26 ambob h:
Pakistan, India.
Check out this map.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:28 amTo add to Bob’s list: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (only after US military intervention).
a good question, is Hamas, and Hezbollah connected to Al Qaida, or are they seperate? I have never gotten a good answer to this question.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:28 amSudan
September 21st, 2007 at 11:28 amPhillipines
Singapore
Indonesia
Austrailia
United Kingdom
Spain
Russia
kuwait
Tunisia
Yemen
Kenya
Saudi
Morocco
Turkey
Fun fact: Bush’s Crawford ranch, purchased in 1999 in order to help create a down-home image for his presidential campaign, does not have any horses.
Comment by bob h — September 21, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Nope — it just has a lot of brush that needs to be cleared. You’d think that Bush’s handlers could come up with a few other ranch tasks for George to do to burnish his “down home” image. The clearing brush thing is getting old.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:29 amSudan
Phillipines
Singapore
Indonesia
Austrailia
United Kingdom
Spain
Russia
kuwait
Tunisia
Yemen
Kenya
Saudi
Morocco
Turkey
pakistan
india
any more, i bet there are
while the rest of the world is caught ina conflagration of terror the us is dawdling in iraq
September 21st, 2007 at 11:29 ama good question, is Hamas, and Hezbollah connected to Al Qaida, or are they seperate? I have never gotten a good answer to this question.
Comment by Krazny — September 21, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Hamas is Sunni and Hezbollah is Shi’ite, so they’re certainly not in concert, and it’s unlikely Hezbollah has a relationship with Al Qaeda.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:30 amWho’s declaring defeat? You are the ones that are saying it is defeat. You are the ones that keep trumpeting that the only choice is defeat or stay indefinitely. How are we defeated? We win every battle. If AQ wants to put an army together and fight, we will wipe the floor with them like we do when they show their face. What we are doing in Iraq is neither fighting AQ or accomplishing any progress for Iraq. We are increasingly fighting pissed off Iraqis and feeding the problem. Not to mention - THEY WANT US OUT. How do we fight for their freedom and then ignore it when they try to use it?
Way to keep people dying without any concrete idea of how to win or who we are fighting.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:31 amHow many times do I have to say this.. Doing this over and over isn’t going to help the cause. There were fewer ‘yea’ votes this time than last!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:33 amTick tock, Bin Laden, tick tock! One of the great failures of the Bush Admin, and the most revealing of their incompetence. They would do well to follow the example of the Romans, who captured Jesus Christ and executed him, thus taking care of THAT problem immediately and for all time.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:33 amAnother filibuster. Have the Republicans allowed the Senate to vote on anything so far this week? I’d like to see the Democrats actually make them conduct a filibuster on everything they claim they want to continue to debate by refusing to vote for cloture. Let the people who do not really pay attention see who is obstructing. Keep the debate open until cloture is reached.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:37 am72 Senators betrayed We the People
21st of September 2007
by Jay Randal
Senate voted 72 to 25, with 3 Not Voting, to condemn an advertisement by MoveOn.org that called General Petraeus “Betray us” for being stooge of Bush Regime.
22 Democrat Senators joined all 49 Republicans, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, to pass a repulsive resolution basically insinuating MoveOn.org as traitorous group.
Those 72 Senators will be listed in history someday as gross hypocrites for falsely maligning Americans who desire an end to criminal occupation of Iraq for OIL.
Nobody in MoveOn.org attacked the common soldiers forced to serve in Iraq, nor have they slandered them, but they want troops returned home to their families.
Americans who desire Iraq Fiasco Occupation ended are patriots, but those in Congress who continue funding the debacle are betraying Constitution for Dubya.
Then to add further hypocrisy the Senate voted to kill the Reid/Feingold bill to cut-off funding for Iraq War, by June 2008, so 70 Senators betrayed We the People.
(Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Georgia, USA.)
PS: Shame the 22 Democrat Senators who have betrayed us all.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:41 amPlus shame the 49 Republican stooges in the Senate and Traitor Joe LIEberman as well.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am#42, HiB,
You are welcome for the respone….I understand the questions stemmed from the ad….I have no problem with raising those questions. They are legitimate. I would like to know the answers myself….The dispute is not about asking those types of legitimate questions. It is specifically about the incendiary language of “Betray Us”.
