home

Senate Votes to Condemn Move-On Ad

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 03:47:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Senate today found time in its busy schedule to pass a resolution by Sen. John Cornyn condemning the Move-On ad regarding Gen. Petraeus.

It couldn't pass habeas reform or the Webb Amendment but could rally behind a stupid, toothless resolution?

The roll call vote is here.

And Obama can't be bothered to show up and vote against it? When he voted an hour earlier on Boxer's alternative resolution and also on Russ Feingold's amendment to begin immediate troop withdrawal?

At least Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the Cornyn Amendment condemning the ad. For more:

< Jena Six Thread | A Strategy For Democrats on Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Senate Votes to Condemn Move-On Ad | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Weak (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    Pathetic.  Piteous.  Heartbreaking.  Distressing.  Pitiful.  Sad.

    That about sums up how I feel about this.  I'm not sure how weak the Democrats can make themselves look, while they are attempting to avoid looking weak but this is getting pathetic.

    I would add STUPID! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by larrythered on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:31:39 PM EST
    Was the MoveOn ad extreme? Pushing the envelope? let's agree that it was. That's exactly what Limbaugh and Coulter and Malkin and O'Reilly do for the Republicans - say extreme things that create space for "reasonable" Republicans to operate in, without explicitly endorsing the outrageous things they say. Won't these morons ever learn how to play hardball? Sheesh.

    Parent
    while the Senate's making (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    idiotic headlines, Feingold/Reid loses big time. The Democrats are on board for permanent war or else they'd be more effective ending it.

    Parent
    Obama's reasons: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by rashomon on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements. This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It's precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability to solve America's problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.
    All of us respect the service of General Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform. The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq.
    I have a different take on today's votes. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Geekesque on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:46:03 PM EST
    Warning:  this will probably offend you.

    Okay (none / 0) (#7)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:56:45 PM EST
    If I am offending by both?  Or do I have to choose?  One vote is more important than the other, obviously, but both show the same pattern of weakness and a total lack of leadership.

    Parent
    The big crime was allowing it to become (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:06:09 PM EST
    a distraction.

    Reid should be replaced.

    Parent

    Can't disagree with that. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:17:19 PM EST
    At this point both Reid and Pelosi should be replaced.  They are being outmaneuvered constantly by the minority party.

    Parent
    Have they shot themselves in both feet by now? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:04:53 PM EST
    How many times?

    I agree with DA in LA. This is pathetic.

    I can think of a longer string of adjectives, but I'm sure so can everyone else.

    What's up with Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kovie on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:16:15 PM EST
    He's clearly very smart and talented. But in his votes (or non-votes), hesitation, overcaution, and lack of a sense of passion and energy in his senate and campaign activities, he's just not making the grade in my eyes. Is he lazy? Is he cynical? Is he clueless? Is he gutless? Has he figured out that the way to succeed as a senator is to do as little as possible, and certainly not take any stands that could be used against you? What's with the holding back and being so underwhelming? It's like the spark when out of him and he's just going through the motions, like in his feckless "questioning" of Petraeus and Crocker last week. I don't get it.

    Then again, you could say this about Feingold and a bunch of other supposedly progressive Dems. Has Reid put a gag order on them? Why are they all holding back? What's up with that? Have they given up, do they believe that they don't need to fight, or is this a ploy to sucker the GOP into a mistaken sense of triumph and complacency before Dems go on the attack?

    I head John Murtha the other day say that he now believes that it's pointless to fight the GOP right now because they need to tack right to please their base for the primaries, but that once the primaries are over, they'll have to tack to the center to appeal to swing voters. I've heard this from some reporters, too. Makes some sense, but not nearly enough to justify holding back for ANOTHER Friedman Unit. How long are we going to keep that powder dry? It's just end up blowing up in Dems' faces if they fail to use it.

    I say fight them NOW, to make their attempts to give their base some red meat vastly harder. Disabuse them of their delusion that they can tack hard right now, and then tack to the center in a few months. Force them to settle on a long-term position NOW by making it a very public and nasty fight. Make it impossible for them to reinvent themselves in the spring as anti-war moderates. And NOW is the time to do that, not then. And it's the Dems who need to do that.

