Do you agree with outcome this vote? Why?

Since when did it become a offense to criticize a military officer? I don't have any problem with MoveOn.org wondering if General Petraeus is more interested in pleasing his superiors than giving an honest and candid appraisal of how the surge in Baghdad is going. It seems to be the overriding principle of Republicans and their hot air machine of talk radio and Faux News that there is supposed to be no criticism leveled or any questions asked of General Petraeus while the war goes on (or any other time for that matter).

There's far too many people who go all soft and mushy when some dude in a uniform with a chest full of ribbons and metals steps up to the microphone. They see all the Christmas ornaments he's wearing and are so wowed by the slickness of the image they totally miss the meaning of the words.

It's not as if I needed a reminder that all this vote proves is there are 25 gutless Democrats who would rather take a stand against free speech and dissent than to defend the principle. I don't expect anything less from the sad sack Republicans (and Joe "Dino" Lieberman) than to follow the lead of the Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Hannitys who pollute the airwaves with this kind of lightweight pap on a daily basis.

Do you think The Senate should be bothering to condemn an ad?

Well, since condemning a far-Left group is obviously more important than what's going on in Jena, Louisiana or the fact that the war is still dragging on and 42 million Americans have no health insurance and the housing market is in the toilet and a private security force is killing Iraqi citizens, why shouldn't the Senate waste their time on this meaningless, trivial and phony manifestation of right-wing outrage?

Michael Kinsley in TIME blew through the smoke like this:

Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away. And when they came round, they demanded — as if with one voice (or at least as if with one list of talking points) — that every Democratic presidential candidate must "condemn" this shocking, shocking document.

The ad is pretty tough, and the pun on the general's name is pretty witless. You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism. But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical.

It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue. They wouldn't trade it for a week in Anbar province (a formerly troubled area of Iraq that is now, thanks to us, an Eden of peace and tranquillity where barely a car bomb disturbs the perfumed silence — or so they say). These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography. link

Will the people who voted Nay (or didn't vote at all) suffer any consequences? How?

Oh, I'm sure the Republican National Committee will follow the lead of Rudy "Family Guy" Giuliani and try to make political hay by going after Democratic presidential candidates for their votes, but besides from obvious partisans, this isn't the kind of issue that elections turn on. Things have gone so lousy for the G.O.P. of late that you'd have to expect they are going to pimp this non-issue for all its worth---which ain't much.

If anyone should suffer any consequences it's the 75 dimwits who voted "Yea" for this pointless exercise in chest-thumping.

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

Real "Profiles in Courage" there...NOT Where were these Senators at when the Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner had this exchange with Wolf Blitzer on CNN?

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids. (emphasis added) link

I wonder how many of the nearly 3,800 dead and thousands of wounded and maimed American soldiers think they paid "a small price?"

Hey, Republicans, where's your outrage about THOSE remarks? (Insert sound of crickets chirping here)

Is this vote indicative the actual breakdown of the US Citizen's general feelings about General Petraeus and the US Military?

Speaking for this particular U.S. citizen, I don't think General Petraeus cares even one little bit about what MoveOn.org thinks about him. On the off-chance that he does he might think about changing his last name to "Smith" or "Jones" or something trickier to do a play on words with.

Do you agree with outcome this vote? Why?


Will the people who voted Nay (or didn't vote at all) suffer any consequences? How?

If I were advising the Republicans, I'd counsel against calling out members who voted against it, because that would just invite them to hide behind the pathetic "First Amendment" excuse that some here have tried to trot out.

Ok Blackstone, who are the cowards here - those who voted for the resolution or those who voted against it?

Speaking for this particular U.S. citizen, I don't think General Petraeus cares even one little bit about what MoveOn.org thinks about him.

But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical.

If anyone should suffer any consequences it's the 75 dimwits who voted "Yea" for this pointless exercise in chest-thumping.

