President George Bush called the ad "Disgusting" and called the Democrats out on their fear of irritating MoveOn.org. Adding, "It's one thing to attack me, it's another to attack a man like General Petraeus."

Meanwhile the Hard Left Blogosphere is melting down.

Questions For Debate:

Do you agree with outcome this vote? Why?

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

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

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

Nays
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)

Oh wah. bunch of crybabies.

Anyone that works for GW is automatically suspect in my book OF cooking the books and he deserves any name calling he recieves.

I have very little respect for ANY general- they are politicians and lobbyists no different from the ones in DC. You are dirty just by the job you do- we shouldn't hold them up as some untouchable.

Lame vote, lame issue to bring up on the floor, really. Got better things to do, and I hope Moveon keeps it up and gives the conservatives a dose of thier own medicine for once.

All politicians at the federal level are lying scumbags, and should be treated as such, and so should anyone above the rank of captain that is not a "professional"- i.e.- nurse, doctor, pilot- one who's job is more than administration. I can't think of a single officer above the rank of Major that I ever really respected. Too much slimy politician at that level.

Do you think The Senate should be bothering to condemn an ad?
Let’s see…. We have an ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our tax system and Social Security program are broken. It’s the end of the fiscal year, and budgets are still unresolved………and the esteemed Senate spends time and taxpayer dollars to condemn an advertisement from a partisan group? My already poor opinion of our elected officials has just plummeted even farther. I am at a loss to come up with more of a non-issue than this. The ad was more an act of immature name calling than any reasoned critique of the Iraq issue.

Is this vote indicative the actual breakdown of the US Citizen's general feelings about General Petraeus and the US Military?
We could never know that breakdown for sure; the opinion of General Petraeus will be decided in most people’s minds by what side of the Iraq issue they fall on. Critics will say that he is a puppet of the administration and won’t believe what he says. Bush supporters will say that he is the second coming.
One thing that most people should agree on is that he theoretically should be the prominent subject matter expert on the Iraq war. A rational study of the briefing by a non partisan entity will be the only way to get the gospel truth, at least from the American perspective.
Americans support of the military in general should not be, (and I don’t believe it to be the case) tied to the opinion of a general.

Will the people who voted Nay (or didn't vote at all) suffer any consequences? How?
This question sums up why Senate Democrats voted for it. Aside from a lot of investigations with an unspoken understanding between Democrats to refuse to impeach any White House official, nothing of consequence passes because Republicans have tied the Senate in knots with filibusters, going as far as keeping unbinding resolutions that so much as hint at Senatorial disproval of Bush's handling of Iraq stuck in committees. What a bunch of retards.

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

I am only going to answer this one question. It is the job of the U. S. Senate to condemn or censor any political advertisement. While the Moveon ad may have been inappropriate, it still falls under First Amendment rights.



While this action may not have had the force of law, it is a spirit of the law violation of freedom speech and freedom of the press. Bravo to the Democrats who voted against this. Although Karl Rove is no longer on the payroll, this smacks of one of his diversionary tactics.

The Senate needs to get on with solving our mountain of problems.

BTW: I know some of you have little regard for the Constitution. One member recently told us it wasn't written in the "blood of God." Maybe not, but it's the best we've got.

Edited to add:

True to form, Texas Republican Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn voted for this bit of nonsense. I have called both their offices and given them a piece of my mind. It wasn’t pretty.

Do you agree with outcome this vote? Why?

No. Everyone has a right to print ads as they see fit. You know: that whole freedom of speech thing (we still have that, right? ).

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

Puh-lease. They really should have more important things to worry about than what MoveOn has to say. After reading about this, I'm more convinced than ever that the majority of the Senate (the ones who voted on this ad nonsense) is suffering from collective cranial-rectal inversion.

Will the people who voted Nay (or didn't vote at all) suffer any consequences? How?
Phhhhhhhhhhttt, this is a joke, right? Consequences? For WHAT????? Expressing an OPINION? Remember: freedom of speech? I know Bush has done everything he can to try to break that down, but it's still there. As far as I know, the Thought Police won't be rounding up the Senators who disagreed with Dear Leader.