    Of course, with so many of them voting to condemn a major progressive organization, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Such sheep, even though they technically run the ranch. They are clearly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. I mean, they won't even object to the term "Democrat Party". The won't fight!!!

    What's up with Obama? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:32:13 AM EST
    Is he lazy? Is he cynical? Is he clueless? Is he gutless?
    No.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#37)
    by kovie on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:36:42 AM EST
    I read your article and according to your analysis Obama is certainly being cynical, in playing us for fools (or cowards, what have you, in our fear of letting the Repubs win). And perhaps you are right. In fact, I'm sure that you are, to some extent at least, in the sense that nearly all successful politicians need to be cynical if they're to stay in power. Just look at how far Feingold's gotten with his relatively non-cynical approach to politics. Or Carter 30 years ago. Good guys really do finish last, in politics.

    Which is why I reluctantly (and perhaps cynically) view politics as usually a matter of supporting the lesser of several evils, rather than having at least one truly progressive, principled and viable choice--and it's the "viable" part that usually makes the difference. As I commented on DKos earlier today, I don't view any of the VIABLE Dems contenders as especially inspiring. Obama's a bit better, but not by much, it's increasingly becoming clear. So what am I going to do, vote for a Repub, or not vote, in protest? Of course not. I'm going to vote for the least worst Dem candidate in the WA caucus, and then whoever's the Dem in the general. And then hope for the best.

    I agree with you that our fundamental view of and approach to our foreign policy needs to change radically, shifting from an imperial one in which we have to aggresively use our hard and soft power to bully and beat the rest of the world into submission to our view of how the world should be organized, to one in which we are, at most, first among equals, but where there is much more cooperation and multilateralism, and much less competition and unilateralism. The thing is, how do we get there? A number of serious impediments stands in the way.

    First is perhaps the most serious one, which is the entrenched committment of our dominant political and policy class to the exisisting foreign policy paradigm (which can roughly be divided into the "soft" power types who tend center-left and the "hard" power types who tend center-right--and of course there is much overlap, but much more from the "soft" types into the "hard", than vice-versa). They totally buy into this paradigm, if not genuinely (although many certainly do), then at least cynically and opportunistically, for fear of being ostracized if they try to buck this paradigm, as well as out of personal ambition. This paradigm has "worked" for this class, and since they're the ones who are in a position to determine which paradigm we adopt, it's in their interest to preserve it, even if it's not a very good one--which it isn't.

    Second is that, having lived according to this paradigm for decades, we are essentially dependant on and addicted to it. We (meaning the west) still very much need oil from politically unstable regions of the world, and thus are dependant on the military power we clearly need to maintain its steady and relatively inexpensive flow. And the fear is that if we back off from this paradigm, this oil will not longer flow as freely or affordably. And we're simply not prepared for that, psychologically if not practically.

    Third, there is the understandable fear that if we back off of this paradigm, other, less enlightened nations and alliances will step into the vacuum and attempt to take over as the new big empire, be it China, Russia, or some combination of powers. Are we really prepared to let someone else be the world's leader? I think not, both because we cannot be sure that they won't be even more brutal and irresponsible as we've been (and there are plenty of historical examples to back this up), and because we would naturally worry how this would affect the US.

    And fourth, in order to transform this paradigm into a new and more enlightened, fair and responsible one, we have to actually formulate the new one, and how it would be implemented and maintained. Has this been done? I'm not an expert on current foreign policy trends so I can't answer this. I'm sure that plenty of very talented and earnest people have been hard at work coming up with such a 21st century foreign policy paradigm. But it doesn't seem to me that there's one as yet that's fully-formed and vetted enough to take the place for the existing one--even if the political will and capital existing to try to make it happen.

    For this to happen, not only will such a new paradigm need to be formulated in practically implementable detail--i.e. a fully-formed foreign policy business model for the 21st century--but the political leadership and clout will have to exist to actually implement it. And I see none of these right now. Instead, I see a transitional period in which the cold war hegemonic/imperialistic model and its adherents are being discredited in practice, but nothing and no one has truly emerged to take their place.