I certainly wouldn't hand out any awards for courage to those Democrats who voted not to offend their paymasters at MoonBat.org. But like I said, the real cowards here are the ones who did everything they could to weasel out of having to take a stand one way or the other.

And really, I have a hard time seeing what's so cowardly about voting for a resolution that makes a decent point. I don't see where you've argued against the basic gist behind it, apart from making a very strained First Amendment argument.

Your continued, Rush Limbaugh like, use of invective - Moonbat.org - threatens to mark you as a third tier of debater.

Then I'm in good company, Mr. "Faux News".


One is justified by the facts, the other isn't.

All honor to these 72 brave Senators are willing to wage this desperate, rearguard struggle, against all odds at so much risk, against the forces of mockery and disunity. If asperges cast by MoveOn.org would darken the sun, this resolute band would fight on in the shade!

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to condemn the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org for a recent advertisement attacking the top U.S. general in Iraq.

By a 341-79 vote, the House passed a resolution praising the patriotism Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and condemning a MoveOn.org ad that referred to Petraeus as "General Betray Us."

Since the Senate was entirely correct to censure MoveOn.org, and since there are here some who defend MoveOn.org and even use the pathetic First Amendment argument, it seems to me that the U.S. Senate should censure some persons here. Indeed, I demand that BoF and other unamerican unpatriots here be identified and cited in a direct Senatorial resolution of censure. That will show them.

Is this vote indicative the actual breakdown of the US Citizen's general feelings about General Petraeus and the US Military?


Actually the majority of Americans – 61% approve of Petraeus – far more than the president and all of the Congress. And the military.

That figure varies from poll to poll, but overall Petraeus's approval ratings are positive.

http://www.zimbio.com/Petraeus+Report/arti...traeus+Approval

Petraeus is a soldier. I don't think he should have an approval or disapproval rating. Bush has attempted to use Petraeus as a shield. While the plan makes Petraeus look good it doesn't seem to have rubbed off on Bush. The President's approval ratings are still in the tank - the 30% range. Even Rasmussen, which usually gives him a few extra points, has him down to 37% today. Did Bush forget to bring his book to class this morning?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Also note that the Dem controlled Congress’s approval rate is in the tank and below that of Bush (24%). And rightly so.

Ted, you are getting off topic, but I need to respond.

While the Democrats have a majority in Congress, it is not a working majority - it still takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate and Bush still has a veto.

When we look at the 24% favorability rating of Congress, we cannot exclude the obstructionist Republican minority.

The vote by the Senate and now the house on the moveon.org ad is reason enough to agree with this figure. My Congresswoman, Kay Granger, and my two Senators both voted for this exercise in censorship. I have nothing but contempt for all three of them. How do you take that negativity toward three Republican lawmakers out of the statistical mix?

Ted, you are getting off topic, but I need to respond.

While the Democrats have a majority in Congress, it is not a working majority - it still takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster in the Senate and Bush still has a veto.

When we look at the 24% favorability rating of Congress, we cannot exclude the obstructionist Republican minority.

The vote by the Senate and now the house on the moveon.org ad is reason enough to agree with this figure. My Congresswoman, Kay Granger, and my two Senators both voted for this exercise in censorship. I have nothing but contempt for all three of them. How do you take that negativity toward three Republican lawmakers out of the statistical mix?

I don’t – notice I said the Congress and not Democrats.

Also note that the Dem controlled Congress’s approval rate is in the tank and below that of Bush (24%). And rightly so.

Not to go even further off topic BUT... not too long ago there was an obstructionist minority in the form of Democrats and the Congressional favorability rating wasn't as low as it is now.

Also note that the Dem controlled Congress’s approval rate is in the tank and below that of Bush (24%). And rightly so.

BoF
Ted, at my age, I'm the one who should be having memory problems. You did mention Democrats, but didn't have the courtesy to spell it out.

So, the dems lost about 4% points since the November elections if you pretended a margin of error didn't exist while the republicans lost 40% since 9/11.

And you're honking on the dems? LOL

Bush has attempted to use Petraeus as a shield.