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

How is this any different than the juvenile nicknames Bush bestows upon people???? Give me a break.

If we are going to discuss this, perhaps we need to look at the ad itself. See Moveon Add. Much of it is in the general's own words! The only questionable part is the word play on his name to attract attention. That's what advertisements do!

Let's see, so far we've seen a failure to respond to reports of pending terrorist attacks that resulted in 9/11, an illegal invasion, one mistake after another in the occupation, denial of habeous corpus, torture, war crimes, billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of weapons gone missing, a failure to respond to Katrina before the event, ethnic and class cleaning of New Orleans after the event, fiscal mismanagement of the worst kind and no real congressional response. But the Senate can respond to one word in an advertisement? Fear still stalks the land and we are a long way from the anti-militarist republic that we use to be!

It also is rank hypocrisy- we have had lying scumbags like O'Rielly, Rush, well, dang, ALL conservative right wing radio do far worse things- where were these thought police of morals and ethics then?

Actually, someone who calls himself a leader shouldn't be putting a soldier in front of him to deflect criticism.

I knew Bush was a coward, but it's a new low, to stick a soldier in front of him when he knows anybody that attacks the general becomes a librul-troop-hating-terrorist-supporter.

I'm starting to come around on this issue now. I'm seeing the light. I thought that as a former Marine, I could support the troops by voting for people that would protect the troops from Bush. Then yesterday, the republicans filibustered a move to get an overextended military some relief. Where's the outrage from the military?

Excuse me??? I can't hear anything but crickets chirping.

So, DaytonRocker - on the 20th day of September in the 2007th year of our Lord - has changed positions: We need more war. And lots of it. I will support the troops by helping make sure they are somewhere blowing crap up and killing people for any one of a number of reasons that include "just for fun".

DTOM, please stay safe, but above all, just stay. Don't come home until all the terrorists in Iraq have been killed, a peaceful loving democracy is flourishing, and puppy dogs and kittens are living in harmony. Once you have that done, please start blowing crap up and killing everything in sight when you go to Iran. Much like the intellectuals over at NRO, we need to see we're at war with Iranians and launch an offensive to keep them from getting a nuke and giving it to a trustworthy terrorist that will take it 10,000 miles away to blow up white people.

I've come to realize my support for the troops has been misplaced. Hope is a vibrant strategy, we have plenty of soldier's who's morale is high, we have plenty of resources, and if we don't stay, Iraqis just like the ones that flew airplanes into our buildings will come to our shores and gas us with chemical weapons.

DTOM, I offer you my first olive branch of support. Please stay as long as it takes to make us safe. Please don't stop with Iran - just don't stop. There will always be somebody we can blow up that will make us even more safe. The stakes are too high for you to ever come home. And just remember - I'll be right behind you: in the comfort of my climate controlled living room with my feet propped up sucking down cold Budwiesers feeling good that I have finally placed my support where the troops want it.

Let's support our troops by agreeing with the neocons and demanding more from our military - not less.

What’s the big deal?

That’s my question. Its a group of people that made a statement, so now you have the government using political powers to downgrade such a statement? Wow, I wonder what all the fuss is about? Personally it would seem to me that any cultural phenomena that gains some impetus must then be of some dire threat to the political agenda of some, more so being this is supposedly a democracy that cherishes various civil liberties like moveonorg seems to use.

The of course you can use your microscope to view the rat race such a statement has produced in the domain of current politicians, and its almost laughable if not predictable. Of course the political rhetoric is nothing short of spin jargon all to common with this conflict, but no real substance as to a reply by anybody of course.

I am losing faith that this war will ever end going from issues like this. I think in twenty years we will have some group of people talking about why its important we stay in Iraq. I am sure this will also be buried, this statement. I can only hope moveonorg gains more power to the point in which a politician with some actually courage if not a backbone and possibly human will use it to end Operation Iraqi Oil...
Then again cowboy hats and flag waving seems to dominate the day, bin laden, who is that guy again?

Do you agree with outcome this vote? Why?