    We are in a transitional phase, but not a transformational one, yet. None of the current leaders in either party impresses me as this age's Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, FDR or JFK. Or even Reagan for that matter. Yes, Reagan, because while I reject his policies and ideology, I do tip my hat to his leadership and transformational skills, however much harm they've done to our country and world. What we need now is an anti-Reagan, someone with his leadership and transformational skills, but this time with a sound, principled and progressive vision, not one intended to regress us back to the 1920's if not 1850's.

    I'm hoping that such a leader, or perhaps movement, emerges. But until then, I'll pick any Dem over any Repub any time. Until we're finally ready for that transformation--and this applies to domestic policy as well, as we absolutely needs to get past this idiotic supply-side, antio-regulatory, purely market-based nonsense ASAP--better a so-so Dem than a truly awful Repub--and they're all awful. We need to keep on pushing for a genuinely better tomorrow, but there's still today to take care of. And today's Dems, however marginally, are still better than Repubs in that sense. As anti-progressive as he was, can anyone seriously argue that Clinton wasn't a vastly better president than what preceded and succeeded him? Sure, we can do better, but we can also do much, much worse. And until we find someone who can do much better, better the modern Dem model than the modern GOP one.

    Parent

    I'll pick any Dem over any Repub any time, too. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:00:40 AM EST
    But I will attach, and encourage as many as I can to attach, one condition to it:
    The evidence states that Democrats are basically on board with Bush.

    This has been obvious for some time. Since the supplemental in the spring at least. The FISA Amendment should have been the clincher for anyone who doubted it.

    They are not capitulating to Bush. They are complicit with Bush. They are confident that the electorate will capitulate to them next year out of fear of the republicans. They are playing people. This, in my view, is Democrats using the same fearmongering tactics the Republicans used so successfully for the past few years.
    ...
    ...if leading Democrats heard enough people say to them that they will not vote for ANY Democrats next year EXCEPT Democrats who have been vocally, and by their votes on supplementals, calling for total withdrawal from Iraq they would quickly notice.

    They are politicians after all, and they are concerned with winning elections.

    They would notice if enough people turned the tables on them and used fear to motivate them, instead of voting simply out of fear of republicans.

    If Democrats were filled with fear that they would lose Congress and the presidency UNLESS the occupation was ended before the 2008 elections, they would end the occupation of Iraq.



    Parent
    Any D over R, any R over D (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:17:27 PM EST
    not for nothing fellas, it's that line of thinking that has spoiled our democracy.

    Vote for the person, what they say, and what they do...ignore the letter after their name.

    I'll take Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton...wouldn't you guys?

    Parent

    I would (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    That's why I said with conditions. I think yours are nearly the same as mine, no?

    I'd prefer they called themselves D's and meant and acted it, instead of being R's calling themselves D's, as some are doing.

    Parent

    I'd prefer..... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    100 independant contractors in the Senate.

    Parent
    Now you're talking. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:37:01 PM EST
    Ones that bring their own brains....

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#66)
    by DA in LA on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    I kind of like abortion being legal.  Also, the pre-medicare days in America were grim.  And his racist newsletter in the 80s and 90s is a tad offputting.

    I would vote for nearly anyone over Ron Paul

    Parent

    D. Feinstein voted "yea." (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:18:44 PM EST
    Where is her brain?

    Look at her drug war record..... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:22:06 PM EST
    I'd say she has yet to use it....her brain that is.

    Parent
    She is basically (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:25:09 PM EST
    a Republican at this point.  Her votes over the past few years are horrible.

    Parent
    She got the important vote right today. eom (none / 0) (#16)
    by Geekesque on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:38:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Please explain. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 05:42:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Got it. Saw your diary. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:17:08 PM EST


    Parent
    contradiction? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Satya1 on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:14:18 PM EST
    Hi Jeralyn,

    It seems to me there is an inconsistency in your thinking when you call the moveon vote a "a stupid, toothless resolution" and still you criticize Obama's no vote with "Obama can't be bothered to show up and vote against it?"  Either that or you think it was important for him to vote on a stupid, toothless resolution.  Am I missing something?

    I think the last paragraph of The Swamp article that you link to is a justifiable reason for his action.

    Stupid resolution, stupid ad (none / 0) (#25)
    by robrecht on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:19:15 PM EST
    I too noted the apparent/implicit (?) contradiction.  It was a stupid resolution, but it just goes to show how much of a blunder the MoveOn ad was.  Allowed the president and Republicans in the Senate to score cheap and easy points rather than engaging in real discussion of the mess we're in.