If the ad did not contain that despicable term and had asked the questions, there would have been no uproar and the Democrats would have been spared a lot of embarassment and loss of momentum.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:51 amTime to SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT!
The Democrats might not be able to get a deadline through the Senate, but the REPUBLICANS can’t get anything through unless the Democrats give in (again).
Screw the Republicans. 70% of this country want us out of Iraq.
If these hypocrites don’t want to protect our country, and bring the troops home, fine. Shut down the government and let them try to function without all of their earmarks!
It’s time to put as much pressure as possible on these idiots.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:51 amjake D.
You vote according to principal?
Please explain ONE principal to me? What security interest of the United States are we now protecting in Iraq?
Saddam’s gone. WMDs were never there, so I guess they’re gone. al Qaeda attacking the US from Iraq was never there, and what is there now is there because we’re there. If we leave the Iraqis have a lot of incentive to get rid of them. Do you think the Iraqis are going to let al Qaeda come in and take over THEIR oil revenues?
There’s no principal where you are constantly making the US military weaker and weaker. The neocons were great at complaining how Bill Clinton decimated the armed forces. What the hell do you think Bush and the neocons have done? Attack Iran, yeah with what army?
September 21st, 2007 at 11:57 amWOO WOO! iraq is korea! we’re staying! trillions for our grandchildren to pay back! victory!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:57 amExley > lol you know damn well MoveOn.org would have been attacked no matter what they said. Gen. Petraeus works for the Bush Regime and NOT We the People.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:58 amGO SENATOR STEVENS!!! ; )
September 21st, 2007 at 11:58 amJake D.
We went into Korea because of a UN resolution. We went into protect the South Koreans.
We went into Iraq because of a madman (not Saddam, George W. Bush).
We went into Iraq because of an ego.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amIf the ad did not contain that despicable term and had asked the questions, there would have been no uproar and the Democrats would have been spared a lot of embarassment and loss of momentum.
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by Exley — September 21, 2007 @ 11:51 am
I very much doubt that Exley, I think the right wing would have attacked regardless. To much of their identity is wrapped up in the Iraq.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pm“If the ad did not contain that despicable term and had asked the questions, there would have been no uproar and the Democrats would have been spared a lot of embarassment and loss of momentum”
‘inside the beltway’ is the end of that sentence.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pmCandyce is right. The troops loose. Iraq, too.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pmComment by Jay Randal — September 21, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Jay: another interesting fact about this vote — a companion bill sponsored by Senator Boxer, expressing the “sense of the Senate” condemning the Swift Boaters’ attack ads on Sens. Kerry and Cleland, was soundly defeated.
I guess the Senate only cares when you exercise your First Amendment rights to criticize CURRENT military members, but FORMER members of the military who are decorated wounded heroes are fair game…
September 21st, 2007 at 12:07 pmI vote according to the “principle†is conservativism.
– Jako
I find it absolutely hilarious that someone who claims to be a lawyer cannot put together coherent sentences.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pmExley, if you see the legitimacy in the questions asked then why can’t you stand with all of those who want them answered? There was no direct link saying the Gen. did betray us. It asked the questions that you have already said are legitimate. If the questions expose a failure to be truthful then the “Betray us” tag fits. If the questions are truthful and explainations put forth that sheds more light on the current conflict and doesn’t add credence to the growing amount of information that shows the opposite of success, then the question of “Betray us?” is answered and it’s, no he didn’t.
Quit acting so outraged about the initial question of “Betray us” and demand answers that will either verify or settle if the Gen. is truthful or not.
Your own words show you believe the questions valid. Now stand up to those who make far too much about “Betray us” and demand to have the questions answered.
If your right then you can stand proud. If not, then the tag fits.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pmOne thing I can agree with Exley on, is that a more tactful ad from MoveOn.org could have been just as effective and less damaging to the Democratic party (and stopping the occupation). That being said, the Ad is none of congresses business.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:14 pmMethinks they’re too busy watching NASCAR!
(He’s making another left tuuuuuuurn!!)
Comment by DRxJ — September 21, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Don’t forget Roid-rage Wrestling, another of their “Reality” shows!
