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.

The 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!!!

“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.

“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.

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…
and we need to thank them…
…

Care to respond to #97 above?

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.

“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.”

THEN SUBMIT IT!!!! You’re a Senator. Write up a short simple bill that says just that.

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?”

Hello,

I just received the latest fundraiser email, and I am just writing to let you know that I will not be donating anymore money to the DSCC until the Senate Democrats start doing what we sent them to Washington to do, which was to STOP THE IRAQ WAR, and at the VERY least create some serious opposition to President Bush.

This nonsense of having votes on bills and then saying that they were “blocked” by the Republicans because you didn’t have 60 votes needs to STOP!

If the Republicans want to filibuster, then MAKE them filibuster! Make them stand there, day and night and try to explain to the American people why they want more of our loved ones to die. Let them create all that video for us to use… just LET THEM. You can’t let them get away with “filibustering” without putting in any actual effort.

Start doing your jobs. I’ll be watching, but in the meantime, my wallet is closed.

Sincerely,
Brendan **********

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!

I strongly suggest that everyone start sending similar letters to the Democratic leadership, so they get the point that we are freaking serious!

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.

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?

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. :)

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.”

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. :-)

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.)

“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…..