    Parent
    It was a dumb ad (none / 0) (#26)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:34:09 PM EST
    But the resolution was far dumber.  Legitimizes the Republican complaints.

    Parent
    Dumber and dumber (none / 0) (#43)
    by robrecht on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:34:45 AM EST
    What difference does it make which was dumber?  The resolution was made possible and effective (for many) by the ad.  The Republicans capitalized on MoveOn's blunder, but the troops and the Democrats still lose.

    Republicans: 1
    MoveOn: -1
    Democrats: 0
    Troops: 4,092 dead (coalition) 27,767 wounded (US)

    Parent

    Where was Obama today? (none / 0) (#30)
    by annefrank on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:34:36 PM EST
    Very confusing...Obama missed the 2nd vote supposedly because he was enroute to a rally in SC around noon. Then SC organizers released a statement that the rally was cancelled because Obama had to vote - and were disappointed because he could have addressed the Jena situation. Then we learned Obama had cancelled his appearance last night for the rally because of the impending votes today. Then Obama released his reason for missing the vote, presumably intentional as a "protest."


    Parent
    He just keeps (none / 0) (#31)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:51:39 PM EST
    coming across as lacking leadership.  This would have been a great time for him to take to the Senate floor and passionately explain why this type of partisan nonsense is a problem.  And he should have backed up the people who are his base.  Bad, weak move.

    Parent
    Is this what Congress is for? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by roy on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:14:43 PM EST
    So Congress is using its time in session to condemn private groups' political speech.  While not actually violating the 1st Amendment, they certainly betray (word chosen deliberately) the principle of it.  We don't give them authority, salary, voting equipment, security, priviledge from arrest, sovereign immunity, or any of however many other tools, perks, and compensations so they can complain about what people are doing with the freedom Congress is meant to ensure.

    And if Congress members want to use spend their time in session posturing, they should be required to pay the associated costs out of their campaign funds, not tax funds.  I want my $0.00001 back.

    roy (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:25:34 AM EST
    If a political organization has the right to "say" it, doesn't the Senate have the right to "say"  it by condemning it??

    Parent
    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by roy on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:46:29 AM EST
    If Congress members were to do so on their own time, at campaign events or party political meetings, I would absolutely defend their right to do so.  Similarly if they got every member of Congress together and held an unofficial vote while not in session and not using any tax-funded resources.  IMHO, the problem isn't what they're saying, it's that they're saying it in their official capacities as legislators rather than as private individuals or political campaigners, and that they're using resources allocated for official use in order to say it.

    Yes, under current law, Congress has the power to do so.  No surprise -- Congress makes its own rules.  But while there's room to disagree about where to draw lines, the basic distinction between official and political activity is not controversial.  That's why legislators have distinct staffers, phone billings, e-mail addresses, and (most critically) bank accounts for the two activities.


    Parent

    Can't agree (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:39:30 PM EST
    They speak for the people in their state.  That's what they are supposed to do.

    If the people don't like it, they can vote them out.

    Parent

    pandering by Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by diogenes on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:33:50 PM EST
    If this is such useless posturing then they should have passed it unanimously without debate by voice vote and the issue would have melted away.  Hillary, the former opponent of flagburning, is playing to the leftist donors.  How does this help in the general election?  

    So if Hillary voted for the Cornyn Amendment, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jamie on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:07:58 AM EST
    she's a warmongering, anti-free speech Republican-lite.

    And when she votes against it, she's pandering to the left.

    Will you anti-Hillary people just make up your mind about her?   Or do you prefer to just cover all your bases and bash her whatever she does?


    Parent

    pointless votes (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by diogenes on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:04:36 AM EST
    Just saying that the senate has lots of pointless, posturing votes (Moveon, flagburning, etc) and that Hillary's position on such bills and amendments is only consistent in that she votes whichever way is most politically favorable, although the original blurb by Jeralyn seemed to give her some sort of special credit for a "principled" vote by putting her in the same category as Chris Dodd.

    I love these.... (1.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:36:42 PM EST
    Someone tell Blue that habeas corpus has not been suspended/lost/taken away. Maybe that'll help her get over her hissy fit.