September 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pmExley,
Why do you condemn the moveon.org ad, while not condemning the smearing of decorated war veterans who just happen to be Democrats rather than Republicans?
And why do you claim to support the troops, while you still carry water for the Republicans that have systematically screwed over veterans and war wounded for that last 7 years? ( You better know, I can back this up with facts. )
September 21st, 2007 at 12:18 pmJake D. sez:
I just love how the doubt gnaws and gnaws at you, Shakey.
What’s really funny is;
a) The person punking you can always lie and say ‘no’, and you have no way to verify his answer. That’s gotta keep you up nights.
- and -
b) Even if it is a genuine newcomer to TP, they wind up punking you just as badly as we do, just by virtue of asking you questions you can’t or won’t answer, or calling you on your lies.
It’s a freaking carnival, watching you twitch.
BTW, are you still a supporter of the “Constitutional” Party, dolt? Is that the party of choice for most Bap-Catholic-tists? ^_^
September 21st, 2007 at 12:19 pmExley,
Why do you condemn the moveon.org ad, while not condemning the smearing of decorated war veterans who just happen to be Democrats rather than Republicans?
And why do you claim to support the troops, while you still carry water for the Republicans that have systematically screwed over veterans and war wounded for that last 7 years? ( You better know, I can back this up with facts. )
Comment by Wayne — September 21, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Why? Because he is just another BushCo Chickenhawk who drinks all the NeoCon Kool-aid put in front of them.
Troops are just another arm of the oil and weapons industry (And I bet ol’ Ex makes som e money from them as well.).
September 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pmDogfather > nobody has mentioned on here that General Petraeus did NOT testify under oath before the Congress. If he is truly an honorable person, then he should swear to tell the truth like in a court of law.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:23 pmPolling by Pew Research:
Pew reports that nationally 57 percent of Americans who read or heard about Petraeus’ testimony approved of his recommendations for Iraq, while only 28 percent of respondents said they disapprove. A majority of those surveyed (51 percent) also said they believe he presented the situation as it really is.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:27 pmExley > Americans were NOT told that Petraeus did NOT testify under oath before the Congress. Failure to swear him him means his testimony about Iraq is hearsay and could be lies.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:31 pmJake D.
You vote according to the principle of conservatism.
I’d like you to tell me which conservatives, prior to George W. Bush, would have taken pre-emptive action against another country because of a “perceived” threat? Ronald Reagan - he ended the cold war without a shot. Barry Goldwater? George Bush #1 - He went in after Saddam attacked another country. Gee, I can’t remember anyone. Can you.
WMDs were moved to Syria. Sorry, but that boat doesn’t float. The is NO substantial information supporting that conspiracy theory except from the neocons, such as Ari Fleischer. If we’re going to go down that road, there are plenty of left winged theories about starting the war that we can go into. Let’s try to stay with the facts as supported by reasonable people.
The military is still the strongest in the world? That is VERY debatable at this point. I keep hearing how the military is stretched extremely thin. That isn’t from left winged zealots, that’s from people who are CURRENTLY at top levels within the military. It’s only the neocons who think that we have an endless supply of soldiers, who can supposedly fight forever, without relief from war.
Again, what part of America’s security is currently in jeopardy because of the situation in Iraq? More WMDs? Another Saddam? al Qaeda is going to launch an attack against the US from Iraq? Just WHY are we there?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm…swear him in > not him him > typo error in post 85.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pmJake D.
I forgot.
No I’ve never posted here under any other names.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:33 pmJake D.
I forgot.
No I’ve never posted here under any other names.
Comment by dogjudge — September 21, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Asking Jako questions he cannot answer gets you on his hypocritical “Ignore List” too, just saying……
September 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pmExley,
I see your poll and raise you one.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Only 25% of those polled approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq. 70% oppose.
There is also questions pertaining to the Gen.’s time in front of congress.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:38 pm#79, Wayne: You ask:
“Why do you condemn the moveon.org ad, while not condemning the smearing of decorated war veterans who just happen to be Democrats rather than Republicans?”
Wayne, I addressed some of this distinction yesterday. A rather extensive discussion can be found in the “The Decider: ‘People Listen To Petraeus, Not To Me’” thread….