I do not agree with the outcome of the vote. Congressional condemnation of a political ad turns it from a legislative body into an advocacy group. That is not a Congress that represent my interests - or the interests of the United States Constitution.

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

No, there should never have been such a ridiculous vote in the first place. What a waste of... everything. I want my taxes back.

And even if this were a routine sort of legislative action, where was the condemnation of the Swift Boat Veterans? Where was the condemnation of the Bush campaign's smears of John McCain? Or the denigration of Max Cleland? What makes General Petraeus so damned special? We only object to impugning members of the military when it's actually material?

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

Nope. I expect they will go up in the esteem of their constituents. See below.

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

No, it was not. First, I think enough Americans can distinguish between criticism of the politicization of the military and criticism of the military itself. The original ad had nothing to do with the military in general. If you read the ad - to which TedN5 so kindly linked - you will note that it specifically addresses General Petraeus and the Bush administration, not "the US Military". The only time the word "military" appears is to identify Petraeus as "a military man constantly at war with the facts". Our troops are only mentioned in the penultimate paragraph:
That paragraph would seem to reflect "the US Citizen's general feelings about... the US Military" pretty accurately - or at least the general feelings of a sizeable percentage of our citizenry. It was only the Senate "condemnation" (and, subsequently, President Bush) that made "all members of the United States Armed Forces" an issue, not MoveOn.org. Besides, as DTOM pointed out, Americans' support of the military does not seem to be tied to their opinion of General Petraeus - I know mine certainly isn't.

And, maybe it was just that insidious MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times that did it, but it appears that the American public wasn't much fooled by the whole Petraeus charade. According to a CBS News poll published earlier this week, more Americans favor withdrawal since Petraeus testified before Congress, arguing at length in favor of maintaining our military presence there. Before Petraeus' testimony, 35% felt that our troop levels in Iraq should be reduced, but after his appearance, it was up to 39%; combined with those who feel troops should be removed altogether, the figures are 65% before and 68% after). Further, only 31% felt the surge has made things in Iraq better, while 51% feel it's had no impact - and 11% feel it's made things worse. Again, these figures are from after Petraeus' testimony and President Bush's pro-surge speech.

It looks as though the American public finds General Petraeus about as credible as Eli Pariser does.

Do you agree with outcome this vote? Why?

Nope. I didn't like the ad, but I believe that the Senate has better things to do than go shame, shame MoveOn because Bushy Boy didn't like it.

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

See above.

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

I think anyone who didn't vote for it probably would not get support from the RAH-RAH-SYS-BOOM-BAH pro-Iraq occupation contingent anyway.

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

I don't know. Does what we think about the war and the rising death toll actually matter to the military? I don't think they're being honest with us because it would be going against the orders of our "Dear Leader" as DaffyGrl so aptly called him.

Why should we give a snort about what Bush thinks about the "Democrat Party" anyway? It's not like he can even get the name right.

And where was the outcry from Republicans when the Swifties were assassinating John Kerry's reputation?

Maybe we just need to recognize that free speech is free speech, whether it's Coulter, or Moore, or any of dozens of people who irritate others with their opinions.

And what about Alan Greenspan saying in his book that it was "about the oil" after all? That makes how many former government officials who have written "kiss and tell" books after ending their working relationship with George W. Bush?

OK couple of things here...

1) This entire condemnation has nothing at all to do with free speech. Not even a little so for those of you that are flipping through the Bill of Rights and high-lighting things right now... stop.
2) What an incredible waste of my Senate's time!
3) If you don't think that the Republicans are going to hammer Hillary for voting Nay on this you're crazy. If you think that the people listening to that hammering aren't going to turn this into Hillary Hates The Military you haven't been paying attention lately. Obama probably did the only sane thing regarding this vote.
4) This should, however, wake up the DU, KOS, MoveOn people to understand they are NOT represented and actually, not all that powerful. This is key. This could shake them up enough to get in line behind a party and stop splintering the Democrats. I'm not fan of the two party system but it is what it is right now and we've got an election coming up and frankly I'm not sure I can afford 8 more years of this kind of government.