    Probably not, but we can hope.

    And I really think all Demos should have primary challenges... nothing like spending money on whipping each other...

    No one (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    expects you to get it, ppj.

    Parent
    Get what? (1.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    A rant full of inaccurate information?

    Enjoy the kool aid.

    Parent

    I saw (none / 0) (#2)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    Gen. Wesley Clark condemn the ad when he was interviewed on Fox by O'Reilly. Was he wrong?

    Personally, I found the ad to be childish and somewhat akin to the petulant cry of a 3 year old not getting what they want.

    There are far better ways to make your points and argue than what MoveOn did. As my wife said of the ad (she's never voted anything other than Democrat) "Someone paid money for that?"

    So? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 04:53:26 PM EST
    What does that have to do with a vote condemning it in the Senate?  That is what this is about, the use of the legislative process to forward the Republicans agenda - all done by Dems.  

    Amazing after yesterday's filibusters.  I'm pretty close to done with this party.  I can't handle the constant cowardly acts.

    Parent

    Why can GOP filibuster and Dems dont (none / 0) (#20)
    by timber on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:23:39 PM EST
    What I want to know is why Democrats cannot stand up for the truth?

    What is factually wrong with the MoveOn Ad?

    When they vote to condemn the MoveOn Ad they are saying what Gen Petreus said was to be believed--that we are winning the war and the statistics he states are factual?

    What is wrong with Democrats?

    What is factually wrong with the MoveOn Ad? (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:20:06 AM EST
    sigh.....

    Parent
    did you see the ad or are you taking the GOP's (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    word for what it said.

    They headline was:

    General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

    It is a question, not an accusation. Here is the entire text.

    General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to doeverything we can to build on that progress."

    Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the Generalclaims a reduction in violence. That's because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarreformula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count.

    The Washington Post reportedthat assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front. According to the AssociatedPress, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there. We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
    Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

    Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

    It expresses a fear that Petraeus will not give an honest assessment.

    This is what you and your GOP friends have your panties in a wad about. It is not an attack on the troops. It is not much of an attack on Petraeus.

    In the meantime there is much work to be done, there is a war on and the poor GOP and their allies are worryed that shrinking violet Petraeus will be hurt by this ad. But it beats talking about the real issues, I guess.

    When Petraeus decided to allow himself to be used as a poltical shield for GWB, he stepped into the world of politics. Criticising him is fair game. And after all, its not like they morphed him into OBL or lied about his service record.

    Again, to the GOP and their allies, remove the beam from thine eye, before you worry about the mote in mine.

    Parent

    sigh......... (1.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:47:11 PM EST
    General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

    rhetorical

    : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected

    It expresses a fear that Petraeus will not give an honest assessment.

    heh

    Tell MoveOn to do it again.

    Parent

    Yes Jim, you got the definition of (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    rhetorical correct. Do you have a point?

    Parent
    Yeah (1.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:22:11 PM EST
    But you wouldn't understand.

    sigh....

    Parent

    I've yet to see you answer my original question (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    Maybe you can't?

    Parent
    Keep pretending (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:48:13 AM EST
    but you are not fooling anyone.

    Parent
    Still not responsive (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 11:23:21 AM EST


    Parent
    Unable to respond. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    The nature of the illness.

    Parent
    Yes, they are (none / 0) (#21)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:31:09 PM EST
    That is the problem.  What does this vote say about Powell in front of the UN, or all the lies in the build up to the war?

    It's not only cowardly, it's irresponsible and sets a bad precedent.

    Parent

    Anyone care to summarize (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    the procedure here?  Did the Reid have to o.k. this getting to a vote by the Senate?  If not Reid, who?  Thanks.

    Fundamentally flawed tactic (none / 0) (#23)
    by Aaron on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:40:35 PM EST
    Move on which claims to be the great bastion of liberalism, made the most fundamental error, by following in the footsteps of the Republicans, and attacking the messenger.

    It works for the Republicans because they don't have to worry about truth and integrity, but in this instance it fundamentally fails in its approach since General Petraeus was not telling us what he thought, he was repeating the arguments of the president, his commander in chief, and his direct military superior.