I could repeat it all again here. But rather than clutter up this thread, you can take a look over there (The discussion begins at about # 44 (with a discussion on Max Cleland and pretty much extends to the end)….If you see anything over there with which you disagree and want to challenger, by all means, do so and I will respond.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:39 pm“No I’ve never posted here under any other names.”
that’s a shame because you missed past demonstrations of ‘principle’ [or ‘buffoonery’ as i like to call it] like this:
“…assuming Jesus was hauled before the Senate Judiciary Committee under similar circumstances, he would take the Fifth…
Comment by Jake — March 27, 2007″
i guess some ‘principles’ resemble being an apologist for hacks like monica goodling.
WOO WOO!! ; )
September 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm#90. HiB
And I could come up with another poll — Gallup poll (post-Petraeus testimony) finds:
“Most Americans say that Gen. David Petraeus’ plan, which President George W. Bush has adopted, is either about right or is too aggressive in terms of withdrawing enough troops and bringing them home soon enough. Only one-third or so agree with the administration’s critics who want a more rapid pullout of more forces.
Petraeus’ testimony before Congress on Sept. 10 clearly seems to have elevated his own image with Americans. The percentage viewing him favorably jumped from 52% in the days just before his testimony to 61% the weekend following it [see Related Items]. That he is an effective spokesman for the war is evident in the percentages backing his plan.”
We can go back and forth with polls that support or undermine our respective positions all day. What is clear is that the American people have very mixed and ambiguous feelings on how to procced in Iraq.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:44 pmExley,
Do polls represent the truth? Do the polls ask the same questions of Petraeus that the Moveon ad does?
I’m not interested in polls. They aren’t digging for the truth, they only reflect opinions.
So will you stand up and demand that the same questions asked in the ad be asked to Gen. Petraeus? Will you want to seek the truth or be comforted that there are more lemmings on your side?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pmExley,
I went back and read your recommended posts and find your saying it is different when challenging an active duty military man vs. Max Cleland, a WOUNDED decorated hero of a previous quagmire to be about the most disingenuous thing you have ever said here. And as for “Swiftboats” being a one day issue, how is creating and running 4 national ads and raising (and spending) over $10 million, mostly from Bush’s buddies and lobbyists, even compute?
You are either a BushCo bootlicker and/or making money from this travesty (Oil and/or military contractors).
Which is it?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:55 pmJake D. sez:
Unprovable, and completely irrelevant in any event.
The Duefler Report could not rule out that my cat created the universe last Thursday, either.
Absence of evidence that Saddam did not move WMDs into Syria is not evidence that he did. This is such remarkably faulty logic on your part that even I’m surprised to see you try it.
Irrelevant Straw Men.
Here you go.
(Unless, of course, the Pentagon isn’t “top level” enough for you…)
It’s funny you mention that, since I remember quite clearly that back in 2002, many of us were “guaranteeing” that that is precisely what would happen if we went forward with this occupation. Of course, back then, we hadn’t realized that it was this administration’s plan all along to manufacture a situation that required perpetual U.S. involvement, thereby justifying a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. We know better now.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pmJake D. sez:
Don’t make me post the proof that that is a lie, Shakey…
September 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pmExley, I read that thread and your defense of the Republican smearing is really la
Especially you ignored Max Cleland’s own condemnation of the ads that smeared him.
“To put my picture up there with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and insinuate I’m not fighting hard enough for national security, I just find that this is an incredible low in Georgia politics,” Max Cleland said
September 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pmcorrection: your defense of the Republican smearing is really lame
September 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm#96, HiB
“So will you stand up and demand that the same questions asked in the ad be asked to Gen. Petraeus?”
Absolutely. And Gen. Petraeus was subjected to two days of questioning by the Congress. It is not as if he is refusing or has refused to answer questions.
Unfortunately, a lot of the blowhard politicians on the committees chose to hear themselves talk rather than ask questions. Did you see Sen. Obama’s performance….He read a statement that went on and on and then concluded, “That unfortunately leaves me no time for questions.”
Well, why didn’t you ask questions instead of making a speech, Barack?