You are technically correct, as I hinted at in my opening post. This was a resolution, not a law.



http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1003644339

Yet I question your interpretation of the idea free speech in American life - how deeply the ideal is embedded in the American mind. This was a violation of the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter.



What have you been listening to FNC or Drudge? Sure, Republicans are going to attempt to use this. Rove is gone, but this is classic Rove. I wouldn’t count on this translating into votes. It’s rather a bleak time for Republicans, so they have to have some hope.

BTW: Senator John Cornyn's reelection campaign office told me that they were getting a lot of negative callas about the senators "yes." Kay Bailey Hutchison's office told me that she was "doing the best she could" and I told them that we might need to start looking for someone who could do better.

Good job Grunt. Go ahead and malign people who worked their whole gosh darn lives to serve this nation, and call them slimy. Field Grade officers often are motivated and well educated men and women who would've made far more in the civilian world but chose to make the military their career. They sacrificed family time, financial success, and often times physical well-being in order for you to type cynically about your menial experience on America's debate. Wonderful.

I don't know what civilian experience you have, but politics exists everywhere. It doesn't mean that there is more in the USMC, Army, Navy, or Airforce than at Dell in Austin.

Corporate America carries more politics than the Military ever will in my opinion. The thing is that at the top, sometimes some schmoozing and hob-nobbing is necessary. I've had more dinners and drinks with people I don't care for this year than I remember my father doing his whole career. Also, camaraderie will never be the same in the office as it is in the military. More than once, I've seen a Col or Lt Col sit and have coffee with a Sgt Major, or heck even a buck Sgt. How often do you see the CEO's,SVPs come down to the warehouse and meet with the Ops Manager? Never really. It's a good analogy. Most C-level execs would learn something by doing just that, and I think that's one advantage that the military, or at least the Corps has. We all know who runs the military... and it's not the officers. All work runs through an NCO, and the quality and quantity is usually a direct reflection upon some dusty old E-7 or E-8. It's something that I believe wholeheartedly that has helped me be successful in my civilian career. I've thrown boxes into a Fed Ex truck, driven shipments to the airport, worked late nights and early am's with people 5 layers of mgt below me. Why? I know who puts the bread on the table at my home. If it doesn't get done right, on time, and with a little love... no company succeeds for long. Having a friend at the top (well, or close to it) for some of those warehouse supervisors or even call center team leads makes them feel connected. It also gives me real time information when I need it and people I can trust in a pinch (and vice versa). This is EXACTLY why you'll see a Major, Lt Col, or Col sit and hang out with that NCO.

General P is doing his job. He was chosen to do it due to his vast experience and leadership accomplishments. Don't be cynical towards a man that's attempting to make chicken salad out of feathers...Particularly when you haven't walked a mile in his shoes much less even gotten near his footprints.

One of the problems, aevans176 is that the Bush administration has misused high ranking military personnel as heat shields. More than anything, I would argue that Bush is hiding behind General Petraeus.

When General Richard Myers was Chairman of the Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff, he appeared on Meet the Press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7231263/

In general, soldiers should fight wars and politicians should try to justify them. I've always been more concerned with Bush than the generals. Be it Myers, Pace or Petraeus, they shouldn't be on the line blocking for a political leader.

War jerks everyone out of charater. CR respects no one. I don't respect my two senators, moveon is mad, Bush mumbles to the press about democrats and protestors and worst of all, Sally Field is so angry about the war that she no longer sounds like The Flying Nun.

Not happening. Party discipline has been on the decline for Dems and Reps since the 70s due to educational and income stratification. Neither party can capture a majority of economic interests sufficient to remain in power. What works best is divide and conquer. This vote tells me triangulation has gone mainstream in the Democratic Party and as usual, the GOP stands to gain the most. The outraged conservatives are banking on the vote, liberal Democrats who want to get out now just got angrier, and Republican voters have just been given another wedge issue to rally around.


Doesn't condemning this ad make you think that we're in for 8 more years of the same regardless of who wins?