    I don't read moveon.org so it's hard for me to comment intelligently on their position, but in my opinion they're wasting their time and energies going after anyone but George W. Bush.  If anyone is guilty of betrayal, it is surely he.  

    You can condemn everyone beneath him for remaining loyal and putting forth a unified front, but when it comes to the military especially, you're talking about people who are sworn to take this man's orders.  And until evidence of high treason can be openly established, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, the people in the military will do their very dammdist to carry out the president's orders, to the best of their ability.

    I know that George W. Bush is a traitor to the Republic, I don't have enough evidence to prove it, yet.  But when I do, I surely won't be going after General Petraeus, or any of the previous generals who came under his orders, no I will maintain my focus on the president, for it is he who is responsible, and it is WE THE PEOPLE who are responsible for him.  In a very real sense, it is the people who have failed General Petraeus, by sticking him with the Commander in chief that just barely qualifies to be a private in his army assigned the task of shining the general shoes.  It must be a mortifying experience for any military men of earned rank.

    It's common knowledge that the Petraeus report was rewritten by the White House, so it really wasn't the general's report at all, it was the White House's interpretation of the Petraeus report that was being presented to the Congress by General Petraeus, hence any legitimate criticism must be aimed at the White House and nowhere else.

    If the people and our representatives in Congress don't have the guts to remove this president, and wrestle control of our country back from a dictatorial president, and we are reduced to attacking his underlings, well then we have failed. And when you fail, best that you admit your defeat, and Move-on to the next battle.  

    The Iraq war is lost, at least until 2009.  By then we'll have a Democratic president and our military will still be deeply entrenched in Iraq, so where do we go from there.  We can waste our time and energies demolishing our own Democratic candidates, those who don't call for immediate withdrawal, which all thinking people must know isn't going to happen, or we can make the best of a very bad situation.

    I just watched a new freedomswatch.org commercial on cnn, condemning Move-on.  Nice job of giving the people who have no platform other than pretending to support our military, a springboard to launch their failed agenda into 2008.  No doubt the Republicans will be playing this story for all it's worth up until the election.  Sadly many Americans will fall for it, yet again.

    Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 50 times over with the same rhetoric, then you deserve to lose your country to dictatorship and graft.  As George said "won't get fooled again," at least not the marginally intelligent people.

    I'm glad Obama didn't show up for the vote, too bad all the other Democrats didn't follow suit, refusing to participate in an obvious waste of our Congress's time, would at least show some spine.  Did Hillary and Dodd get up there and filibuster?  Well then there dissenting votes mean next to nothing.  The Congress has betrayed us as well, let's keep the focus on the real bad guys shall we.  We have met the enemy, and they are the people we elected.

    Al Qaeda has no chance of defeating the United States of America, the only ones who can do that are the Americans.  We've always been our own worst enemy, going back to the Revolutionary war, it was the Americans who remained loyal to King George who were the greatest threat.  Ironically we seem to be reliving this scenario 131 years later.

    Down with King George!

    Up the Republic!

    Aaron (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:29:00 AM EST
    The Iraq war is lost, at least until 2009.

    Heh..

    BTW - Kings don't run for election and aren't limited to 8 years.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#24)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:06:24 PM EST
    but, Democrats allowing this to go to a vote just aid the other side.  Now they can use this vote to help to label MoveOn, even more than they already do.  Democrats are actually stepping on the hand that feeds them and grinding it into the dirt.

    Parent
    Actually, this is what the Repubs wanted (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:21:59 AM EST
    Headline:

    Senate Democrats Block Resolution Condemning
    MoveON Ad Attacking Army General!!


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    That would have been a wonderful headline.

    Parent
    This is what politics is about these days (none / 0) (#27)
    by Al on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 08:12:06 PM EST
    Public posturing to hide incompetence, at the very least.

    They can't vet RW-SCOTUS noms, but rally for this (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 10:58:42 PM EST
    Since this is a law and order site, I trust that I don't need to say anything more descriptive than: this is simply indefensible. However, in the name of venting outrage ...

    The Dems have used up every last shred of slack they call for when explaining and excusing their pathetic actions to do right by their duties and trust.

    They expend more energy trampling the support they have now to chase after superficial, meaningless and transiet approval from parties that wish to destroy them.

    If they won't use the power they do have properly, intelligently and effectively, they're out of line