September 21st, 2007 at 1:02 pmWayne,
Cleland can distort all he wants, but as the video I put up clearly shows, the commercial did NOT put his picture up there with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pmI can sense which Democrats will not be re-elected…
So-called “moderate” Democrats make us all look bad.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pmOn the unrelated note of Moveon:
I’ve always said that childish insults like ‘Betrayus’ were beneath anyone who claimed to be a responsible member of adult society. It’s just as inane as ‘Slick Willie’ and ‘Hill-reh’, and also joins such gems as ‘Demon-crats’ and ‘Rethuglicans’. That Moveon chose to run ‘Betrayus’ shows two big failings.
1) Moveon showed it was no better than the Republicans who scream ‘Demoncrats’ and ‘Slick Willie’. Instead of claiming the moral high-ground, they chose to sling a childish insult that’s no better than a Momma insult, and got called for it on National TV.
2) They attempted to force their belief down the audience’s throat. Why not put the facts out on the table, spending that extra handful of seconds that were lost to the ‘betrayus’ comment on highlighting his accused betrayal and let _us_ make that call.
Make no mistake. The republicans would have found some way to trash Moveon over this. That’s just what they do. But the stinging part of this particular move is that MoveOn brought this on themselves by acting like a bunch of 9 year old kids. Honestly, if I was Patreus, my response would be:
“To MoveOn. If I was to dignify your insult with a comeback, the only appropriate one would have to be ‘I know you are but what am I?’ But since I outgrew gradeschool insults many decades ago, I’ll pass.”
September 21st, 2007 at 1:07 pmI noticed Exley is cherrypicking his responses here. Totally ignoring my post at #97 asking for some clarfication and another specific question relating to this situation.
Guess when the light of truth shines, the rats scurry back into the woodwork.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:18 pmJeremy - Although I agree that the “betray us” thing was unnecessary, I would HARDLY say that they are just as bad as the Republicans. Remember that MoveOn isn’t like this one little tiny group of fringe people — it’s 3 million strong! I am a member. I support 99% of what they do. Had I done the ad, I probably would have worded the teaser/headline differently, but on the other hand, look at how many people who never would have seen it now see it? The republican and media effort to minimalize “bloggers” is failing and will continue to fail because bloggers are a large majority. The inner-DC circle may hate that the power is going back to the people, but too bad for them. As for MoveOn, this whole thing is a freaking non-issue. Ann Coulter says 100x as many insulting things on a DAILY BASIS but you never heard anybody demanding that Republicans denounce her. They freaking love her.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:21 pmCleland can distort all he wants, but as the video I put up clearly shows, the commercial did NOT put his picture up there with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Comment by Exley — September 21, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Exley, as usual, you are putting up the “edited” version after it was toned down due to anger by both parties.
Nice try, tho.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pmAddendum: And why the heck are military personnel immune from criticism? This is the USA for crying out loud! Free speech! Bush kept firing generals afterall until he found one that agreed with him. Heck the CENTCOM command doesn’t even like Petreus! So guess what? He’s putting himself in the media, he’s making the decisions, his orders are causing people (on both side) to DIE. He deserves criticism and should expect it! When you yield that much power, you should NEVER be allowed to avoid critics!
September 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pmCleland can distort all he wants, but as the video I put up clearly shows, the commercial did NOT put his picture up there with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Comment by Exley — September 21, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
The one you linked is not the original unedited version…..
September 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pmTP Technical problem: Seems like hitting the “Refresh†button does not et you see the latest comments. Doesn’t update the page. The only way to see what has been posted since the last posting is to input a message yourself…..(Which is what I doing right now!)
September 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pmWayne, DRxJ,
You are both incorrect. That was the only advertisement. I realize that time (and bitterness at the 2002 defeats) has distorted memories and that a lot of Democrats tried to concoct phony reasons for their defeat that year. And that is what has led to this myth of commercial to which you refer.
The YouTube video I posted is the commercial that Dems have distorted over the years. There was no other version.
Your failure to produce this alleged other commercial is evidence of this.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:08 pmParrotlover77, I have to point out some flaws in your reply to me.
>Jeremy - Although I agree that the “betray us†thing was
>unnecessary, I would HARDLY say that they are just as bad as the
>Republicans.
I’m assuming that this is your thesis, if you will, and that the rest of your post will attempt to provide support for why you believe that this ‘Betrayus’ statement isn’t as bad as, presumably, what the Republicans do.