Do you agree with outcome this vote? Why?

What, has someone said that a U.S. general might have gotten his self-interest confused with the good of the nation? Oh the horror! Oh the treason! Oh the everlasting disgrace! Nothing bad, nothing bad, should ever be spoken or even thought of our glorious, heroic, self-sacrificing, couragous, straight-shooting, heroic, Christlike, 100%-war-supporting, 100%-flag-saluting, lovable, whiskey-swilling, cigar-chewing, heroic, whore-mongering, generous, saintlike, inspiring, youthful, handsome, and did I say, HEROIC troops, still less one with four whole stars on his shoulder and a chestful of colorful little thingies! Colorful thingies mostly earned the hard way: by showing up for work every day! Disgusting!

The resolution didn't go far engough. They should've resolved that the perpetrators be hanged, drawn and quartered. Then deposited in a rocket and blasted out of the solar system. And then their mothers and fathers to be hunted down.

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

Yes indeed. There should be a special Subcommittee for the Prevention of Insults to the Military, which would ruthless identify all persons not in 100% support of our glorious, etc, etc, and draft a special resolution against each and every one of them. What is the use of having twelve aircraft carrier battle groups if a single sailor can be insulted with impunity?!

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

I sincerely hope that these unpatriotic dogs are thrown out of office. What could possibly be more dispicable and treason-like than causing a vote to censure someone who has insulted our glorious etc., etc., not to be unanimous? We should sooner drop hydrogen bombs on New York than suffer that the Senators from that traitorous region should fail in their support of our glorious etc., etc.

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

Clearly it reflects and our precious Judeo-Christian-Military-Industrial heritage is under assualt from unpatriotic, Chateau-Yquem-sipping elitists, traitorous sexual deviants, and people who know the correct pronunciation of avoir du pois.

Sure. It was a tasteless add – especially in wartime.


Only if they could do it as a lot faster than they did.



Of course not. This is the same stupid partisan crap we have been seeing form the Congress for years and is worse now than ever.


Not really – Petraeus’ “approval rating” according to FOX last night in up to 61% - thus he is over 3 times more popular than the President AND the Congress.

Do you agree with outcome this vote? Why?

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

Yes to both. A little background is in order. MoveOn.org is joined at the hip to the Democratic Party, which in turn has shown a vicious intolerance for anyone who veers from its party line on Iraq (just ask Joe Lieberman and Brian Baird). Most if not all of their criticism of Iraq policy is based not on the merits, but on attacking a very easy target: President Bush. In comes General Petraeus, who's generally well-respected all around, and whose report did not paint the lockstep rose-colored picture that liberals had been hoping for so they could easily attack him as a puppet, too. So no Democrat politician would dare to directly impugn the General's character, but were perfectly happy to let the MoveBats do their dirty work for them. What this vote did was deny that option, and return the Moovies back to the fringe where they belong.

It was necessary because we have a fairly important issue before us that needs to be discussed rationally. A group of extremist but well-funded bullies tried to derail that discussion with a totally unwarranted attack, and the Senate acted to bring the discussion back on to an even keel, by erasing any legitimate doubt that might have been created by that ad in suggesting that these moonbats spoke for anyone but themselves.

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. Instead, I'd tell them to call out Hillary and "straight-talking" Obama for refusing to condemn the ad even when just speaking for themselves. Even when asked directly about it by reporters, they tried to weasel out of answering by shifting the discussion to Bush. They should be skewered for that.

Are Republicans who refuse to budge on Iraq intolerant, Blackstone? Aside for I think Richardson, no presidential candidate supports a complete withdrawal. How can Clinton support a military force and do well in the polls in the face of such intolerance?

The Wiki Baird article has nothing on MoveOn.org. I do remember a tv story showing Baird's constituents taking him to task for reneging on his promises. Good for them.

Dan Abrams, who is not particularly liberal, opened his show with this last night.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20907525/

Republicans will probably hire someone, like Blackstone, to get the word out, but I think people are tired of Rovian tactics. They might do better if they listened to Abrams.