My Congresswoman, Kay Granger, and my two Senators both voted for this exercise in censorship.

That's nothing but an assumption on your part. What Bush has done is bring in someone who's as realistically close to impartial as can be got in a situation like this, to give as close to an objective status report as can be had, so that the debate can proceed with as little partisan friction as possible (relatively speaking, of course). Your assumptions of ulterior motives do not count as evidence of anything.

My Congresswoman, Kay Granger, and my two Senators both voted for this exercise in censorship.

Now I know that the Left needs to constantly maintain a persecution complex in order to keep the spirit alive, but really, it's time to get a grip. No one has been censored. Wackos like these are still free to spew their crap, liberal rags like the New York Times are still free to offer cut rates for their ads, and their rights to do so have not even been remotely threatened by these resolutions.

The only possible threat to them that could arise would come from liberal-sponsored legislation like McCain-Feingold, which you can thank that dastardly right-wing Supreme Court for curtailing.

Your assumptions of good motives do not count as evidence.

In damning the "left," as you see it, are you not throwing your fortunes in with the right? That, despite the fact that your politics are undisclosed and your party is "independent." You don't have to tell us. We already know! I think your response is symptomatic - a reaction - among people who are afraid they may lose everything they hold dear in the 2008 election.

I know you don't like to be called on ad hominems, but I hate to inform you you're doing it again.

That's nothing but an assumption on your part. What Bush has done is bring in someone who's as realistically close to impartial as can be got in a situation like this, to give as close to an objective status report as can be had, so that the debate can proceed with as little partisan friction as possible (relatively speaking, of course). Your assumptions of ulterior motives do not count as evidence of anything.

I have enormous respect for Dave Petraeus and he‘s in a position. Listen, this administration is using David Petraeus.

…a two-time combat veteran, first Gulf War, Operation Iraqi Freedom, one of the two U.S. brigade commanders in Bosnia, 12 months that began in December of 1995, 33-month commander of the 1st Infantry Division with duty in Kosovo, Turkey, and 13 months combat operations in Iraq, West Point graduate, son of a career infantry soldier and son-in-law of a career special forces soldier…

The person who spoke these words is retired General John Batiste who lists his qualifications as:

Oh, and not to mention advisor to VoteVets.org, whose Board of Advisors and candidates list alone put the organization pretty solidly in the Democrats' camp. So basically, you found a Democrat who supports your views. Congratulations.

I'm not sure what you two are on about at this point, but I do know Batiste is a Republican.

By the way, since you've been raising "free speech" concerns in regard to this issue, I'm sure this news item will interest you greatly. Apparently MoveOn is so big on free speech that it wants it all to itself.

I understand what it takes to win. As a life-long Republican...

I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't think Congress should not be condemning anyone. Case closed.

Unless you want to pull a Limbaugh on us and accuse the general of lying, which you have with other board members, you might consider taking the man at his word.

That he's a registered Republican? He may very well be. So is Lincoln Chafee. But everything about his political activity shows him to be a Democrat in everything but name.

BoF, you're reading wayyy more into my post than what's there. My only point is that the bare fact that this general happens to be registered as a Republican does not, in itself, turn his statements on the war into some kind of Nixon-going-to-China moment (and in this particular instance, I've provided ample evidence to show why that's not the case at all). I'm sure you feel the same way about Zell Miller's statements in favor of the administration.

This is for both BoF and Blackstone.

I know for a fact that a Colorado writer based in Salida these days changed his affiliation from Democrat to Republican so he could participate in local politics and get that side of the skinny. I know because he has published at least one piece on the experience.

So, I can imagine party infiltration. I think that fits for both people in question. Nothing illegal about it either. The general probably votes Demo and the Z-man Repub. No way to verify -- secret ballot.

You will know them by their actions and words.

Anyway, the Congresscritters need something more to do. Too much time on their hands. Pages are now off limits. Vetos abound. It ain't 2008 yet. Hey! Pick on newspaper advertising! How jolly.