>Remember that MoveOn isn’t like this one little tiny group of fringe
>people — it’s 3 million strong! I am a member. I support 99% of
>what they do. Had I done the ad, I probably would have worded
I’m fully aware of MoveOn’s size, and honestly, I’m a part of MoveOn as well, and I support what they do as well. However, I am much more of a passive member who picks what part of their agenda to identify with the most. But this leaves a big question. How, exactly, does MoveOn’s 3 million members justify resorting to childish putdowns?
>the teaser/headline differently, but on the other hand, look at how
>many people who never would have seen it now see it? The
>republican and media effort to minimalize “bloggers†is failing and
>will continue to fail because bloggers are a large majority. The
‘They’re out to get me’ is a rather lousy excuse for childish behaviour too. Yes, the Betrayus comment does get exposure, but is it the kind of exposure you want? Those who already agree with you will not care about a childish comment like that. Those who disagree with you will find fault in whatever you say. But those who are moderates, like those independents who want the war stopped and those who are looking for alternatives to today’s way of doing things will react much more negatively to childish putdowns and insults. Honestly, if you want more impact, produce hard-hitting things that stop at calling someone names. You’ll still get your exposure, but at least the Republicans can only accuse you of disrespecting General Patreus, not using childish putdowns and insults against him.
>inner-DC circle may hate that the power is going back to the
>people, but too bad for them. As for MoveOn, this whole thing is a
>freaking non-issue.
You might want to be careful with the ‘non-issue’ thing. Amongst hard-core Democrats, it is a non-issue. Republicans only care about it as an issue because it makes you look bad. Us Moderates, on the other hand, DO think it’s an issue. Slinging Ad Hominems at General Patreus is as much an issue as Foley diddling 17 year old boys. Both make the respective parties look bad, and both add fuel to the fire that there’s no real difference between the Republicans and Democrats…and this is NOT the image you want to send to us Moderates.
>Ann Coulter says 100x as many insulting things on a DAILY BASIS
>but you never heard anybody demanding that Republicans
>denounce her. They freaking love her.
One of my favorite lines to a Republican who hollers about how ‘Clinton did this’ and ‘Clinton did that’ is my tried and true:
BUT CLINTON DID IT TOOOOOOOO!!!!!!11!!!11!!!11!1!eleventyone!1!
You just did the equivalent with Ann Coulter. Her behavior and her party’s behavior towards her is not an excuse for you to do something you know is wrong too. Again, the childish behavior is unbecoming of the party of intellectuals. Remember your mother’s admonishment to your line ‘But Bobby did it too!’ ‘What, if Bobby jumped off a bridge, you would too?’
A point, such as Patreus’s hack partisanship and his lockstep support for Bush’s policies combined with his sabotage of the peace process in Iraq, can be made without resorting to ‘Ad Hominem’ attacks, or attacks against the person. It certainly can be made without resorting to childish putdowns. That MoveOn chose to resort to logical fallacies and to childish insults shows to the moderates of both parties, as well as the third of the US population you MUST court in 2008, that the Democrats are supported by a population that’s no better than the (R) side of the aisle. YOu don’t want to be portrayed that way.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pmExley,
“The Republican attack ads made it look as though Cleland was voting against Homeland Security itself, and one TV ad morphed Cleland’s face into Saddam Hussein’s while suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people. This ad was so disgusting that Republican Sens. Hagel and McCain both protested it]”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Max_Cleland
Hagel and McCain both condemned the ad you claim does not exist…… Typical…..
September 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pmJake D.
Military readiness etc. . . Hopefully a point that we will never have to test one way, or another.
As far as the US calming down the situation in the Middle East vis a vis our security that’s a VERY debatable point. I would suggest that prior to the US going into Iraq the situation was MUCH calmer than it is now. It was OUR incursion into the area that has destabilized the Middle East more than anything other than perhaps Saddam going into Kuwait.
Of course we also have to compound the mess because we have a President who is unwilling to negotiate with anyone. His way or the highway. If he had coupled his war with negotiations with other Middle East countries we would be in a MUCH better situation. Even now, it would be extremely beneficial to turn this mess over to the UN. That would remove us as an inflammatory issue. It’s also of benefit to the entire world to have a stable Iraq along with the rest of the oil producing countries. Again, Bush’s ego prevents ANY of that from happening. (It also has to do with a backlash reaction to anything that Clinton did, we are going to do the opposite.)