I tend to agree this has gone on too long but imo this is little more than Repubs getting even for the recent Dem, drag on forever fiascos, like the US Attorney witch hunt. All a waste of the taxpayers time and money.

The add was crude, tasteless garbage – ok lets move on (pun intended).

I do wonder if an add like this attacking Eisenhower in WWII would have been published – even by the left biased NYT.

What do you think?

So Republicans are showing their maturity by wasting taxpayer money too? It's only a witch hunt if you think the politicization of justice is no big deal, so I'm assuming you're speaking for yourself and other Republicans, Ted.


General Petraeus or General Betray Us? is offensive enough to be crude and tasteless garbage these days? People making a fuss about the ad have either lost touch with or don't know anything about social movements during the 60s and 70s. An ad isn't tasteless because the target is serving in the military. I guess I'm the only one who finds it weird that Petraeus was made to testify before Congress. He's a soldier, not a dog and pony show diversion we can look forward to seeing again in a scheduled rerun six months from now.

I was thinking about this... General Petraeus is a military man so I am sure his skin is a lot thicker than some are giving him credit for. Do we have the respect for our military we once had? Of course not. I don't even see respect for our elders anymore. This is how or world is changing. Makes me wonder why I wan't to have more kids.

Thousands of pages examined at taxpayer expense and not ONE damn word proving “the politicization of justice” – if that is what you are referring to. No it’s the same nonsense and I dislike it on both sides of the isle.



I agree but the Dems don’t believe Bush and this man, who Congress approved, is the architect of the Surge – so to he is the best man to defend it.

Social movements aside the NYT should not have printed this trash in wartime. Show me a similar piece from WWII attacking say Eisenhower.

Yeah, by repeatedly ignoring deadlines to hand over emails.


You'll find none. Our reasons for entering WWII were not based on intelligence, it was not a preemptive engagement, and war profiteers were actually prosecuted. This war is a joke.

Apples and oranges, Ted. Eisenhower was never charged with defending a political position before Congress (never mind skewing the data to manufacture such a defense) by either President Roosevelt or President Truman. Besides, WWII was an extraordinarily popular war, whereas the Iraqi invasion has been one of the most divisive military actions in US history. Those opposed to WWII were primarily right-wing (you know, people like Prescott Bush), so I doubt they would have sought out "the left biased NYT" in any event. Also, it's worth mentioning that WWII was OVER by this point in our involvement - and we had strategies that allowed us to win.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsten, David Petraeus is no Dwight Eisenhower. If he were, Bush would have fired him.

Respect is earned, as it should be. for too long in this country we have given respect to poeple that didn't deserve it simply because they held some elected office. That was pure stupidity. I would not stand up if GW walked into the room, I don't give a rat's fanny if it is all about 'respect for the office" - he doesn't deserve or earn respect.

At the risk of muddying the "debate" here with actual facts, I would like to clarify one claim made by the whacklibs about General Petraues' testimony before the House and Senate. He was there because he was asked to be there by the House and Senate. From S.1336..........




For those residing in Whacklibland, the phrase " Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq" means General David Petraeus. That's why he was in testifying to Congress.

Now, back to your Bush-bashing, pardon the interruption....


Aquilla

Almost correct. The "actual fact" is that Petraeus was to submit a report - "an independent report" for what that's worth - on the achievement of the specified benchmarks (indeed, the section you quote is entitled "Report on Achievement of Benchmarks", not "Fabulous Success of Surge Policy"). S. 1336 says nothing whatsoever about proselytizing on behalf of the Bush administration's policies, addressing troop levels, withdrawal timetables, or anything else. Further, the requested report has not been authored by General Petraeus, but by the White House. Some "independent report".

And coincidentally neither has Petraeus except in the ludicrous MoveOn add. No the add was a piece of far left crap and lets get past it.

If you have proof Petraeus falsified anything PLEASE post it here or leave the man alone – he is busy trying to win a war – instead of running as the Dems would have us do.

Actually, you're not even "almost correct". The bill I cited was never actually passed into law, but I cited it because it indicated the intent of Congress to have General Petraeus to testify. This was to debunk the whacklib claims that Bush was forcing Petraeus to testify in order to hide behind him. However.....