September 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pmJeremy - you had some great points, seriously, esp about the “clinton did it too” stuff. I’d never say “ann coulter did it too” to a conservative for that very reason, but it is a point never-the-less that bears mentioning at least at a place like TP where it’s mostly liberals debating each other. Either way, it’s still a non-issue. Perhaps you or I would have chosen a different catch-phrase or headline to grab attention, but the facts were, indeed, laid out in the ad. And many more have read it, in its entirety, than perhaps would have otherwise. So maybe a few moderates on the conservative side flipped back to conservative, as polls suggest, it certainly did not “hurt” the democrats, unless they continually listen to inside-the-beltway pundits instead of consituants.
Besides, I still say that nobody who yields the power and authority to command people both to their death and to kill other people is above any sort of criticism, even if some people consider it “childish.”
Oh btw, my opening line does not necessarily ever convey a “thesis.” When I’m blogging, my brain doesn’t work that way (not enough time). It’s a flow of free thought without much regard for formal structure other than surrounding a particular issue with my opinion. :-)
September 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pmComma problem on my last post. “as polls suggest” is affirming that nothing has changed at all since the ad and media hysteria, not that “moderates flipped back to conservative” which would imply greater amounts of people support the war now. Just to clear that up. See? continuous stream of thought. I need to proof-read more often. ;-)
September 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pmRe: Comment by Parrotlover77 — September 21, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Again, just so you’re clear. I’m not advocating that Petraeus shouldn’t be criticized. I will agree that the man is an ass. However, your ad would have been alot stronger had you done things differently.
Let’s see if we can make this ad right.
Start with the title. How about “General Petraeus: A Betrayal of Trust.” This is something far different than accusing him of treason, and it’s closer to the truth. The subtitle “Cooking the books for the Whitehouse”, if substantiated, would work MUCH nicer.
The body of the article had plenty of sources and worked well for the length it was restricted to. The very last line could have been reworded, this time getting your sound bite in in the following way:
“Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to betray us, the American people.”
You’d still catch flack from the Republicans, but us Moderates could read that and see that the goal here is to show that Petraeus supports Bush, not the American people.”
September 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pmComment by JSchmoAZ — September 21, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Translation to Realspeak(tm) for the rest of us:
>If the Democrat leadership would start to bring forward legislation
>that has a chance of standing
Read: “If the Democratic Leadership would just cave in and start passing my Master’s bills unaltered like the rubber-stamp the last Congress was, ’cause I’m pissed my Master didn’t get his rubber-stamp again this term…”
>, they might see their historically low 11% approval rating go up.
Read: “, I’d get more tender vittles from my Master! Oh, yeah, I can pass that lie about 11% approval ratings off, and blame it on the Democrats, though it’s the Republicans who are hated by the majority of the sheep that are the American public, the ones I called Patriots in 2004 when they voted for my Master!”
Translation services provided courtesy of Jeremy in Denver. :)
September 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pmJSchmoAZ
At least try to get your facts correct.
It’s the approval rating of CONGRESS that’s at 11% NOT the Democrats.
Is there frustration with the Democrats. YES!! It’s because they are not doing enough to get us out of Iraq. That correlates DIRECTLY to Bush’s low ratings for also not getting us out of Iraq.
So. What’s your point?
September 21st, 2007 at 3:03 pm121 and 122,
Don’t assume that I support this president or this administration, because I don’t. I am pissed because politicians on both sides of the aisle aren’t doing a damn thing, except for bickering.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pmThis morning I received yet another letter from the DSCC asking for my money. Bellow is my reply:
I know this vote was 47-47, my letter was mainly in response to the Webb amendment, and the habeas corpus amendment… but I know you all get my point!
September 21st, 2007 at 4:00 pmI strongly suggest that everyone start sending similar letters to the Democratic leadership, so they get the point that we are freaking serious!
Brendan,
You must be a psychic. This morning I wrote Dick Durbin, Barak Obama and the DNC the same type of letter.
We elected these fools to put up an opposition! Not pass non-binding resolutions.
If we poor, stupid people can see that the only way this is going to change is by bringing this to a head, why is it that the DNC can’t see it?
Bush and the Republicans aren’t going to change until they are FORCED to change. They’ll simply wait until the Democrats back off again.
The Democrats might not have the votes to end the war, but the Republicans don’t have the votes to pass funding UNLESS the Democrats go along with them!
As the Beatles said a long time ago, “You say you want a revolution?”
September 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pmWe all want to change the world.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pmTHEN SUBMIT IT!!!! You’re a Senator. Write up a short simple bill that says just that.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:30 pmRefreshing function still will not work
September 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm#115 As I have show with the video of the actual commercial, Sourcewatch is incorrect. There was no such imagery in the commercial.
More support for the fact that the ad contained no morphing:
http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0727.asp
Tellingly, the Sourcewatch site does not contain any video or link to a video of the alleged “morphing” ad….That’s because it does not exist.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:45 pmExley,
Care to respond to #97 above?
September 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pmwhew…
anybody listening to randi rhodes?
she’s quite fed up with all the whining dems and progs…
the more i hear her reasons and logic, the more i understand
why she is plenty pissed off…
we really DO need to let the dem reps know that the good things they TRIED to do this past week are just what we asked of them…
September 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pmand we need to thank them…
…
To all GOP whackos who post on this site, but refuse to sign up to fight their War against Iraq:
“Support Our Troops” is a hollow phase if you celebrate the defeat the Webb Amendment.
Congratulations. Our troops will endure endless rotations in Bush’s hellhole of Iraq, while you bang out nasty comments on your computer.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pm#97
“I went back and read your recommended posts and find your saying it is different when challenging an active duty military man vs. Max Cleland, a WOUNDED decorated hero…”
Upside99, please re-read my comments carefully. I have no where said that Gen. Petraeus cannot or should not be “challenged.” I have said vry carefully that asking Gen. Petraeus hard and challenging questions is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is implying that the general is lying and would betray his troops and his nation.
Second, I again suggest you re-read my comments with greater care. When I wrote of a one or two day issue, I was specifically and explicitly responding to those who were raising the issue of the “Purple Heart Band Aids” that were passed out by an activist during the GOP National Convention. So, you misunderstood that discussion.
But even though you misuderstood the earlier discussion, I will address the Swiftboat ads. Unlike the MoveOn.org slander, the Swiftboat ads were not directed at a currently serving commander of our forces during wartime. They were directed at a politician who had previously denounced his military service when it was politically palatable to do so, but then opportunistically then tried to run on that military service when it was politically palatable to do. Kerry’s hypocrisy, as well as his previous slanderous attacks on his fellow members of the military, therefore were certainly a fair topic of discussion.
I would also remind you that the SwiftBoat campaign was waged by Kerry’s fellow Vietnam veterans who served with him or during the same time as Kerry. Thus, this was a debate between veterans of a war fought 30 years earlier. The MoveOn.org ad was nothing of the kind. The MoveOn.org was a slander hurled against a combat commanding officer during wartime by those who were not Gen. Petraeus’s comrades.
These distinctions are clear and obvious. Howeve, despite the clarity of the differences between the two situations, I am happy to assist you in your effort to comprehend them.
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 am#133,
When you try to spin ending the war as “not funding troops in harms way” sure, people wont support it… what, did you get that from Frank Luntz himself?
And it is not a leftist position to end funding for this war that nobody wants… if you do not understand that, then you are outside of the mainstream.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 amThe majority of this country leans liberal on many issues, and one of them is that we want this war ended now. That is where the majority of the country is, and it’s time that our representatives REPRESENT US!!!
Exley your a moron. Can you make us a list of exactly which military people its ok to slander and which it isnt? And can you please explain why someone currently being in the military should make them immune from criticism? Does Brayus coming out 6 weeks before the 2004 election and making blatantly untrue rosy descriptions of the iraq situation make him a political tool? Are you truly so naive as to think he didnt do this to influence elections? You think he didnt say things were “going great” in iraq so that more people would vote for bush? Brayus is every bit as much of a political opportunist as Kerry, but just because hes currently wearing a uniform, in your imaginary world of arbitrary dinstinctions that makes him an entirely different species than kerry.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 am