There is a bill, passed by Congress and signed by the President. It's 110-28 and you can read it here. This law was the supplemental appropriations bill paying for the surge (among other things). From this law we have the following......



This is why the White House submitted a written report and why Patraeus and Crocker testified.

Any questions?


Aquilla

This is the second or third time you mention this. Who made the wacklib claim that Bush forced Petraues to testify before Congress?

You're talking about the general manager of MSNBC. I don't think he's one for the Republicans to be taking strategy advice from. I think my suggestions would work considerably better than his. As John McCain aptly put it: "If you are not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous ad such as that, then I don't know how you are tough enough to be president of the United States."

The only thing I would add to that observation is that it's even more true when those same candidates are too afraid to say that they agree with the ad either, but instead avoid answering questions about it altogether like the pitiful cowards that they are.

Where to start......

Well, since you brought it up, you yourself, Lesly raised the question in this thread......




Perhaps on marching orders from the New York Times?

and of course we have this little gem posted by another here in this very thread......



and from the blogosphere, just a sample can be found here....

Just a little sampling.......


Aquilla

If you're going to debunk whacklib cliams you should start with whacklib claims. Nowhere in my statement, indeed nowhere in any thread I've responded to that deal with Petraeus, have I said Bush forced Petraeus to testify before Congress. I stand by my statement. I think it odd that Petraeus was forced to testify before Congress. As a soldier he simply should have reported and Congress should act on his recommendations (or not). I knew Petraeus's testimony was decreed by Congress and find it odd regardless of whose idea it was. Was he or was he not required to testify, Aquilla? The answer of course is yes, but it's up to your imagination to assume I was implicating Bush.

You fault the NYT editorial opinion for the wrong reason. It suggests many things, but Bush forcing Petraeus to testify is not one of them. If you don't believe Bush is hiding behind the general I've got a bridge to sell you. Still, the editors should at least acknowledge that Petraeus is responsible for the surge's plan and execution, even if he isn't the architect.

Similarly, the AMERICABlog.com post, which is written by an Iraq war veteran and activist, does not speak to Petraeus being forced to testify before Congress by Bush.

So you're left with a whacklib claim from a Republican poster that may or may not speak directly to the distinct occasion of Petraeus being forced to testify before Congress by Bush. Good job debunking the whacklib claims, Aquilla. Does this emotive deliberation explain how modern conservatives find liberal grassroots organizations like MoveOn.org intolerable towards dissenters?

Next time just ask for clarification and resist the temptation to score points with the RNC's lexicon.

Blackstone what in hell have you suggested that Republicans haven't already been doing for years? They did have a lawyer with ideas similar to yours - Ben Ginzberg - who has since resigned.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410090001

You might want to contact the Republicans about the job. Who knows? We might even get to see you on Hardball one of these days.



Wow, but you are in a name calling mood – and that from one who seems to have appointed himself, to paraphrase Bill Cosby, the big ad hominem sheriff of the house.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Nevertheless, you have a right to hate the military and anyone else for that matter. Giving the conservatives a dose of their own medicine, and what medicine would that be? I suppose you will be voting for Hillary Clinton, you know the candidate supported by Mr Hsu?

1) I served with some distinction for 8 years
2) Every male member of my family since the revolutionary war has served.
3) I had no less than 13 members of my family in Iraq at one point. 2 are still there.
4)I am libertarian and will be voting for Ron Paul.

I have seen first hand the politiking that goes on in the military, and thier jockeying for plum "consultant" jobs once out.

The job of General, especialy at that level- is a political one- no different than any other politician. In fact- after being general or major- a career in politics is frequently the next step.

The "dose of thier own medicine" would be what I have heard from Right wing whackos since 1980. - Ann Coltier anyone? Where is the vote for censuring and condemning her?

How much research did Moveon.org do on Petreaus? What did they know about his report? Since you know what it's like to be a general, you must have been doing some politicking too. More over, if I can question the integrity of Petreaus without knowing....then I can question your integrity without knowing as well. Just because you served and are sour about the military doesn't make your comments true. Sounds like sour grapes. Ann Coulter is sometimes over the top, but she's mostly correct. Hillary Clinton on the other hand is a known socialist and liar for the Rose Law Firm. It would require the willing suspension of disbelief to trust anything she says. Ron Paul is a good man with a fatal flaw, he dashed out of the gate without educating the public on who he is and what he's about. He speaks as though everyone understands the Constitution, American history and are critical thinkers. If this were so, he wouldn't be an anomaly in American politics. BTW, I appreciate your family history but it has on bearing on this topic or your personal character.

And you are in Iraq now, since this has bearing on your chickenhawk status?

and you care to describe your inside knowledge of military workings?

I don't have sour grapes about my time in the service- it afforded me a job. But I also had close contacts with officer types, for the entire 8 years. It was my day to day job to have contact with officers. Most of the time, I was around officers more than I was enlisted men, most of the time, due to the nature of my various MOSs in the military.

So what is your experiance with the military? I am sure you have scads of it?

Chickenhawk? You must be talking about those senators that questioned Petreaus. I'm sure you respect them. I'm also sure you support Moveon.org.....an organization made up of brave soldiers like yourself? Try staying on topic.

I believe you started down this avenue- correct? Remember- the veterans in the senate and house are mostly democrat- it is the GW administration that has mostly draft dodgers in it- not the so-called "liberals"- those that are questioning the president the hardest are those who served best- Warner ® Hagel ® -

So- I note your age- how did you serve? You called into question my patriotism and valor and whether or not sour grapes and such- so what is your experiance in the military?

don't expect to not be challenged when you make these kinds of claims.

My apologies. Your link to S.1336 didn't work and I found the text of the bill through an independent search. Unfortunately, that link didn't provide any context for the legislation, just its content. Regardless, if you were citing it merely to demonstrate the "intent" of Congress, then my points stand. Congress wanted an independent report on the benchmarks.

Actually, condemning a coward for being a coward (I noticed you couldn't deny it, btw) isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem would be saying something like: "He's a coward, therefore his opinions are invalid."

Incidentally, trying to counter my statement by making some kind of bizarre allegation about me - that's ad hominem also. Just an FYI.

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

I didn't expect any/much different from the Republicans or Joe Lieberman, but I was a bit disppointed that Patrick Leahy voted for it.

If we insist on using the word "coward," we must realize that one person's coward is another person's hero. The nays are my heroes.

One thing Democrats need to learn is not to let Republicans frame the debate.

Actuallly- it would be those that voted for the bill that could be considered cowards- since the majority of them, you know, didn't serve and all that- or avoided serviing.


http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Prominent Democrats
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) -- rifle platoon and company commander with the Fifth Marine Regiment in the An Hoa Basin west of Danang; was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts. (1)
Representative Tim Walz, D-MN - Twenty-four years of service in the Army National Guard, retiring in 2005.
Representative Joe Sestak, D-PA - 31 years of service in the Navy, rising to the rank of Vice Admiral.
Representative Chris Carney, D-PA - Lieutenant Commander in the United States Naval Reserve, Carney served multiple tours overseas and was activated for Operation Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Southern Watch.
Representative Patrick Murphy, D-PA - extensive career in the U.S. Army from 1993-2004; earned Bronze Star and Presidential Unit Citation.
Representative Phil Hare, D-IL - Served in the United States Army Reserve for six years.


Representative Jack Murtha (D-PA) - distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, retired from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990. (1)
Former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71. (1, 2)
Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72 (1, 2)
Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72 (1, 2)
Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon. More facts about Gore's Service
Your Voice Counts — So Speak Up!





ActForChange is sponsored by Working Assets.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam (1, 2)
Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two (1, 2)
Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat (1)
Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea (1, 2)
Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam (1, 2)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1)
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. (1, 2)
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)
Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. (1)


Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal. (1, 2)
Former Representative "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit. (1, 2)
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. (1, 2)
Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor - volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat "V." (1)
Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star. (1)
Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57

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.